With the nearing of the release of the movie, "Expelled", the web riots against it increase every day. Now the opponents are leaning more toward ridicule, comparing Ben Stein's movie to the "stork brings babies" fairy tale, and other nonsense analogies.
Now I am no fan of Intelligent Design as science. It fails all the tests of being empirically feasible. To say that design is shown by certain characteristics of biological development is an unsupportable inference. And logically speaking, no extra-natural or non-material being or existence should ever be expected to be found in a purely material environment. So ID fails the test of being science worthy.
However, the use of ridicule is ineffective to make this point. Ridicule is the tool of bullies and fools. And that is part of the point that Stein is trying to make: the anti-ID crowd seems to feel it necessary to bully its points into the doctrine of biological science. This makes it appear that biological science actually has no rational strength on a factual basis to support it. So it must bully those who disagree that it is "fact". The ridicule actually makes Stein's point for him.
And it is easy to show that materialism as a tool of empiricism is also part and parcel of the worldview of many, probably most, of the opponents of ID. That makes for a poor case against it, too. Most Americans are spiritual creatures, as polls show time and again. To be hammered by atheists who want their personal worldview to dominate, is seen as threat - because that's what it is. Bullying and ridicule will backfire on the materialists, who are appearing to be fools, regardless of the correctness of their position.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Arthur
We live in the country, a dozen miles from the nearest town. We have met a lot of interesting people out here, people with different attitudes and worldviews. There's a lot of variety, and mostly really good folks. Arthur was one of these. He died today.
Arthur did a little of everything. He raised sheep and goats, and sheared sheep as part of his living. He raised border collies to be trained into their herding heritage. He raised guard dogs and llamas. He worked long and hard. He cut wood to heat his home with his wife Beth. He brought us some of his wood so that we would have heat during the 8 day power outage caused by last year's ice storm. Arthur was busy.
Some time back Arthur had a heart attack: blockage. He was restricted after that, and couldn't do many of the things he had done before. And yesterday he had his last heart attack.
An interesting thing about Arthur. His carotid artery was badly blocked. But new, smaller arteries were growing out from the artery at a point just before the blockage, and these new arteries were trying to reconnect with the carotid artery at the other side of the blockage. While the new arteries didn't make it in time, the fact that the body knew there was a problem, what the problem was, and then tried to manufacture a work-around to circumvent the problem came as a surprise to me.
The much ballyhooed genome breakthroughs haven't given us many of the deeper answers, as far as I know. A vast majority of the DNA is completely not understood; the focus of today's analytical abilities is on the manufacture of proteins by RNA using DNA templates. Predictably the rest of the DNA not involved in this process is called "junk". But the intelligent management of the bodily functions is not accomplished by just a bunch of proteins. Arthur's artery shows a very sophisticated and complex system management that functons in what would otherwise be termed an "intelligent" manner. Yet aren't bodily functions genetic? Aren't they deterministic?
The explanation for all this is very scientifically called: evolution. It covers everything, and requires no more explanation than that, for the sophisticated science oriented person. Oh, and this; science will explain it all some day. I think science probably will figure out most of the complexities of the human machine. But I doubt that science will truly figure out exactly how it got that way.
Meantime, I will miss Arthur.
Arthur did a little of everything. He raised sheep and goats, and sheared sheep as part of his living. He raised border collies to be trained into their herding heritage. He raised guard dogs and llamas. He worked long and hard. He cut wood to heat his home with his wife Beth. He brought us some of his wood so that we would have heat during the 8 day power outage caused by last year's ice storm. Arthur was busy.
Some time back Arthur had a heart attack: blockage. He was restricted after that, and couldn't do many of the things he had done before. And yesterday he had his last heart attack.
An interesting thing about Arthur. His carotid artery was badly blocked. But new, smaller arteries were growing out from the artery at a point just before the blockage, and these new arteries were trying to reconnect with the carotid artery at the other side of the blockage. While the new arteries didn't make it in time, the fact that the body knew there was a problem, what the problem was, and then tried to manufacture a work-around to circumvent the problem came as a surprise to me.
The much ballyhooed genome breakthroughs haven't given us many of the deeper answers, as far as I know. A vast majority of the DNA is completely not understood; the focus of today's analytical abilities is on the manufacture of proteins by RNA using DNA templates. Predictably the rest of the DNA not involved in this process is called "junk". But the intelligent management of the bodily functions is not accomplished by just a bunch of proteins. Arthur's artery shows a very sophisticated and complex system management that functons in what would otherwise be termed an "intelligent" manner. Yet aren't bodily functions genetic? Aren't they deterministic?
The explanation for all this is very scientifically called: evolution. It covers everything, and requires no more explanation than that, for the sophisticated science oriented person. Oh, and this; science will explain it all some day. I think science probably will figure out most of the complexities of the human machine. But I doubt that science will truly figure out exactly how it got that way.
Meantime, I will miss Arthur.
Abiogenesis: A Critique
The idea of "abiogenesis" is that life arose from non-living things, molecules or some such that somehow came to life in the first, single ancestor of life on Earth. This is hotly denied by evolutionists (as they don't like to be called) as being a part of "descent with modification" or "natural selection of mutations" or "evolution" or whatever the choice of appellations might be.
Usually this is presented as a mere denial, with the expectation that the logic behind it should be obvious. I recently came across reasoning of a sort for this denial. The rationale was to use analogy in order to compare abiogenesis to Newton's Physics and Quantum mechanics. The analogy used this example: mass, energy and force are easily assumed and their origin need not be understood in order for Newtonian physics to be used.
The second analogy was Quantum mechanics. The Principles of Quantum mechanics are not dependent upon the prior understanding of the origin of particles and energy.
It is certainly easy to see why it might be desirable to compare your own pursuit to that of the great pursuits of physics. A certain respectability rubs off just by being placed in the same sentence. But the use of analogy is a tricky thing, and it is of absolutely no value if it is the only argument in favor of your proposition. And analogies have a disheartening tendency to fail, especially when carried too far. And bad analogies fail before they get off the ground.
Let's think about Newtonian mechanics. Is it possible that Newton derived his relationsips without even knowing about their requirement and dependence upon the existence of mass, force and energy? No, it is about the behavior of mass, force, and energy, all of which were known to exist and be valid entities.
What about Quantum mechanics? Was it developed under the ignorance of the requirement for particles and energy to exist? No, it is about the behavior of particles and energy. The existence of both particles and energy was known well before Quantum mechanics.
And how about abiogenesis? Does the projection that there was one, single, original ancestor, a single progenitor for all on the tree of life (with the exclusion of intelligent design, and the exclusion of non-material forces at work), not require that the very first life have a non-material origin? Of course it does.
Evolution is not about abiogenesis, it includes abiogenesis. The requirement for abiogenesis under materialist evolution is logically certain. For no reason other than the material theory of evolution would abiogenesis even be considered; it is a major subset of evolutionary theory. It is logically absurd to compare it to Newtonian or Quantum mechanics, which deal with physical entities that had been fully known to exist regardless of the theories existence or validity.
The reason for taking abiogenesis off the table is not because it is a separate issue, a separate theory. It is not separate. The reason is because it is too difficult to explain, and if it goes on and on being not explained as a crucial element of the theory, it would call the entire theory in disrepute. It would not falsify evolution; science of the gaps ensures that. But the disconnect would cause serious doubt amongst the sceptical. So it must be kept separate, out of the discussion. If necessary to protect the evolutionary theory, the separation and denial would extend forever.
It is not possible to conclude other than this, that abiogenesis is a serious threat to evolutionary theory, and must therefore be denied. And this denial, this intellectual dishonesty, reflects on the theory as a whole.
Usually this is presented as a mere denial, with the expectation that the logic behind it should be obvious. I recently came across reasoning of a sort for this denial. The rationale was to use analogy in order to compare abiogenesis to Newton's Physics and Quantum mechanics. The analogy used this example: mass, energy and force are easily assumed and their origin need not be understood in order for Newtonian physics to be used.
The second analogy was Quantum mechanics. The Principles of Quantum mechanics are not dependent upon the prior understanding of the origin of particles and energy.
It is certainly easy to see why it might be desirable to compare your own pursuit to that of the great pursuits of physics. A certain respectability rubs off just by being placed in the same sentence. But the use of analogy is a tricky thing, and it is of absolutely no value if it is the only argument in favor of your proposition. And analogies have a disheartening tendency to fail, especially when carried too far. And bad analogies fail before they get off the ground.
Let's think about Newtonian mechanics. Is it possible that Newton derived his relationsips without even knowing about their requirement and dependence upon the existence of mass, force and energy? No, it is about the behavior of mass, force, and energy, all of which were known to exist and be valid entities.
What about Quantum mechanics? Was it developed under the ignorance of the requirement for particles and energy to exist? No, it is about the behavior of particles and energy. The existence of both particles and energy was known well before Quantum mechanics.
And how about abiogenesis? Does the projection that there was one, single, original ancestor, a single progenitor for all on the tree of life (with the exclusion of intelligent design, and the exclusion of non-material forces at work), not require that the very first life have a non-material origin? Of course it does.
Evolution is not about abiogenesis, it includes abiogenesis. The requirement for abiogenesis under materialist evolution is logically certain. For no reason other than the material theory of evolution would abiogenesis even be considered; it is a major subset of evolutionary theory. It is logically absurd to compare it to Newtonian or Quantum mechanics, which deal with physical entities that had been fully known to exist regardless of the theories existence or validity.
The reason for taking abiogenesis off the table is not because it is a separate issue, a separate theory. It is not separate. The reason is because it is too difficult to explain, and if it goes on and on being not explained as a crucial element of the theory, it would call the entire theory in disrepute. It would not falsify evolution; science of the gaps ensures that. But the disconnect would cause serious doubt amongst the sceptical. So it must be kept separate, out of the discussion. If necessary to protect the evolutionary theory, the separation and denial would extend forever.
It is not possible to conclude other than this, that abiogenesis is a serious threat to evolutionary theory, and must therefore be denied. And this denial, this intellectual dishonesty, reflects on the theory as a whole.
Lost Day
Actually a day and a half. I found an Atheist blog where the discussion seemed to be calm and less erratic than the others I have visited. I entered the conversation and the returning attacks were at least non-expletive. I thought I could manage that, so I violated a personal principle: don't stick around too long on those blogs, because they are depressing. It turns out that this blog is no different, just with a different methodology.
The method there was to take everything that I submitted, invert its meaning, coat it well with arrogance, then throw it back at me. It took me...well, too long...to see what was happening. For awhile I thought that they were just misunderstanding or misreading my inputs. But after awhile I noticed a commonality amongst the local boys' attacks, and I just went ahead and dropped out.
Atheists are nowhere near willing to engage in discussion. I have found no group yet that behaves within the standards of rational debate. And the interesting feature of this particular group was the blatant inversion and twisting of my statements so that they meant something other than what I thought I had said.
I have spoken before about the inversion of logic that accompanies rebellion. Maybe I am just getting better at spotting it. But the usual Atheist blog response goes directly to ridicule, bypassing any attempt at logic. This time, I let myself get caught up in a pointless back-and-forth where I could not get my point even recognized correctly, much less debated. Toward the end, their attacks became focused on me, not my statements.
If you wish to observe Atheist thinking for yourself, and if you are not yourself caught up in the inversion of rationality, then try any Atheist blog. But plan on not staying there too long; it will very likely frustrate and depress you. Before it does, shake the dust off your sandals and move on.
The method there was to take everything that I submitted, invert its meaning, coat it well with arrogance, then throw it back at me. It took me...well, too long...to see what was happening. For awhile I thought that they were just misunderstanding or misreading my inputs. But after awhile I noticed a commonality amongst the local boys' attacks, and I just went ahead and dropped out.
Atheists are nowhere near willing to engage in discussion. I have found no group yet that behaves within the standards of rational debate. And the interesting feature of this particular group was the blatant inversion and twisting of my statements so that they meant something other than what I thought I had said.
I have spoken before about the inversion of logic that accompanies rebellion. Maybe I am just getting better at spotting it. But the usual Atheist blog response goes directly to ridicule, bypassing any attempt at logic. This time, I let myself get caught up in a pointless back-and-forth where I could not get my point even recognized correctly, much less debated. Toward the end, their attacks became focused on me, not my statements.
If you wish to observe Atheist thinking for yourself, and if you are not yourself caught up in the inversion of rationality, then try any Atheist blog. But plan on not staying there too long; it will very likely frustrate and depress you. Before it does, shake the dust off your sandals and move on.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Intellectual Integrity
Atheists operate under the full expectation that they represent the rational thought process in whatever they conclude. This has been demonstrated rowdily and raucously in the past few weeks, with the most visible forums being those devoted to the new book by Vox Day (apparently a pen name of Theodore Beale), entitled, the Irrational Atheist, also known as TIA, on Day’s forum.
Day’s book attacked the logical basis for several of the books currently available from the “New Atheists”, and that roused the ire of the atheist masses on several atheist websites. The resulting furor has given an opportunity to look into the actual thought processes of those who associate themselves with atheism and attempt to defend it. It turns out to be an ugly scene. Here’s why, in a capsule: lack of intellectual honesty and discipline. (One is tempted to include intellectual capacity, but that is not known for certain, being obscured by the heat of the discourse).
Atheists being the self-declared paragons of rationality, one might expect to see a tsunami of rationality surging forth from the atheist community. That is not what happened. A tsunami surged alright, but it contained nothing resembling measured, considered, propositional give and take. Instead what issued forth was a tidal wave of ridicule, name calling, and admitted ignorance by a class of opinion flingers that had not even read the book.
This approach is not new, and occurs commonly on “science blogs” that are actually atheists-venting-vitriol blogs. There is a group mentality on some of these blogs that approaches that of the self-induced, ever-rising rage within mobs. Why should this be, within the “paragons of rationality”? Rather than being anxious and willing to step up and rationally defend their positions, they appear to feel violated by the mere existence of either the book, or of the person, Vox Day. In fact, most are unwilling to read the book at all, certainly before excoriating Day for having written it.
Regardless of the style of writing, or the opinion of the author or his background, what should be presented, if one cherishes rational discourse, is a discussion of the pros and cons of his propositions. Admittedly Day is acerbic in his approach; this does not negate any validity which his propositions might contain. The huge majority of atheist responses were not only from ignorance, not having read the book, but encouraged others to be equally ignorant. This approach highlights the lack of rationality involved, and even more, it spotlights the religious aspect of atheism, when its dogma and dogmatic leaders are challenged.
So what should one expect of a rational response? How can one be certain of one’s own rational response?
The keywords are: intellectual discipline and intellectual integrity.
Are there standards concerning intellectual discipline and integrity? Linda Elder of the “Critical Thinking Community”, addresses this, with respect to instilling them as standards in students:
Intellectual integrity involves the analytical examination of each proposition in order to assign it a truth value. Those propositional values that are determined to be true may then be used to develop further propositions, which – if properly assembled from true propositions – can also be considered true. A scrupulous guard against prejudice and a priori presuppositions must be maintained.
These standards obtain if a conversation is to be deemed “rational”. They apply –it should be obvious – to both sides of the conversation. For example, it makes no difference what the achievements of the person have been in the past, as to the validity of the arguments the person made. So whether the person has “produced science” in the past several decades is no measure of the validity of that person’s argument. And the inferred character of the arguer also has no bearing on the validity of that person’s argument. It is the argument itself, and only the argument that should be approached, or else the conversation has wandered away from the solid turf of rational debate and onto the quicksand of character assassination or other impolite fallacies.
Here are some things not involved in intellectual integrity, and which are used against it:
(a) Attacks on the person, rather than the proposition.
(b) Refusal to consider any idea outside current dogma.
(c) Bullying those who wish to entertain actual rational discourse.
(d) Ridicule of the propositions (including without knowing the specifics).
(e) Using rationalization to create propositions that appear to support a pre-selected conclusion.
(f) Use of a blind denial of any type that is not supported with evidence.
The inability to discuss any points rationally with most atheists is disconcerting, but only at a surface level. Atheists are deeply entrenched in their beliefs in a way that surpasses many religions. That entrenchment cuts off any and all interchange of ideas, and supplants that interchange with the unreliable and irrational explosions of emotional outburst.
When you visit atheist websites, be sure to maintain your own integrity amidst the sulfurous, abortive, accusational, emotionalism that passes for atheist rationality. You aren't likely to be repaid in kind, but you won't have sacrificed your own integrity to the mob.
Day’s book attacked the logical basis for several of the books currently available from the “New Atheists”, and that roused the ire of the atheist masses on several atheist websites. The resulting furor has given an opportunity to look into the actual thought processes of those who associate themselves with atheism and attempt to defend it. It turns out to be an ugly scene. Here’s why, in a capsule: lack of intellectual honesty and discipline. (One is tempted to include intellectual capacity, but that is not known for certain, being obscured by the heat of the discourse).
Atheists being the self-declared paragons of rationality, one might expect to see a tsunami of rationality surging forth from the atheist community. That is not what happened. A tsunami surged alright, but it contained nothing resembling measured, considered, propositional give and take. Instead what issued forth was a tidal wave of ridicule, name calling, and admitted ignorance by a class of opinion flingers that had not even read the book.
This approach is not new, and occurs commonly on “science blogs” that are actually atheists-venting-vitriol blogs. There is a group mentality on some of these blogs that approaches that of the self-induced, ever-rising rage within mobs. Why should this be, within the “paragons of rationality”? Rather than being anxious and willing to step up and rationally defend their positions, they appear to feel violated by the mere existence of either the book, or of the person, Vox Day. In fact, most are unwilling to read the book at all, certainly before excoriating Day for having written it.
Regardless of the style of writing, or the opinion of the author or his background, what should be presented, if one cherishes rational discourse, is a discussion of the pros and cons of his propositions. Admittedly Day is acerbic in his approach; this does not negate any validity which his propositions might contain. The huge majority of atheist responses were not only from ignorance, not having read the book, but encouraged others to be equally ignorant. This approach highlights the lack of rationality involved, and even more, it spotlights the religious aspect of atheism, when its dogma and dogmatic leaders are challenged.
So what should one expect of a rational response? How can one be certain of one’s own rational response?
The keywords are: intellectual discipline and intellectual integrity.
Are there standards concerning intellectual discipline and integrity? Linda Elder of the “Critical Thinking Community”, addresses this, with respect to instilling them as standards in students:
”What are these standards? They are not new. They are not controversial.
“They are not mystical or highfalutin. In fact, once made explicit, they are quite intuitive. They enable us to make a matter clear when others are expressing it in a confused, vague or muddled way. They enable us to be accurate and precise when we are facing the inaccurate, imprecise or distorted. They enable us to check for what is germane to the problem at hand when others are displaying a tendency to wander off into unconnected matters. They enable us to get beneath the surface of an issue or problem when there is some tendency to miss important complexities. They enable us to step outside one point of view into another when most are hopelessly trapped within a narrow perspective. They enable us to check for consistency when others are operating with contradictions and inconsistencies.
“Put most simply, I am referring to the intellectual standards of clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth and logicalness of thought. They are essential in all academic, professional and personal performances that require sound thinking”
Intellectual integrity involves the analytical examination of each proposition in order to assign it a truth value. Those propositional values that are determined to be true may then be used to develop further propositions, which – if properly assembled from true propositions – can also be considered true. A scrupulous guard against prejudice and a priori presuppositions must be maintained.
These standards obtain if a conversation is to be deemed “rational”. They apply –it should be obvious – to both sides of the conversation. For example, it makes no difference what the achievements of the person have been in the past, as to the validity of the arguments the person made. So whether the person has “produced science” in the past several decades is no measure of the validity of that person’s argument. And the inferred character of the arguer also has no bearing on the validity of that person’s argument. It is the argument itself, and only the argument that should be approached, or else the conversation has wandered away from the solid turf of rational debate and onto the quicksand of character assassination or other impolite fallacies.
Here are some things not involved in intellectual integrity, and which are used against it:
(a) Attacks on the person, rather than the proposition.
(b) Refusal to consider any idea outside current dogma.
(c) Bullying those who wish to entertain actual rational discourse.
(d) Ridicule of the propositions (including without knowing the specifics).
(e) Using rationalization to create propositions that appear to support a pre-selected conclusion.
(f) Use of a blind denial of any type that is not supported with evidence.
The inability to discuss any points rationally with most atheists is disconcerting, but only at a surface level. Atheists are deeply entrenched in their beliefs in a way that surpasses many religions. That entrenchment cuts off any and all interchange of ideas, and supplants that interchange with the unreliable and irrational explosions of emotional outburst.
When you visit atheist websites, be sure to maintain your own integrity amidst the sulfurous, abortive, accusational, emotionalism that passes for atheist rationality. You aren't likely to be repaid in kind, but you won't have sacrificed your own integrity to the mob.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)