tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2748487780883735635..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Giving up DarwinRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37449846263714432922019-05-14T13:07:24.081-04:002019-05-14T13:07:24.081-04:00I knew what this was going to be before I even cli...I knew what this was going to be before I even clicked it.Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10134338144998326332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77082224752922336402019-05-14T02:31:57.565-04:002019-05-14T02:31:57.565-04:00Maybe you and I discussing these things here would...Maybe you and I discussing these things here would still be you and I, just reptillian?<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKU_RGgndTQScotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16155328940062919187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51388170276279180802019-05-14T02:30:10.220-04:002019-05-14T02:30:10.220-04:00"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent a..."I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars." - Charles Darwin<br /><br />What Darwin and many objectors forget is that according to the Bible, there is ANOTHER powerful intelligent designer apart from God - one who is evil, destructive, and was allowed temporary authority over this world.<br /><br />The devil is a fitting candidate for the Evil Intelligent Designer, corrupting God's creation using sin as the mutagen, guiding evolution along inventively cruel paths.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16155328940062919187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-59137613033906922932019-05-13T15:23:00.346-04:002019-05-13T15:23:00.346-04:00"would mammals exist if dinosaurs hadn't ..."would mammals exist if dinosaurs hadn't become extinct"<br /><br />Or rather would mammals possess the preeminence they do if dinosaurs hadn't become extinct.Epistle of Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779184015407034200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49710565992343626522019-05-13T15:19:06.213-04:002019-05-13T15:19:06.213-04:003. Supposing the Christian God, just because an or...3. Supposing the Christian God, just because an organism or creature is "doomed" doesn't entail its existence was purposeless. As Steve has noted in the past, take the fact that a younger brother might not exist if his older brother hadn't died. That doesn't imply the older brother's existence was without purpose despite his inevitable "doom" due to (say) stage 4 cancer. However, because his brother died, and his parents wished to have another child, then they were able to make love and eventually have another son.<br /><br />4. What's more, suppose the older brother lived a model life in the short years he had on earth. As such, through stories the younger brother heard from his parents, suppose the younger brother lives his remaining days in memory and in honor of his older brother. In that respect, the "doomed" brother's life made a significant impact on the younger brother. So much so that he lived in honor of his older brother, to live up to the memory of his good name.<br /><br />5. It's not necessarily either/or situation, but it could be both/and. That is, a creature could have an inherent purpose in and of itself, but be instrumental in other respects. For instance, a person could have inherent purpose, but likewise be a means to an end in the lives of their children. There's nothing necessarily wrong about this, is there? <br /><br />6. Moreover, suppose no creatures ever went extinct. Or suppose most creatures weren't doomed to extinction, but that the vast majority survived. How much of the present would be different if that was the case? Would we - you and I - even be here? Life on earth is an interconnected web. A web that stretches back in time. If a piece of this web were altered, then that could impact the web as a whole. For example, would mammals exist if dinosaurs hadn't become extinct? <br /><br />"And why did he do such an awfully slipshod job? Why are we so disease prone, heartbreak prone, and so on?"<br /><br />Plenty of good responses to dysteleological arguments.Epistle of Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779184015407034200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-36592053902446585662019-05-13T15:18:49.726-04:002019-05-13T15:18:49.726-04:00Excellent post! I'd add:
"If Meyer were ...Excellent post! I'd add:<br /><br />"If Meyer were invoking a single intervention by an intelligent designer at the invention of life, or of consciousness, or rationality, or self-aware consciousness, the idea might seem more natural."<br /><br />1. I mean Meyer did write an entire book arguing for intelligent design at the origin of life: <i>Signature in the Cell</i>. So Gelernter just needs to read Meyer's prequel to <i>Darwin's Doubt</i>. :)<br /><br />2. Gelernter might reckon with Thomas Nagel's <i>Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False</i> when it comes to consciousness.<br /><br />3. To be fair, Meyer's schtick is inference to the best explanation. That's the primary basis for his arguments against neo-Darwinism and for intelligent design. As such, I think Meyer is excellent at destroying neo-Darwinism, but in my view it's a harder slog for him to argue for intelligent design. Not that they're necessarily mutually exclusive, but I'd prefer something more tangible (if that's the right way to put it) like Dembski's specified complexity, though that's not without its limitations too. <br /><br />"What was his strategy? How did he manage to back himself into so many corners, wasting energy on so many doomed organisms? Granted, they might each have contributed genes to our common stockpile—but could hardly have done so in the most efficient way. What was his purpose?"<br /><br />1. I guess this is the "if God exists, then why did he allow 99% of all species to die out" question. If so, I wonder how that figure was ever derived in the first place. Is it based on evolutionary assumptions? <br /><br />2. If there's no creator, then it's pointless for Gelernter to even ask about purpose in the first place. Not only in the origin and diversity of life, not only in human life, including consciousness, but the entire cosmos and all it contains is the blind product of chance. Its fate is death. In the long run, we're all dead. In the end, it was all just a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. So, even if we don't know what the purpose of the creator is, so long as there is a creator, there is at least the possibility of purpose. By contrast, it is ultmately purposeless if there's no creator or intelligent designer or God.<br />Epistle of Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779184015407034200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27206259795189648542019-05-13T12:14:35.720-04:002019-05-13T12:14:35.720-04:00Like Darwin himself, the objection(s) boil down to...Like Darwin himself, the objection(s) boil down to a theological objection, not a scientific or data-driven objection. This is telling.geoffrobinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14949411893531888555noreply@blogger.com