Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
Totally agree with the arrogance argument. I often feel that the god any one individual winds up describing turns out to be an aggrandized version of themsleves that they use to apply a devine, external approval to their own lives. It’s masturbatory.
Agree with the OP. Creationism is an unethical, untrue belief based entirely on “faith”, defined as believing in something without proof! It saddens me that people still believe in such garbage and mock evolution as bias and false lies despite the evidence. It also irritates me when humanity puts itself on a pedestal, for all our achievements in the end we are animals and the universe is indifferent to our survival or extinction.
So what you are saying, can zen, is that human thought is not a quatum leap from and vastly superior to animal instinct. And it is “arrogance” not factual to rationally hold this position.
...That our blue/green planet Earth, which science has shown to be not only rare but the “only” planet possible to maintain living organisms due to the fragility of life and the chaos in the universe, is simply a happen-chance reality. And it is “arrogance” not scientific discovery to see the central importance of the Earth.
...That the laws of mathematics and physics and biology and cosmology ( i.e., the laws that science needs to understand anything and the universe needs to even exist) are ABSOLUTELY (your absolute) not the reflection of and witness to a creative mind, but another gift of happen-chance. And it is “arrogance” not rational conclusion to see the determination of such laws in the midst of mindless chaos.
You see, can zen, what appears to you as arrogance is simply common sense. And nowhere is arrogance more prevalent than in scientific circles where a few minor discoveries are stretched beyond their boundaries and used to dismiss every explanation possible for the gigantic holes in the data.
Until the day (which will never come) that a scientist goes into his lab and combines purely physical matter to “create” a biological entity, Evolution must humbly admit that it has no clue as to beginning of life, and only treats the evolution of life after it has showed up. Therefore, when a “believer” maintains that a divine creator, and only a divine creator, is responsible for the beginning of life, no scientist on the planet has the credentials or scientific data to make an absolute claim to the contrary. And it is “arrogance” to do so.
Yeah, we don’t know very much. We’ll never know much more, either, unless we’re able to ask questions in such a way that we can make attempts at answers. Assuming that “God” is the only answer that is worth getting, and that that answer is already completely known, kind of rules out a lot of questions along the way. Kind of boring, IMO.
No, Poldano, the existence of a supreme being with a divine intellect pouring fourth and nudging along a purposeful creation opens up a world of inquisition and study, not the opposite. (Your one-word “God”, with all its religious innuendo and baggage, is infantile in its meaning, dubious in its representation, and subjective in its content.)
All science is the product of the human mind at work. But so is philosophy. And, when the two are joined together (as they once were and as they should be), the question becomes: Is science discovering more and more MINDLESS things or PURPOSEFUL things?
Science is closing in on the WHEN and WHERE life began on our planet. But for science to make the leap of faith that it is closing in on HOW life began is for science to ignore the sister discoveries that philosophy has put forth.
Philosophy (i.e., metaphysical imagination) discovered that it is impossible to combine a group (no matter how large or diverse) of lesser things and arrive at a greater thing, unless something even greater than this greater thing is combined to the group of lesser things.
In other words, it is impossible for the physical universe on its own to have “created” the biological universe. The physical universe needed an “additional agent” for life to have begun out of the elements. The consideration of this “additional agent” is far from a “boring” endeavor, and does not dismiss all the discoveries of evolution. On the contrary, this “additional agent”, when added to the discoveries of evolution, brings into focus all the blurry edges prevalent throughout every single evolution theory ever put forth.
My favorite scientist/philosopher is Pierre Lecompte du Nouy, and his book Human Destiny is no small contribution to evolution theory.
Here’s a link to a David Barton article that details the history of evolution from all viewpoints:
Philosophy (i.e., metaphysical imagination) discovered that it is impossible to combine a group (no matter how large or diverse) of lesser things and arrive at a greater thing, unless something even greater than this greater thing is combined to the group of lesser things.
No, but philosophers with (usually) a religious agenda have certainly asserted that this is the case.
Really, Jefe? Show me one example where a combination of lesser things “created” a greater thing. An automobile is a combination of simple metals and plastics, nothing more. A solar system is no greater than a rock, for both are made of the same stuff and obey the same physical laws. The physical universe is mindless and digressing to equilibrium, while the biological universe is purposeful and progressing to ever greater beings. Prove it is otherwise. Let me see your deep and brilliant thoughts on the matter.
Really, Jefe? Show me one example where a combination of lesser things “created” a greater thing. An automobile is a combination of simple metals and plastics, nothing more. A solar system is no greater than a rock, for both are made of the same stuff and obey the same physical laws. The physical universe is mindless and digressing to equilibrium, while the biological universe is purposeful and progressing to ever greater beings. Prove it is otherwise. Let me see your deep and brilliant thoughts on the matter.
Really, Jefe? Show me one example where a combination of lesser things “created” a greater thing. An automobile is a combination of simple metals and plastics, nothing more. A solar system is no greater than a rock, for both are made of the same stuff and obey the same physical laws. The physical universe is mindless and digressing to equilibrium, while the biological universe is purposeful and progressing to ever greater beings. Prove it is otherwise. Let me see your deep and brilliant thoughts on the matter.
The biological universe is made of the same stuff as the physical universe and operates by many of the same processes. (Your segregation of matter, not mine.)
Your implied differentiation is artificial and driven by your bias. The Speigleman and Urey-Miller experiments demonstrated the possibility of localized emergent complexity quite nicely, if you care to read about them. Their implications lead to a wide variety of possibilities for formation of complex ‘bio’molecules in the deep past of the earth (and possibly continuing in the present…{1} ). From there, it’s really just a matter of applying the modelling over time.
Further, ‘bio’molecules have been observed in extra-terrestrial places (Meteorites, Mars{2}, etc…), so we know that they can form and exist in a wide variety of environments.
From there the extrapolation is not favorable for the need of mysticism or ‘philisophical’ sophistry to explain complexity in an ‘energetic’ environment. Because the cosmos overall is an environment with variable entropy (i.e. having pockets of increasing entropy, and pockets of reduced or reducing entropy) it is quite probable that increasing complexity in an energetic region of the cosmos (such as Earth or other planetary bodies with complex chemical make-ups) could result in the types of emergent complexity we observe around us on a daily basis.
To assert that the mystical is required for this localized emergent complexity is to simply engage in several logical fallacies such as argument from ignorance or argument from incredulity. In many cases it is a combination of both fueled by an unhealthy dose of confirmation bias.
Now Mario, I understand you’re on a crusade to convince us that your experiences (as you’ve interpreted them) are not up for debate, but I don’t think you’re really up to date on the relevant science surrounding emergent complexity, biochemistry and origins research, so I’m just going to let this post slide in here. I have no expectations of convincing you whatsoever, however, I do think that this information deserves to be seen inside a creationism thread.
The plain meat of the matter is that we have enough scientific evidence to move the biblical creation story (and really any other scriptural creation myth) into the realm of mythological metaphor. That being said, if the creation story of the bible IS indeed nothing more than metaphorical myth or an attempt at some kind of didactic allegory, it leaves christianity in a bit of a tight spot, because without a literal fall, and the introduction of sin into the world, there’s not a whole lot of need for a literal christ, or for a literal sacrifice for sins that, ultimately, are just part of a metaphorical allegory or myth structure. Futher, genetics tells us that there was no literal first man and first woman, so we pretty much know that the adam/eve story is just that - a story. I can go into more detail about the evidence we have that works against the literal interpretation of the eden myth, but unless there’s some recognizable value to the discussion, I’ll just leave this post here for you to percolate on.
I fully expect you to live up to our expectations and provide a retort that contains at least one all-caps “GOD IS REAL” or “GOD REALLY DOES EXIST” and would prefer at least two references to the inadequacy of non-theist thinkers. It would be really optimal if you could belittle me personally (something like myself being a one-dimensional thinker would probably be best) and then to follow up in a one-two style generalization of all non-thesists as sub-par intellectually. Those, I find, are the most amusing responses you deliver to these threads, and elicit the most amusement on my part.
PS - I really enjoyed the phrase “Dancing Dunces” from an earlier post of yours.
Jefe, your examples of 1 and 2 both leave the possibility of biological contaminates. I looked over the 40-page link on the Martian meteorite, and, even notwithstanding the incredible degree of chemical expertise needed to decipher it, found no scientific explanation of biological life emerging from purely physical matter. A simple paragraph on how this is possible would suffice. The complicated 40 pages seemed to be more of a smoke screen to hide the LACK of proof, than a complex explanation that us poor pedestrian intellects haven’t the chance of understanding. It would take me about a month to decipher the 40 pages adequately. But, in the end, the possibility of life in the Arctic Ice contaminating the meteorite would still have to be considered. Furthermore, where is it written that life on our planet hasn’t escaped into space a time or two?
And, my “mission” is not what you think it is. Metaphysical imagination makes chemistry (even quantum physics) a child’s game. The first and second degrees of abstraction—physics and mathematics—are often uninspired and repetitive. The third degree of abstraction—metaphysics—is limitless and profound. Only a scientist who utilizes all three has any hope of arriving at theories that explain the big three—existence, life, and meaning. This is why I know your “meteorite men” are giving materialists false hope…and the contaminates are present…not because I experienced God. And, I did, you know?
No, Poldano, the existence of a supreme being with a divine intellect pouring fourth and nudging along a purposeful creation opens up a world of inquisition and study, not the opposite. (Your one-word “God”, with all its religious innuendo and baggage, is infantile in its meaning, dubious in its representation, and subjective in its content.)
All science is the product of the human mind at work. But so is philosophy. And, when the two are joined together (as they once were and as they should be), the question becomes: Is science discovering more and more MINDLESS things or PURPOSEFUL things?
Science is closing in on the WHEN and WHERE life began on our planet. But for science to make the leap of faith that it is closing in on HOW life began is for science to ignore the sister discoveries that philosophy has put forth.
Philosophy (i.e., metaphysical imagination) discovered that it is impossible to combine a group (no matter how large or diverse) of lesser things and arrive at a greater thing, unless something even greater than this greater thing is combined to the group of lesser things.
In other words, it is impossible for the physical universe on its own to have “created” the biological universe. The physical universe needed an “additional agent” for life to have begun out of the elements. The consideration of this “additional agent” is far from a “boring” endeavor, and does not dismiss all the discoveries of evolution. On the contrary, this “additional agent”, when added to the discoveries of evolution, brings into focus all the blurry edges prevalent throughout every single evolution theory ever put forth.
My favorite scientist/philosopher is Pierre Lecompte du Nouy, and his book Human Destiny is no small contribution to evolution theory.
Here’s a link to a David Barton article that details the history of evolution from all viewpoints:
I don’t entirely disagree with you. Your response is beautifully poetic, and that I admire. However, expecting a purposeful creation along the lines that you describe may blind a searcher to the actual details of that creation. For some people all the time, and perhaps for all people some of the time, didacticism about purpose and the creative mind is useful and possibly necessary. However, some of us want to understand the details of how apperent purpose comes to be from the identifiable parts up. I consider it an error to believe that creation (or for that matter, divinity) is restricted to identifiable parts; rather, I consider creation (as well as divinity) to be ubiquitous, such that it is illusive to say that it lies in this part or in this interaction, and not elsewhere.
Your post suggests that the answer to HOW life began will have an answer of a different sort from other answers, specifically a divine answer, if I read you correctly. I, on the other hand (possibly), regard all answers as manifestations of divinity indistinguishably, and none of them as either unique identifiers of it or as definers of it. As such, I regard attempts to introduce divine explanations into science confusingly redundant. That, at least, is how I’ve made at least temporary peace between my conflicting opinions.
Thanks for the references. I hope to remember to look them up.
The “Wallbuilders” site and its writer Barton gives us nothing we didn’t know; that different versions of evolution have existed since at least 600BCE. However, these fanciful accounts of how life on earth came to be and more specifically how human life came to be are nothing more than interesting notions that find some resonance in Darwin’s theory. Unfortunately what writers and christians like these don’t seem to understand is that Darwin’s complex and detailed account of how biological evolution works is the PROOF of the facticity of the theory. If you don’t understand why Darwin’s work is set apart from the rest, then you really don’t understand anything at all to do with evolution.
And mentioning the founding fathers of the American nation is irrelevant. They give their understanding of the prevailing ideas of their day and whether they believe them or not. Had any of those highly intelligent men encountered the theory as explained by Darwin, they too would have understood that a scientific proof of our origins had finally been revealed.
Poldano, I wish to add a train of thought for you to consider with an open mind and a broadened imagination.
If a divine intellect of purpose exists, then wouldn’t it be more correct for us to consider that this intellect “in creating the universe” did so in tune with every scientific discovery, and therefore is the originator of all laws and principles that scientists use in order to theorize, experiment, and discover?
Wouldn’t this divine intellect, when “nudging along” the universe after its initial creation, remain faithful to these laws and principles rather than circumventing them in some “magical” way?
In other words (and more simply put)—Would it not be more correct to see “our science” as first and foremost “God’s science”?
People are pushed toward the fringes of the evolution debate by their hatred or love for the winds of change like a madmen across the water. The stubborn fundamentalists without philosophical training clash with the arrogant atheist/materialists without metaphysical imagination in a battle of nitwits.
The profound answers to existence, life, and meaning can only be found by us when we do not allow stubbornness or arrogance to replace what is best in us.
RSS Feed