Darwinists Running Scared

[phildwyer]

You're right, there is a possibility of there being a designer, but this does not appear to be the most likely explanation for the origin of life based on the best available evidence. Unfortunately for the fate of a unification between intelligent design and mainstream science, there is no good evidence. If evidence does come to light, and it is good and verifiable, then I and scientists around the globe will take a different view.

I'm getting a bit behind on some of the questions raised here, but I'll try and catche up over the next couple of days. There can be no empirical evidence for that which makes empirical perception possible. If you go hunting for God in the same way that you might for the Loch Ness Monster, you are looking in the wrong place. Equally, "faith" is no reason to believe in God, and is just another word for superstition. The proper grounds for belief in God are *rational,* and the existence of an intelligent dseigner can be demonstrated *rationally.* I find no conflict between the theory of evolution as advanced by thinkers like Gould and Eldredge and intelligent design. But Darwinism, and especially the ultra-Darwinism, or "Darwinist fundamentalism," to give it a more appropriate name, of Dawkins and his wretched ilk specifically exclude the possibility of intelligent design. Fortunately, we are presently witnessing the most edifying spectacle of that dogma being exploded.

 

[phildwyer]

I haven't met you, but as someone trained as a physicist I have to say that this paragraph makes me want to kick you in the nuts.

And so, with apparant pride and vaunting boastfulness, you expose yourself to the world as a paranoid, violent, ignorant fool who, unable to conduct a reasonable debate, is instantly reduced to the only language he understands. You are a disgrace to anyone who aspires to the name of "scientist." Shame on you.

 

[sleaterkinney]

The proper grounds for belief in God are *rational,* and the existence of an intelligent dseigner can be demonstrated *rationally.*

Ok, please explain your *rational* grounds for the existence of an intelligent designer then.

 

[Brainaddict]

The proper grounds for belief in God are *rational,* and the existence of an intelligent dseigner can be demonstrated *rationally.*

Speaking as an ex-Christian who has looked into these things, have you not noticed the calibre of the minds that have been brought to bear on the problem of trying to rationally prove the existence of god? Have you not noticed that none of them can agree? Does this tell you anything?

 

[Brainaddict]

And so, with apparant pride and vaunting boastfulness, you expose yourself to the world as a paranoid, violent, ignorant fool who, unable to conduct a reasonable debate, is instantly reduced to the only language he understands. You are a disgrace to anyone who aspires to the name of "scientist." Shame on you.

phil, phil, calm down. i don't think he really would kick you in the nuts. there was something known as 'humour' in there. if you try hard enough you could probably rationally prove its existence...

 

[phildwyer]

Ditto, ditto, ditto

Another one. Seriously, the degree to which these people seem *emotionally* invested in their anti-theism never ceases to amaze me. They clearly *need* there not to be a God, and the possibility that there might be fills them with terror, and impels them into ridiculous fantasies of physical violence. I will not speculate about their reasons, but I would not like to live with their consciences.

 

[Brainaddict]

Another one. Seriously, the degree to which these people seem *emotionally* invested in their anti-theism never ceases to amaze me. They clearly *need* there not to be a God, and the possibility that there might be fills them with terror, and impels them into ridiculous fantasies of physical violence. I will not speculate about their reasons, but I would not like to live with their consciences.

and you're not at all emotionally invested in your position

 

[phildwyer]

phil, phil, calm down. i don't think he really would kick you in the nuts. there was something known as 'humour' in there. if you try hard enough you could probably rationally prove its existence...

Oh, alright, I'm humor-impaired today, kindly disregard my previous post in which I extend my strictures to you. Peace.

 

[gurrier]

For what it's worth, I've looked at Dembski's maths in the past and I'm pretty sure that it's bollocks. He's (probably deliberately) blurring the distinction between Shannon information and AIT complexity and he's completely mis-using or misunderstanding the "No Free Lunch" theorems. You don't need to take my judgment on that last point because the guy who proved the theorems says the same. I seem to recall he described it using the phrase

"It's not right, it's so bad that it's not even wrong"

I know a bit about Shannon's information theory and have read Dembski's use of it and, although I'm not an expert in the area, I came away with the distinct impression that the application of the theory is laughable.

Information theory, as it is normally used, is about encoding information in the minimum number of bits (for compression) or channels (for transmission) without any loss of information. There is a fairly complex mathematics associated with it, much used in cryptography and compression algorithms.

Now, Dembski applies this to evolution by treating a species as a message sent through the ages. The amount of information encoded in the DNA of a species that has evolved to have more complex DNA is greater than the amount of information that was encoded in the DNA of its ancestors. Therefore, his argument goes, something must have intervened in between times to add this extra information to the message. I think he concentrates on the Cambrian explosion and looks at the total amount of information encoded in the DNA of species before and after and concludes that a mysterious force added information to the mix. Of course it's absolute and complete nonsense. DNA is not a message through the ages and can't be treated as such. It is also not a closed system and natural selection quite obviously adds information to the message anyway if you wanted to make this category error.

I just reckon he chose information theory as the maths is pretty hard and esoteric and looks impressive. I doubt you'd find a mathematician or computer scientist in the world though who wouldn't think you were a complete idiot if you suggested applying information theory to evolution. It's useful for compressing and distributing messages over networks, it's so not applicable to evolutionary change over aeons.

 

[phildwyer]

Speaking as an ex-Christian who has looked into these things, have you not noticed the calibre of the minds that have been brought to bear on the problem of trying to rationally prove the existence of god? Have you not noticed that none of them can agree? Does this tell you anything?

As a matter of fact there is a considerable degree of agreement among theologians and philosophers as to the nature of deity. I give you Plato, Aristotle, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul, Augustine, Mohammed, Aquinas, Avicenna, Luther, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Lukacs and Adorno. These thinkers consitute a coherent series of commentaries on each other and, despite inevitable differences in emphasis and terminology, are saying essentially the same thing.

 

[Brainaddict]

As a matter of fact there is a considerable degree of agreement among theologians and philosophers as to the nature of deity. I give you Plato, Aristotle, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul, Augustine, Mohammed, Aquinas, Avicenna, Luther, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Lukacs and Adorno. These thinkers consitute a coherent series of commentaries on each other and, despite inevitable differences in emphasis and terminology, are saying essentially the same thing.

isaiah through paul and mohammed never even considered the problem in terms of rational provability, unless you have access to some scriptures we don't?

And the others couldn't agree on anything much so don't pretend they did. You lump Augustine with Marx, say that they more or less agree, then expect to be taken seriously?

 

[phildwyer]

isaiah through paul and mohammed never even considered the problem in terms of rational provability, unless you have access to some scriptures we don't?

And the others couldn't agree on anything much so don't pretend they did. You lump Augustine with Marx, say that they more or less agree, then expect to be taken seriously?

You'll appreciate that this is a fairly complex question, and my time is limited. Let's start from what I regard as the end of the useful theological tradition: Martin Luther. Hegel was, of course, raised as a Lutheran and comprehensively trained in Lutheran theology. He translated Luther's understanding of the Holy Spirit into his concept of "Geist" (usually translated as "Spirit," can also be rendered as "Mind"). Feuerbach, the most prominent of the Young Hegelians, modified this concept into "Species-being," and Marx, on whom Feuerbach was the most profound early influence, transmuted this in turn into "life-activity" or, in the later works, "labor-power." So the concept of alienated labor-power--the central concept of Marxism--is the direct, albeit secularized, descendent of the Holy Spirit's alienation from mankind, as described in mythological terms in the story of the Fall.

None of this is particularly controversial, and even those philosophers who disgree with these thinkers' conclusions will concede the validity of the lineage I have described. I'll go back to the ancient world after lunch, if you like.

 

[Brainaddict]

Let's start from what I regard as the end of the useful theological tradition: Martin Luther.

I'm sorry but we can't let you get away with that. Why is he the end of the 'useful' theological tradition? Because he was the last one you happened to agree with? I get the feeling 'useful' here means 'useful to prove my bogus theory'.
If you choose to ignore all theology after a given arbitrary point, you can't expect to have reasonable discussions about theology can you?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Go on! Kick him in the nuts!

 

[Brainaddict]

You'll appreciate that this is a fairly complex question, and my time is limited. Let's start from what I regard as the end of the useful theological tradition: Martin Luther. Hegel was, of course, raised as a Lutheran and comprehensively trained in Lutheran theology. He translated Luther's understanding of the Holy Spirit into his concept of "Geist" (usually translated as "Spirit," can also be rendered as "Mind"). Feuerbach, the most prominent of the Young Hegelians, modified this concept into "Species-being," and Marx, on whom Feuerbach was the most profound early influence, transmuted this in turn into "life-activity" or, in the later works, "labor-power." So the concept of alienated labor-power--the central concept of Marxism--is the direct, albeit secularized, descendent of the Holy Spirit's alienation from mankind, as described in mythological terms in the story of the Fall.

None of this is particularly controversial, and even those philosophers who disgree with these thinkers' conclusions will concede the validity of the lineage I have described. I'll go back to the ancient world after lunch, if you like.

And the fact that Marx thought that the idea of god was irrational bullshit doesn't bother you at all? No? Apparently not.
You can't just pick and choose little bits that you want from someone's thought in order to fit your theory, then claim that their work backs you up.

It's sloppy thinking, it's dishonest scholarship, and it's just plain wrong.

 

[phildwyer]

And the fact that Marx thought that the idea of god was irrational bullshit doesn't bother you at all? No? Apparently not.
You can't just pick and choose little bits that you want from someone's thought in order to fit your theory, then claim that their work backs you up.

It's sloppy thinking, it's dishonest scholarship, and it's just plain wrong.

Really Brainaddict, I take the time and effort to give you the benefit of my immense learning, and this is my reward? I almost want to kick you in the nuts. The concept of the Holy Spirit--Geist--Species-being--Labor-power is hardly a "little bit from someone's thought." Outbursts such as yours do nothing but reveal the ignorance of those who make them.

 

[phildwyer]

I'm sorry but we can't let you get away with that. Why is he the end of the 'useful' theological tradition? Because he was the last one you happened to agree with? I get the feeling 'useful' here means 'useful to prove my bogus theory'.
If you choose to ignore all theology after a given arbitrary point, you can't expect to have reasonable discussions about theology can you?

After the sixteenth century, the discussions that had previously been carried out in theological language were continued in the language of philosophy. While some interesting theology continued, and continues, to be produced, it is intellectually marginalized and tend to provoke hysterical reactions from the likes of you. I was trying to speak in terms you might understand. I now fully recognize my delusion.

 

[Brainaddict]

*unsubscribes from thread*

actually i like the idea that phil is some kind of very committed troll here to wind up people who are capable of thinking in a straight line.

 

[Brainaddict]

After the sixteenth century, the discussions that had previously been carried out in theological language were continued in the language of philosophy. While some interesting theology continued, and continues, to be produced, it is intellectually marginalized and tend to provoke hysterical reactions from the likes of you. I was trying to speak in terms you might understand. I now fully recognize my delusion.

So you're not familiar with the Christian existentialists (both theologians and philosophers I would suggest), who concluded that there was no rational proof of god but that one could take a 'leap of faith' if one so wished?

 

[parallelepipete]

You'll appreciate that this is a fairly complex question, and my time is limited. Let's start from what I regard as the end of the useful theological tradition: Martin Luther. Hegel was, of course, raised as a Lutheran and comprehensively trained in Lutheran theology. He translated Luther's understanding of the Holy Spirit into his concept of "Geist" (usually translated as "Spirit," can also be rendered as "Mind"). Feuerbach, the most prominent of the Young Hegelians, modified this concept into "Species-being," and Marx, on whom Feuerbach was the most profound early influence, transmuted this in turn into "life-activity" or, in the later works, "labor-power." So the concept of alienated labor-power--the central concept of Marxism--is the direct, albeit secularized, descendent of the Holy Spirit's alienation from mankind, as described in mythological terms in the story of the Fall.

I read with fascination and post rarely in this forum. But this really does seem like sophistry to me.

You're saying that Luther's Holy Spirit is the predecessor of Marx's alienation of labour power, but how can you compare the story of the Fall (brought about through humans' sinful act against their creator at the instigation of a serpent, and therefore it seems not an inevitable event, unless you believe that humans were intrinsically sinful even before the Fall - which casts some doubt on their creator's abilities or motives) to the Marxist concept of alienated labour, an inevitable consequence of private ownership, but only a staging-post on the road to communism (and nothing to do with an intrinsic sinfulness of men, but simply historical forces)?

 

[parallelepipete]

Really Brainaddict, I take the time and effort to give you the benefit of my immense learning, and this is my reward? I almost want to kick you in the nuts. The concept of the Holy Spirit--Geist--Species-being--Labor-power is hardly a "little bit from someone's thought." Outbursts such as yours do nothing but reveal the ignorance of those who make them.

Does this contribute anything to the thread, which I thought had something to do with Darwinism?

 

[kyser_soze]

Jesus, is this bollocks still rambling on?

I refer the learnéd gennlemen to my earlier comments re: philosophy = rich man's circle jerk...

 

[Fruitloop]

You love it really, you epistemological slag

 

[kyser_soze]

Can't...help...myself...being...pulled...into the...vortex of philD...

 

[Fruitloop]

 

[parallelepipete]

Ohhhh ... I geddit now. I've interrupted a game of Philosophers' Mornington Crescent!

*whispers* sorry. Wrong room...

*leaves quietly*

 

[Crispy]

This is the most fun thread I've been on in ages

 

[phildwyer]

at the risk of returning the thread to whether darwinists are 'running scared', there's a good piece on intelligent design in the guardian today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html

To judge by this article, Darwinists are not merely 'running scared,' they are--to borrow a phrase from our friend Fruitloop--totally shitting themselves. Dawkins and his sidekick begin by contructing the predictable straw man: intelligent design, they claim, is "creationism camouflaged with another name." That, of course, is nonsense. Very few advocates of ID believe in creationism in the Biblical sense. Later, they suggest that ID disputes the existence of evolution. This is simply not true of the vast majority of ID theorists.

They then jump up and down for a while chanting "its not science, it shouldn't be in a science classroom." But the whole point is that ID redefines our understanding of what "science" is, or should be. Science should not be taught in isolation from its philosophical implications: if so taught, it cannot be understood. Perhaps the most central of the philosophical implications of Dawkins's ultra-Darwinism is militant atheism. Dawkins refuses to tolerate any challenge to this philosophy, even denying that it *is* a philosophy. He has repeatedly said that atheism is simply "factual." He is a Darwinian fundamentalist, every bit as bigoted and irrational as his Christian fundamentalist opponents. They are two sides of the same coin.

We are treated next to a straight-up, outright lie. The article claims that there is no prejudice against ID on the part of the editors of scientific journals. This is the precise reverse of the truth; in reality, these editors are engaged in a desperate, last-ditch struggle to prevent people from considering ID on its merits--a struggle in which this very article conspicuously participates.

There are so many fallacies and falsehoods peddled here that I could literally go on all night, but brevity dictates that I limit myself to one more. One of the major problems with Darwin's research was that he ignored the available empirical evidence. The fossil record does not support his claim that evolution is a gradual process. He explained away this fact by postulating that this record must be full of "gaps" (Gould and Eldredge later corrected Darwin with their theory of "punk-ek," which is more compatible with the available data). Here, Dawkins and his mate try to turn the tables, by falsely suggesting that ID theorists have used such "gaps" to attack Darwin. I particularly enjoyed the following assertion:

"What, after all, is a gap in the fossil record? It is simply the absence of a fossil which would otherwise have documented a particular evolutionary transition."

How "scientific" is it to claim not only that all such "gaps" must inevitably be the result of insufficient evidence--that there are no gaps, there is only a continuity we haven't found--but also to know exactly what these non-existant fossils would have "documented," had they existed? We are truly scraping the barrel here. In sum, this article is the last gasp of an exhausted dogma. Darwinism is on its last legs, staggering around like a half-dead bull awaiting the matador's death-blow. The angry desperation of Dawkins and his followers on these boards should be music to the ears of all right-thinking people.

 

[phildwyer]

Can't...help...myself...being...pulled...into the...vortex of philD...

How are those Platonic pick-up lines working so far, Kyse? Any luck yet? I expect a full report, as well as her sister's phone number.

 

[Jo/Joe]

Science should not be taught in isolation from its philosophical implications

In your opinion. Most of us would prefer the philosophical implications, and religious ones in the case of ID, taught seperately. During these types of pointless discussions, only pbman agrees with you from what I can see.

The fundamental point made in the article, that you've carefully avoided, is that ID proponents offer not a shred of positive evidence. It boils down to 'it must be so'. So how about some?