The debate among conservative Christians, Muslims, and Jews (the “creationists”) and natural scientists and the science-minded public (the “evolutionists”) centers on biological evolution. But on a deeper look, it concerns the universe in which life has evolved—or in which it was created. And, as I will argue, on this level there is no contradiction between design and evolution: both are equally needed to explain the facts.
At first glance, the scientific community—and anyone who believes that science can tell us something about the nature of reality—is compelled to reject the hypothesis that all organisms are the way they are because they were designed to be that way. But the creationists question that the stupendously varied panoply of life arose from mutations in the genome occurring by chance with the resulting organisms fitting by chance into environments where they can reproduce better than their predecessors. Such a chance-mutation and lucky-environmental-fit process is surely too “hit or miss” to have created the complex web of life in the biosphere. The theory that affirms it is bound to be false.
However, at the cutting edge of science the theory of evolution doesn’t rely on random serendipity. That view marks the classical Darwinist position, still championed by a few (though always fewer) mainline biologists. Richard Dawkins, for example, insists that the living world is the result of processes of piecemeal trial and error, without deeper meaning and significance. Evolution happens, but there is no purpose and meaning to it.
Take cheetahs, said Dawkins. They give every indication of being superbly designed to kill antelopes. The teeth, claws, eyes, nose, leg muscles, backbone, and brain of a cheetah are all precisely what we should expect if God’s purpose in creating cheetahs was to maximize deaths among antelopes. At the same time, antelopes are fast, agile, and watchful, apparently designed so they can escape cheetahs. Yet neither the one nor the other feature implies creation by design: this is just the way nature is. Cheetahs have a “utility function” to kill antelopes, and antelopes have a utility function to escape cheetahs. Nature itself is indifferent to this game. This is a world of blind physical forces and genetic replication where some get hurt and others flourish. It has precisely the properties we would expect it to have if there were no design, no purpose, and no evil and no good in the world, only blind indifference.
If a Designer is responsible for the way the living world works, He/She would have to be at best indifferent to what comes about in that world, or at worst a sadist who enjoys blood sports. It’s more reasonable, according to Dawkins, to hold that the world just is, without reason and purpose. The way it is results from random processes played out within limits set by fundamental physical laws. The idea of design is superfluous. Classical Darwinists echo French mathematician Pierre Laplace, who is reputed to have said to Napoleon that God is a hypothesis for which there is no longer any need.
Confronted with the classical theory, creationists are justified in pointing out that it’s extremely improbable that all we see in the world of life, ourselves included, should be the result of chance processes governed by impersonal laws. The idea that everything evolved by blind chance out of common and simple origins is just theory, they say. The world is more than a random assembly of disjoined elements; it exhibits meaning and purpose. This implies design.
The creationist position would be the logical choice if—but only if—scientists would persist in claiming that the evolution of living species is a product of two-fold serendipity. But at the cutting edge, scientists no longer claim this. Post-Darwinian biologists recognize that the evolution of species is far more than the chance processes classical Darwinists say it is. It must be more, because the time that was available for evolution would not have been sufficient to generate the complex web of life on this planet merely by trial and error. Mathematical physicist Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the probabilities and came to the conclusion that they are about the same as the probability that a hurricane blowing through a scrap-yard assembles a working airplane.
Leading-edge scientists realize that the evolution of organic species is an orderly, highly coordinated process, even if it’s not mechanistic and deterministic. The evolution of the living world is part of the great wave that created particles from the underlying virtual-energy and information field misleadingly called ”vacuum” (and is better called unified field, nuether, or Akashic field). The wave unfolded in the cosmos by structuring particles into atoms, atoms into molecules, molecules into macromolecules and cells, cells into organisms, and organisms and populations of organisms into local, regional, and continental ecologies.
The wave of evolution could only have unfolded in a universe where the fundamental laws and constants are finely tuned to permit the emergence of complexity. Ours is such a universe. Physicists know that even a minute difference in these laws and constants would have foreclosed the possibility of life forever.
Our universe is staggeringly fine-tuned to the creation of systems of higher and higher orders of complexity, differentiation, and integration. That such a universe would have come about by chance is astronomically improbable. According to quantum cosmology, some 10500 (1 followed by five hundred zeros) universes could exist physically, but only a handful could give rise to life. That our life-supporting universe would have come about by a random selection from this enormous set of possible universes is a zillion times more improbable than that living species would have come about by random mutations. The great wave of evolution requires highly harmonized and coordinated processes in all its domains.
In the final count the evolution of life presupposes intelligent design. But the design it presupposes is not the design of the products of evolution; it’s the design of its preconditions. Given the right preconditions, nature comes up with the products on her own.
The debate between creationists and evolutionists would be better focused on the origins of the universe than on the origins of life. Could it be that our universe has been purposefully designed so it could give rise to the evolution of life? For creationists, this would be the logical assumption. Evolutionists could not object: evolution, being an irreversible process, must have had a beginning, and that beginning must be accounted for. And our fine-tuned universe is entirely unlikely to have come about by chance.
So the creationist/evolutionist controversy really is pointless. Design is a necessary assumption, because chance doesn’t explain the facts. But evolution is likewise a necessary assumption, for given the way this universe works, the evolution of complexity is a logical and by now well-documented consequence. Therefore the rational conclusion is not design or evolution. It’s design for evolution.
Then why the controversy?
Published at Huffington Post
{ 38 comments… read them below or add one }
Your central premise here appears to be a re-statement of the anthropic argument. And it makes the same error which that argument always contains. The post-hoc assigning of probabilities to an event after the event has already occured. Or as I tend to refer to it, the “painting the bullseye around the arrow” fallacy.
Let us say that we were having an archery competition, and I were to challenge you to hit a target. The target in question is 3 microns across and you must hit it from at least 100 yards away.
What would you suppose the odds of your succeeding were? I would imagine you would quite rightly say they were astonomically bad. (Or you had a very inflated opinion of your skill as an archer)
Now, let us say I was taking the shot, and I declared that I could certainly hit the exact center, to within a micron, of a target at least 100 yards away and do it in a single shot.
I would imagine you would put down a considerable sum of money against me succeeding if there were any bets being placed on the contest.
I then draw my bow, and fire an arrow through the air. It sails off well over 100 yards then it embeds itself in the wall of a barn off in the distance. I walk over, pull out some precision equipement, and draw a circle *exactly* around the center of the impact point of the arrow and declare victory.
I imagine at this point you (and most certainly the bookie) are crying foul.
Referring back to your argument… I’m crying foul.
You have simply defined that the outcome of several billion years of the operation of the natural processes of the universe to be “the target”… then remarked at how amazingly improbable it would have been to hit that target by chance. It therefore must have been the word of some amazing design!
Nonsense. Because ANY OTHER outcome of several billion years of the operation of the universe would have been equally improbable. Just as it would have been equally improbable for my arrow to hit any sufficiently tightly specified part of that barn. I cannot just come along after the fact, declare that the part I hit was the target, and proclaim my title as the greatest archer the world has ever seen. And you cannot come along after the fact, declare that the current state of the universe was a target that has been hit, then exclaim how remarkable it is that such an amazingly unlikely thing occured and it must therefore be the result of some supreme design.
It is purely fallacious reasoning to do so.
While I wait for my first comment to make it’s way out of moderation perhaps I could put it another way that might make the point clearer for some people, using a lottery instead of archery.
Now, the odds of winning a lottery are very, very bad. This is something I would trust we are all aware of. Unfortunately most people don’t fully understand the conditions that apply to coming up with that probability value. They tend to just think that there are a lot of different combinations of numbers that can be picked, therefore picking any one combination is very unlikely, therefore winning is unlikely.
What we are actually saying when we say it is unlikely to win is that it is highly unlikely that two different number sequence generating processes… the lottery draw and your lottery ticket number picking… will *match*. Because you are picking your numbers first, establishing a *pre-defined* target, and then the random process of the lottery draw must exactly hit that target. But the target MUST be predefined for the probability calculation to be valid. (The odds of someone winning the lottery if they are allowed to pick their numbers after the draw has already happened are rather radically different.)
Now, the point of the anthropic argument is to argue that there exists, for the giant lottery draw that is the emergence of the universe in the form it has taken… a designer that rigged the draw to produce a specific outcome, and then pointing out how amazingly unlikely the universal lottery draw was to just happen to turn out exactly one specific way by chance, thus it must have been “rigged”, and designed to produce that outcome. However this is done by pointing to a probability argument that absolutely requires that you first assume the existence of the lottery ticket holder/game rigger for the probability assessment to be valid in the first place. Without the initial assumtion that the desired outcome of the universe was to produce life (thus providing the process with a target it was supposed to hit) the probability argument is invalid. It is a textbook act of circular reasoning.
In other words…
“**Assuming some supreme being exists and intended for the universe to create life** it is extremely unlikely that the universe did exactly that by chance therefore the supreme being must have rigged things to make them happen the way they wanted… therefore there is a supreme being that designed the universe to turn out the way it intended”.
That first emphasized portion of the argument is the assumption which goes unspoken, and mostly unrecognized, by the people who make the argument. But they ARE making that assumption as soon as they start throwing around claims about how unlikely it was for the universe to turn out a specific way being evidence of “rigging” (a.k.a. design).
The anthropic argument is just plain wrong. It is not, in any way, evidence of the existence of design. It simply assumes design before it even begins.
Isaiah 40:12-15
Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand,
Measured heaven with a span
And calculated the dust of the earth in a measure?
Weighed the mountains in scales
And the hills in a balance?
Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD,
Or as His counselor has taught Him?
With whom did He take counsel, and who instructed Him,
And taught Him in the path of justice?
Who taught Him knowledge,
And showed Him the way of understanding?
Behold, the nations are as a drop in a bucket,
And are counted as the small dust on the scales;
Look, He lifts up the isles as a very little thing.
1 Corinthians 2:14-17
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For “who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?”
But we have the mind of Christ.
1 Corinthians 1:27-29
But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence.
I’m left wondering if the bible quoting was supposed to be directed at me or the original article…
Either way, I’ve always been exceedingly amused by people who throw out all those “you can’t possibly understand the ways of God” declarations one minute and then are inevitably following them up with stern lectures on what ways of God God wants you following/believing in the next. Which of course they just happen to understand and are right that minute informing you of!
1. @ Grant: I keep struggling with (rebuking the) anthropic principle style argument.
If you shoot at nothing in particular, then when the arrow hits a particular spot X in the barn wall, (how) is it not fair to say that it was exceedingly unlikely that you’d hit that spot?
Of course it does in no way follow from that improbability that you were aiming for that spot (and that – since you also in fact hit it – are a great marksman).
I’m not sure that translates immediately to the universe-with-life issue. If it is fair to say that a (our) universe-with-life is exceedingly unlikely…
… well, IS it fair to say that? That depends on ‘the size of the space in which to shoot arrows’ as well as how many arrows are shot. If 10^500 universes could exist (as claimed in the original post) but 10^5000 ‘arrows were shot’ (universe-forming events happened) then a u-w-l gets probable. I doubt anyone has any idea whatsoever about that latter number or its context. If so, then we should be agnostic about probabilities. This leads to defaulting to a pure chance process as it assumes the least (Occam’s razor).
2. @ the original post:
“Classical Darwinists” do /not/ say that everything evolved by pure chance. Natural selection is explicitly /not/ a random event, though the material it works on is often random (mostly so in the biological case; with e.g. cultural information a rational process may have created the material). (Dawkins is acutely aware of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRQQmCpmuGc)
Real “leading-edge scientists” are aware of the goal-creating aspect of combined natural selection and self-organisation (both mechanistic phenomena), and can appreciate the existence of (relative, not ultimate) purpose out of deterministic interaction of matter/energy. They need not invoke /external/ design of purpose, neither direct (‘gods created cheetahs and gazelles to be such and such’) nor indirect (gods chose the parameters so cheetahs and gazelles would turn up) to account for goal-directed behaviour.
Re the question,
Why the controversy?
To come to a valid conclusion one must see all apects of an argument.The creationist/evolutionists theories are both valid but with all evidence scrutinised one comes to a conclusion of conjecture.Above all there must be respect shown to each theory,for inadequacies reveal affirmation.Remove the clutter of wayward mumbo jumbo of persons trying to explain things with an ego boosting intellectual guise(Grant), and listen with an open mind.
@G.C.
Yes, that is certainly yet another problem with the anthropic argument I didn’t get into. Nobody has the information necessary to establish that the outcome of the universe actually was improbable, or how improbable it was. We don’t know what the range of possible outcomes were and we don’t know how many iterations occured to produce this particular outcome and yet people still feel compelled to throw around these probability arguments despite having none of the information required to make valid calculations and despite the argument itself not being applicable even if they did have that information.
@Stan
Rather than just trying to casually insult me to dismiss what I said while speaking about the need to show respect, how about we try a different approach and you address the content of my comments and explain what you think I got incorrect? How’s that for showing respect?
The bottom line is that no, the creationst/evolutionist theories are NOT both valid. Starting with the fact that there is no such thing as the “creationist theory”. There is simply the creationist claim. Theories are explanatory frameworks that account for available data, make testable predictions, have falsifiability criteria, etc… creationism meets none of these criteria. It simply makes a declaration… “God (or insert your supreme intelligent/magical entity of choice) did it… somehow… for some reason”.
That is not any more of a theory than if I said “Steve did it… somehow… for some reason”.
When something is unexplained then the most improbable can be the most relevant.Without any real knowledge of how the cosmos came about,one cannot deny any possibility even if it may seem outlandish.We tend to agree to disagree on a vast majority of possibilities,The concepts you speak of are very relevant but are associated with 2 dimensional thinking.(Re the lotto and the bullseye).All are correct assumptions but one must be careful not to overdiagnose.Once you substitute “ones” reality and replace it with “ones” own there is a danger of overcomplicating.Point is nothing is impossible,every argument “IS” valid unless proven to be otherwise.Tis like solving a crime scene,you may only miss 1% of the available data and conjectures and the criminal walks free of the justice system.
Going back to your comments,
how about we try a different approach and you address the content of my comments and explain what you think I got incorrect? How’s that for showing respect?
Ummm do i need to?this is your reality and forever and a day you will be correct in your assumptions,until proven otherwise by the emergence of the truth.Be it by a hammer or belief of Billions of people over thousands of years…
The bottom line is that no, the creationst/evolutionist theories are NOT both valid. Starting with the fact that there is no such thing as the “creationist theory”.
Ok so we have a definate “No” from you,you have discounted a possibility and become judge and jury on this matter,Re your interpretation of “theory”,what is a theory?Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter.
Apologies if i seemed disrespectful i have no intention and value your input,but this is an argument and and dont we all love em
Food for thought is what i am offering as we all have to change our way of thinking to overcome the barriers presented.Namaste.
“Without any real knowledge of how the cosmos came about,one cannot deny any possibility even if it may seem outlandish.”
Which is coming at the problem exactly backwards. If you don’t know how something happened you don’t worry about ruling out the outlandish. There is an infinite supply of outlandish possible explanations for things. If you spent your time ruling them out one by one you’d be doing nothing else for the rest of eternity.
You focus on examining the object you are trying to explain and letting the evidence lead you to the most likely conclusion. You do NOT just declare “we don’t know the answer, therfore it is now officially a free for all on hypothetical explanations! No proposal too ridiculous! Whee!” That will never get you anywhere. IF the answer actually turns out to be one of the outlandish options eventually the evidence will take you there. (It does NOT do so in this case)
“Point is nothing is impossible”
No, the point is that the argument presented in this article applied a probability argument incorrectly. It is not something that is a matter of subjective interpretation, it is just plain wrong. In the exact same way that saying the odds against winning the lottery are evidence the winner cheated is wrong.
“every argument “IS” valid unless proven to be otherwise.”
First, see earlier comment about not wasting our time ruling out the outlandish just because we don’t have the final answer.
Second, what did you think was happening when I was explaining how the probability argument was applied incorrectly? That was the “proving otherwise” part. The argument is not valid, because it applied probability wrong.
“Re your interpretation of “theory”,what is a theory? Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter.”
I see we have visited Wikipedia.
That would be a very general form of the definition, yes. That definition lists three criteria. Refer back to what I said a theory was. Do you notice a resemblance by any chance between what that definition says a theory needs and what I said it needed?
Now if you prefer to use your definition, fine, we’ll do that. That however only brings us back to square one… creationism *doesn’t do anything in your definition!!!*.
Name me a prediction creationism makes. Just one.
Show me something creationism explains or allows us to understand. One single thing. And to repeat an earlier note … saying “God did it” isnt an explanation or an indication of understanding. It’s just arbitrarily assigning responsibility without offering any explanation whatsoever. It is no different than if I claimed to have explained and understood how Mt. Everest came to exist by saying “Oh, that was Chuck”. That is not an explanation.
If you think creationism is a valid theory, tell me how it’s a theory at all. What exactly IS the “creationist theory”? Can you describe it? Does it go beyond simply claiming “God dit it”? Are there any other details?
Firstly,A conclusion is based upon the one that makes more sense,With respect to all others.Seems as though you are incapable of an open mind as you wish to still argue and twist words to your benefit.
How simple is this what i have previously written,and you want to complicate fill it with “Mumbo Jumbo”twist it to your benefit and rave on!!
Re the question,
Why the controversy?
To come to a valid conclusion one must see all apects of an argument.The creationist/evolutionists theories are both valid but with all evidence scrutinised one comes to a conclusion of conjecture.Above all there must be respect shown to each theory,for inadequacies reveal affirmation.Remove the clutter of wayward mumbo jumbo of persons trying to explain things with an ego boosting intellectual guise(Grant), and listen with an open mind.
You have shown in your statements the principle of the article written by Ervin,Why the controversy?Because you cant keep your mouth shut as it always goes a million miles an hour and incapable of truly understanding,i understand your way of thinking but you overcomplicate and attack my reasoning with your truth.Let me know when your reasoning finds the higgs bison or not and until then your model of how the universe began is just as much conjecture as mine.Submit your thoughts upon water and watch it transform with your thought as if magic.Explain the unexplainable.Actually dont because you cant,thats the higgs- bison!!Without it all your theories come crashing down!!
And as god put it,”and then there was light”…..Remind you of a wave thought pattern?never mind it might take you a 100 years to grasp that concept because your too busy inflating your ego.”WHEEEEE!!!!
Quote Albert Einstein: “science without religion is lame,religion without science is blind”
“Firstly,A conclusion is based upon the one that makes more sense,With respect to all others.Seems as though you are incapable of an open mind as you wish to still argue and twist words to your benefit.”
You seem to have a habit of this. Instead of simply respondig to my questions you ignore them then accuse ME of not having an open mind or being manipulative. The questions I presented were extremely simple, and I even fit them to the definition of theory YOU presented.
Now, you have said what you think a theory is. I have asked you to explain how creationism meets the criteria *you* provided. Either explain what part of that is me being closed minded and twisting words, or just answer the questions.
Or if that’s beyond your capabilities right now, I’ll make it even simpler. You say the “theory of creationism” is valid. TELL ME WHAT IT IS. Describe the “theory of creationism” if you don’t mind. Can you do it, beyond saying that basically the “theory of creationism” is “umm… everything was created… somehow”? I’m all ears. Please, proceed.
Firstly to let you know where i am coming from,I am no christian,jew or buddhist claiming that the bible or holy scriptures are facts(but if one is able to interpret them in a different light they do hold some very interesting insights).I have my own religion and that is of science and spirituality.Again, “A conclusion is based upon the one that makes more sense,and respect for others, Highlighting “respect”, as i am constantly putting across..Until science has all the answers(ie what made or how did life first come about).Science has just begun to grasp the concepts of Quantum mechanics and with this new information becoming more available , it stands to reason that the utmost complexity and yet simplicity of quantum physics is still yet very much in its infancy.There are questions that science is totally baffled and bamboozled at why some things work the way they do.Thing is there is a never ending resource of information and scientific discoveries yet to be discovered.Is there a parrallel universe for instance?why do some people remember details of a past life hundreds of years ago without any knowledge beforehand?Maybe science is on the verge of opening the door to a new science,one which would explain these occurrences,as its obvious science has become mankinds greatest attribute,and it would be foolish to let it be the one and all truth with no regard to the unexplainable.So can you prove beyond any doubt how life began??Maybe a new scientific model needs to be in order to answer the unexplainable first before all is judged.With RESPECT to all others.. We all have monkey brains and we all act like monkeys.Until mutual respect between us monkeys come forth there will always be controversy.Have a look in history and see what im talking about.Wars over religion,greed,etc.Your view is narrow and does not show any respect at all.Even if you are smart and that i do not deny.We are all “one”…
Wow, you really like to dance around the subject. So should l take that as a “no, I cannot describe what the theory of creationism is” then? Nor can you explain how it meets the definition of theory you yourself provided? Would you liike to then retract your claim that the “theory of creationism” is valid?
As for the content of this latest posting… you may say you have a religion that is of science and spirituality but you are clearly demonstrating you don’t know how the former works when you ask questions like this:
“So can you prove beyond any doubt how life began??”
Science doesn’t prove things. Anything. Ever. If you’re going to make science a component part of your “religion”, you might want to consider devoting a little religious zeal to understanding how its done. No conclusion science has EVER reached is “proven”. It is only demonstrated to be accurate given all currently available data… and thus open to revision with the input of new data.
And you also really appear to be having a great deal of difficulty understanding the concept of starting with evidence and following that to conclusions. You instead appear to think the process is to start by declaring there isn’t a 100% absolutely proven conclusion (which will ALWAYS be true for EVERYTHING outside pure math), and if that is the case then somehow evidence is irrelevent to whether your claim should be considered valid.
Re the question,
Why the controversy?
To come to a valid conclusion one must see all apects of an argument.The creationist/evolutionists theories are both valid but with all evidence scrutinised one comes to a conclusion of conjecture.Above all there must be respect shown to each theory,for inadequacies reveal affirmation.
Stan: What is the theory of creationism?
Just answer the question. What is it? You keep saying it’s valid.
What. Is. It?
No rush, I’ll wait. Any time you’re ready you just go right ahead. Considering that I’ve been involved in discussions on this particular topic for decades and have never, ever, had anyone spell out what the heck a “theory of creationism” was supposed to be beyond “umm… God created stuff, somehow…” I am entirely willing to wait if this is the exchange in which I’ll finally have my brick-thick self enlightened as to what this elusive theory is that you keep insisting is as valid as evolution.
So you just take your time. No need to hurry on my account.
If anyone is reading along and would like to help Stan out here, I’m confident he wouldn’t mind at all…
Theory of Creationism? Anyone?
Ok… I think “I’ll wait” can be reasonably canceled after two weeks in a comments section discussion so I’ll just be writing Stan off now. The outcome is as expected… ask for an actual theory of creationism, get nothing.
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is “why the controversy” when people start insisting we assign validity to creationism alongside evolutionary theory.
If i had a theory do you think ill be telling you! all i am saying and have been saying is respect for the creationist ideal..for you just dont know for sure if god or something that behaves like a god come down from the heavens and spank your narrow minded overinflated ego…..hmmmmm
Wow… in over a month since the first time I asked you to explain what the heck a “theory of creationism” was supposed to be… this is what you’ve come up with?
“If I had a theory do you think I’d be telling you”?
Seriously? Have we been transported through time and space to the playground at my elementary school?
You made a specific claim. That evolution and creation were *both valid*. So what do you mean IF you had a theory of creation? Are you suggesting you claimed creationism was as valid as evolution while having no clue what exactly a “theory of creationism” was in the first place? Because while I’m pretty sure you did, seeing you actually admit it would be something.
Consciousness and the End of the War Between Science and Religion
by Deepak Chopra on June 6, 2010
I’m sorry, was that intended to be an answer or were you just posting random citations since you had nothing else?
After a quick scan through the article in question I’m not seeing an answer to my question in it, so I’m guessing random spouting. But I will head over there and give it a response since I’ve spotted several bits of silliness in it.
I would like to exchange links with your site ervinlaszlo.com
Is this possible?
Dear Sir/Madam,
Before we exchange links, we would like to see your website first. Please forward the web address to us when convenient.
Many thanks and kind regards,
Mrs Gyorgyi Byworth MA
Personal Assistant to Prof E Laszlo
I would welcome a chance to reply to both Grant and Stan on the subject of evolution/creationism. This would unite their two approaches to ‘the beginnings’ in new/old ways. Would I leave my comments in this space or do I need to become a ‘member’ in some way?
I have just read the entire exchange between Grant and Stan.. I myself am a rationalist and a skeptic, and I am use to dealing with what I call “fruitcakes”..
It seems like Grant is not used to the Fruitcake’s way of obfuscating, dodging questions, relying on empty rhetoric, stepping outside the rational community, etc..
I have encountered so many fruitcakes like Stan, that I feel there is a VERY significant probability that all the following things apply to him, without him ever even disclosing them to us:
He thinks everything is “connected”.. Not in the physical way, by particle orbits just chaining particles together in a linear manner, but in a “deeper” way.. Can you say “Collective Unconscious” with a newly created sauce called “quantum”?
He thinks that life DOESN’T end with death.. Oh no.. Will he call it an “Afterlife”? Who knows that may be too much like his parents terminology. But the fact remains that his fruity beliefs rely on the same desire of his parents – that his life will not end with death..
paranormal things are REAL.. You know, ESP, past life experiences, maybe even telikenesis..
what else.. hmm.. He considers us “spiritual” beings..
He likes to use the following words: Energy (but not like Leibniz or Einstein.. Oh no.. He means it very much like his PARENTS use the word SOUL..),
Quantum, evolution, matter, universe, time, subatomic, bio, etc..
Well you may have noticed that those are all scientific terms.. Why do fruitcakes like to use scientific terms?
Because as stan HIMSELF said, “its obvious science has become mankinds greatest attribute”.. I think that says it all..
What else can we say about stan..
He believes in Karma, or something that functions pretty much the same way but may be called a different (possibly psuedo-scientific) term, in which an unseen hand of justice is at work in the universe/reality and therefore ‘you’ll get what’s coming to you’ (and of course in his case he’ll get something good so he believes)..
He’s attracted to themes like “Yin / Yang, Masculine / Feminine, etc..”
He believes the mind has strange powers but it’s not a physical thing.. The mind can go… “BEYOND”..
I’ll think of more things that I feel apply to him later, but that list should do for now..
Stan, am I RIGHT??
Here is a random thought I had in reading various psuedo-scientific Woo like the above article:
Have you ever noticed how Physicists and Biologists NEVER try to validate their scientific ideas by attaching religious jargon to them?? I mean they would NEVER want to add validity to the idea of atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, etc by alling them “spirits” or “tiny ghosts” or “Avatars” or “Sprites”.. Well you get the point.. Scientists would never attempt to validate their claims by attaching religious terminology or religious ideas to them..
SO isn’t it FUNNY that religions try to validate their wacky ideas by using words like quantum, energy, matter, current, evolution, biology, etc..??
The explanation is simple.. Science is CREDIBLE.. religion is not..
Betsy Jo Miller,
I am highly intriqued by your possibility to bring their two views TOGETHER in some way.. And of course, this is precisely what new age mysticism tries to do with science and religion.. Clearly stan is a highly religious person.. Clearly, Grant is an Atheistic person.. I cannot say Atheist for certain, but his thougt process is known as Atheistic, just like any scientific way of approaching a subject – god is not included.. In a scientific inquiry you proceed assuming there is NO supernatural variables.. No “miracles” will take place and nothing supernatural will introduce itself..
Anyways, I am still highly intriqued by your suggestion.. I was wondering if you and I could work on one together..
I am trying to join the current theory of biological reproduction with the “stork” hypothesis (the idea that a stork delivers a baby and that it is not created by intercourse and gestation in the womb)..
Can we do it?
@Reasonable: Definitely atheist.
@ Betsy Jo: I too would be interested in how you think my views and Stans could possibly be reconciled. He extols the virtues of science while he ignores all the basic principles which comprise scientific methodology. He runs around declaring over and over and over that “the theory of creationism” is valid but he clearly has no idea what any theory of creationism would even look like. He is of the opinion that anything that cannot be proven to be logically impossible comprises a perfectly rational belief on an equal footing with all other possible beliefs, which is beyond absurd to the point of bordering on not being sane if you give even the tiniest amount of thought to what is contained in the set of “things which cannot be proven logically impossible”. (For example, magical pink bunnies secretly rule the universe… no, you cannot prove that is impossible)
I frankly see no possible way in which our viewpoints could be reconciled, but perhaps you see something I don’t.
@Reasonable
I am a scientific sceptic but believe in a great many ‘spiritual’ things as well – only I wouldn’t call them ‘supernatural’, but would say they are natural phenomena that are unexplained. Take Karma; while I do not necessarily believe in a mystical force I do think that the philosophy of Karma is an excellent model of the dynamic system of emotional energy in human society – sort of a social science theory of emotional currents. Douglas Adams described it much better in piece on Feng Shui published in Salmon of Doubt (excellent – read it).
With regards to the original piece – I fall somewhere between Ervin and Grant; while I accept that the fact that this universe is incredibly unlikely is not proof of a designer since any universe we can comment on necessarily has to be one we can evolve in (so any discussion of probabilities is post-hoc and a bit like suggesting there is a God after winning the lottery since winning is so unlikely). However this also doesn’t discount a designer. Further, a designer isn’t necessarily a deity – it may be that when the universe reaches it’s end and re-compresses to a singularity any post-physical consciousnesses get the opportunity to configure the parameters of the next Big Bang…
Ervin, I love your work! I originally came across your work through a Psychology course that assigned “Science and The Akashic Field” for a paper. I think the way you have presented these ideas is much better formed and articulated than any explanation I have come across. Thank you.
@WebMoxy: Well formed, articulated… and *factually incorrect*. You did catch that part didn’t you? His application of probability arguments is simply wrong.
When we wake up to our true nature, we realize that it is us, the universe in fleshly disguise, creating and evolving. Creating matter from energy through thought. Example, if we desire to move in the direction of time travel, the mechanism for such will be created – not simply discovered. This is the way Spirit and “science” dance. We are evolving, spiritually and physically, by and into our own intentions, creating what is not yet in existence. We are, if you will, the great Creator, who “always was, and is, and is to come”.
Hi Grant,
I have enjoyed reading your posts. I have found nothing in what you have said that I could disagree with. Your argument is based on pure logic and such argument is hard to be knocked down and I think that is why Stan was using other means of challenging you (e.g., ‘respect for others’; ‘we are all one’ , “If I had a theory do you think I’d be telling you?”).
Once (about a year ago), I spent few hours of reading and thinking about creationism vs. evolution and I have arrived to a conclusion, which I have written down in my diary. I have written:
“Either the universe has been created or it has always existed. Is the concept of God the personification of infinite reality and order? Matter does not disappear! So matter/energy has always been and has not been created. Something has always been and will always be! It is great, it is ordered, and I’m part of it. So I believe in a force that drives life.”
What do you think of my reasoning? Is it logically valid? I’m still not sure about where I stand. I could not logically reason the concept of creationism (so I’m like you in that respect) but I do believe in a ‘force that drives life’. Does it make me a spiritual atheist? Or a ‘fruitcake’?
Oh I love Reason and skepticism, I love to be scientifically inclined, I love the sensation of aloofness and detachment from needs and painful… what is it called? oh! emotions, yes. I feel more in control, more in power… makes me feel am in truth i.e security, orderliness. Makes me feel great to BELONG to a social group that is special, powerful, in vogue, intelligent, strong, un-needy.
I love to think of the Universe as a senseless, blind, purposeless, mechanistic, meaningless, random, impersonal and specially indifferent. Its like a secret vengeance towards life, it’s my way to be spiteful, and arrogant so that I may protect myself from my secret feelings of pain, sadness, meaninglessness and fear of death. I am so scared and angry about the futility of my own life, of this unbearable lightness of being, this unbearable superfluousness that I, cunningly, use this very meaninglessness as my weapon. To scrub it in the face of life.
It’s also my way to feel that I am not the victim of an indifferent and entropic universe, but I am the hunter, I am the enforcer of the very world view that is killing me. So I have a sensation of power. Am gonna be as ruthless as existence it self.
Well, I was trying my best to buy into the story of this article until I read Grant’s rebuttal. Grant’s rebuttal makes sense to me. I didn’t find it offensive in any way. In fact, I found it gentle. The fact that we want to believe something doesn’t make it true. The mark of intelligence is the willingness to change one’s mind when presented overwhelming evidence to the contrary of our belief. I have read too much and studied too much. Evolution makes the most sense, and there are many reasons why the tornado blowing through and making an airplane story doesn’t make sense – and there are explanations as to why that is an unfair analogy if anyone cares to take the time to google it. Peace & love
Ahh Yes. The age old question since the dawn of western society. Which really isn’t is a confusion and it’s perfectly clear at the same time; isn’t it.
Random Design
It is both and it is neither all at the same time if you just take a look at it.
It has also been proven that random generation produces design which is the patterns or designs which come out of the random generation.
Take slot machines for isntance. They are based on a program that spits out random numbers. And if you can recognize the patterns that come out of it (which organization comes from chaos and chaos can be the result of excesive organization which is called specialization), you can predict when your wining streaks are coming up.
So the question isn’t really a hard one. And this is exactly how they created internet! On a random generation program of the basic language of the universe ones and zeros. Form and no form. That is all.
{ 3 trackbacks }