Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A showdown in the “restaurant at the end of the universe”?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a recent article in the New York Times magazine, by Richard Panek, we read a very well written but surprisingly pessimistic assumption about what physicists can learn about the universe:

If so, such a development would presumably not be without philosophical consequences of the civilization-altering variety. Cosmologists often refer to this possibility as “the ultimate Copernican revolution”: not only are we not at the center of anything; we’re not even made of the same stuff as most of the rest of everything. “We’re just a bit of pollution,” Lawrence M. Krauss, a theorist at Case Western Reserve, said not long ago at a public panel on cosmology in Chicago. “If you got rid of us, and all the stars and all the galaxies and all the planets and all the aliens and everybody, then the universe would be largely the same. We’re completely irrelevant.”

All well and good. Science is full of homo sapiens-humbling insights. But the trade-off for these lessons in insignificance has always been that at least now we would have a deeper — simpler — understanding of the universe. That the more we could observe, the more we would know. But what about the less we could observe? What happens to new knowledge then? It’s a question cosmologists have been asking themselves lately, and it might well be a question we’ll all be asking ourselves soon, because if they’re right, then the time has come to rethink a fundamental assumption: When we look up at the night sky, we’re seeing the universe.

The article argues that the universe may well be stranger than scientists can ever hope to understand.

The article is even a bit negative about string theory (we live in one of zillions of meaningless universes connected by strings):

And this [string theory] is just one of a number of theories that have been popping into existence, quantum-particle-like, in the past few years: parallel universes, intersecting universes or, in the case of Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog just last summer, a superposition of universes. But what evidence — extraordinary or otherwise — can anyone offer for such claims?

They want evidence? How extraordinary. Makes a nice change though.

(Note: Yes, in case you noticed, the Lawrence Krauss quoted on the subject of “pollution r’ us” is one of the big anti- intelligent design guys. He is also down on string theory.)

It sounds, from the article, as though concepts like “dark matter” and “dark energy” must become more specific to provide useful information. This article is a must-read, though I don’t go along with the underlying pessimistic assumption that maybe our limited senses prevent us from understanding these things. That sounds like Darwinism talking, actually. You know the sort of thing: We are just evolved apes and can’t understand whatever is not in our genetic program to understand, including this problem.

Just think of all the areas of science that would not have got anywhere if the pioneers had taken such a view. That, incidentally, is why the Uncommon Descent blog’s rationale says

Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins.

Comments
oops on the unclosed tag.kairosfocus
March 23, 2007
March
03
Mar
23
23
2007
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT
H'mm: At the risk of overheating this thread, kindly allow me to raise the issue of how the founder of the theory saw the moral implications thereof:
Descent of Man [ 1871 ]Charles Darwin [ 1809 - 1882 ] Chapter VI - On the Affinities and Genealogy of Man, excerpt The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies- between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae- between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. ________ * Anthropological Review, April, 1867, p. 236
In short, "nature, red in tooth and claw." And sadly, he does not then go on to repudiate such monstrosity, but immediately continues:
With respect to the absence of fossil remains, serving to connect man with his ape-like progenitors, no one will lay much stress on this fact who reads Sir C. Lyell's discussion,* where he shews that in all the vertebrate classes the discovery of fossil remains has been a very slow and fortuitous process. This is sad, and the line of morally desentitised thinking revealed in this excerpt went on to have credibly serious and historically traceable consequences. So, this morality question is not just an academic issue. GEM of TKI
kairosfocus
March 23, 2007
March
03
Mar
23
23
2007
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
Can anyone else see the contradiction?: Oilboy: Ethical behaviour (in complex, social species) is an expected consequence of evolution, and is fequently observed. Oilboy: Evolution doesnt ‘expect’ anything at all. My point was and is, of course, that "ethical behaviour" is not an expected consequence of evolution. And for the very reason YOU presented.Joseph
March 22, 2007
March
03
Mar
22
22
2007
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
Hi again OB: First, I cannot ever claim grammatical, stylistic or even typographical perfection. Pardon that, kindly. However, I do think the issues of the permanence of core morality and the need to account for it cogently and coherently relative to evolutionary materialist premises are plain enough. They also seem to be conspicuously, consistently unmet; but are often brushed aside. That behaviour is inadvertently telling. I have found Plantinga in a paragraph or so, which you [or others looking on] might find helpful, on the general issue here. The following comes from a review of Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea:
. . . Darwin's dangerous idea is really two ideas put together: philosophical naturalism together with the claim that our cognitive faculties have originated by way of natural selection working on some form of genetic variation. According to this idea, then, the purpose or function of those faculties (if they have one) is to enable or promote survival, or survival and reproduction, more exactly, the maximization of fitness (the probability of survival and reproduction). Furthermore, the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable (i.e., furnish us with a preponderance of true beliefs) on Darwin's dangerous idea is either low or inscrutable (i.e., impossible to estimate). But either gives the devotee of evolutionary naturalism a defeater for the proposition that his cognitive faculties are reliable, a reason for doubting, giving up, rejecting that natural belief. If so, then it also gives him a reason for doubting any beliefs produced by those faculties. This includes, of course, the beliefs involved in science itself. Evolutionary naturalism, therefore, provides one who accepts it with a defeater for scientific beliefs, a reason for doubting that science does in fact get us to the truth, or close to the truth. [ 14 ] Darwin himself may perhaps have glimpsed this sinister presence coiled like a worm in the very heart of evolutionary naturalism: "With me," says Darwin, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? [ 15 ] Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism.
Of course, cf the already linked essay for details. I believe the issue is credibly a serious one, and that men like Plantinga and Lewis, or Darwin -- indeed, all the way back to Plato -- have put their finger on something here. So, let us have done with the dismissal that this is a non-issue to be brushed aside with a bland (and often question-begging) "assurance" on the awesome powers of evolutionary mechanisms. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 22, 2007
March
03
Mar
22
22
2007
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
To kairosfocus: I dont mean to be evasive, but your posts seem to be so long & obscure, eg: "...the issue of mind as originating the observed cosmos is relevant to both questions of mind and morality, thus the grounding of laws" This isnt even correct grammar. To Joseph: Similar comments: "But evolution does not expect 'complex, social species'. And ethical behaviour is relative, as are morals". What on earth does this mean ? Evolution doesnt 'expect' anything at all. Its a process, not a thing. And yes, morals shift with time. They have a strong cultural component that varys, but so what?OilBoy
March 22, 2007
March
03
Mar
22
22
2007
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
Oilboy: Ethical behaviour (in complex, social species) is an expected consequence of evolution, and is fequently observed. But evolution does not expect "complex, social species". And ethical behaviour is relative, as are morals. Eugenics was thought to be moral. Eating dogs and cats is ethical in some societies. Eating people is ethical in some societies.Joseph
March 22, 2007
March
03
Mar
22
22
2007
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
OB: 1] Kindly, refrain from vulgarities. 2] I have already seen your assertion. 3] I have asked for substantiation: factual evidence, and inference to best explanation relative to competing live options. [Demonstrative proof is irrelevant to matters of fact.] 4] Repetition does not constitute such substantiation. 5] BTW, the case of the cause of the origin of life and the cosmos, if you cf Plato, The Laws, Book X, shows that it is a longstanding point that the issue of mind as originating the observed cosmos is relevant to both questions of mind and morality, thus the grounding of laws. I excerpt briefly:
Ath. . . . we have . . . lighted on a strange doctrine. Cle. What doctrine do you mean? Ath. The wisest of all doctrines, in the opinion of many. Cle. I wish that you would speak plainer. Ath. The doctrine that all things do become, have become, and will become, some by nature, some by art, and some by chance. Cle. Is not that true? Ath. Well, philosophers are probably right; at any rate we may as well follow in their track, and examine what is the meaning of them and their disciples. Cle. By all means. Ath. They say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art, which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . . . fire and water, and earth and air, all exist by nature and chance . . . The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them . . . After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only . . . . Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [i.e. mind], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul's kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body? . . . . if the soul turn out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise.
This is clearly a longstanding issue, and hte battlelines have long since been drawn. I await your explanation. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 22, 2007
March
03
Mar
22
22
2007
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
To kairosfocus: "... the evident artifacts of mind in the functionally specified complex information in the nanotechnology of the cell..." Jebus, where does all this come from ? Look, its not complicated. Ethical behaviour (in complex, social species) is an expected consequence of evolution, and is fequently observed. What comes with higher intelligence is the ability to peform complex behaviour, which must include the full gamut, from altruistic to cruel and selfish. It may even be that the inevitable result is harm to the species: perhaps the evolution of a higher intelligence is ultimately self-defeating (bacteria after all are far more succesful than us). Evolution doesnt carry any guarantee of success ... no-one has promised us a garden of Eden. I expect you to respond that this is a bleak worldview, but face it: shit happens.OilBoy
March 22, 2007
March
03
Mar
22
22
2007
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT
OB: Re: I see no problem, in fact, we should expect nothing less. Moral/ethical behaviour has a survival value for a group and this is why it has been selected for in human & animal species. First, predator-prey behaviour, nature red in tooth and claw and "might makes right" also plainly have survival value. But, while we do not morally upbraid a lion chasing a gazelle or a bonobo hunting another ape, we do hold that human predators on other humans are wrong; e.g a Jeff Dahmer or a Stalin or a Hitler or a cannibal. (Indeed, in Equiano's account part of his horror on being sold to european slavers on shipboard was whether they wanted to eat him, especially when he saw an obviously suitable pot. He also tells of and rebukes the French planter who boasts to an onlooker that the field hands labouring in front of them were all of his own siring. But obviously, the planter was reproductively hugely successful and his behaviour was well within the rules of Martinique's society at that time. So why then SHOULD the French and British lions have listened to the bleatigns of that african gazelle? Why do we now say slavery was "a crime against humanity," relative to evo mat premises? Other than, that's what is politically advantageous adn emotionally persuasive today . . .) Thus, we see the need for accounting for the force of that "ought," and not on pragmatic grounds. [Pragmatism runs into serious trouble on grounding knowledge and morality, BTW.] Pause, look [again] at the linked Plantinga argument, and that made by Holmes et al, even starting with the above summaries. These highlight the difficulty on getting to mind and morals from evo mat premises as real, and the problem has in fact exercised some of the greatest of minds over the past 150 years. Thus, brush-aside arguments are simply not good enough. For instance, you will see in glancing back above that on general theistic worldview grounds [far broader than your "creationist" stereotypical caricature, and not equivalent to design thinkers or theory either], the concept of apes, or dolphins etc having a limited mentality or even morality is in fact unproblematic. Indeed, should Vulcans or Kzinti or the Borg show up tomorrow,that would in principle be no problem for a theistic worldview. For, there is no reason for man to be the "only" creature with a mind and able to make decisions. But, for reasons outlined, evo mat has a major challenge to get to ought from its postulated "is-es." [It also has a problem to get to life itself due to the evident artifacts of mind in the functionally specified complex information in the nanotechnology of the cell, but that is another line of argument onthe centrality of mind to the cosmos as we observe it. Cf the always linked through my name, to follow it up. As the 2nd apendix notes, Plato made that point say 2400 years ago; and, in the context of the moral grounding of laws. If Plato saw the need for this in the face of the general view of many philosophers in his day that chance and necessity account adequately for nature, the issue is not as simple as you make it out to be.] THAT is what needs to be faced and seriously answered, on a comparative difficulties basis -- factual adequacy, coherence, explanatory elegance vs simplisticness or ad hocness. You in effect say the is-ought gap question is a no-brainer. Okay, show us why. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 22, 2007
March
03
Mar
22
22
2007
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT
On a ligher note: Ive now posted no less than 2 (count them!) pro-evolution comments without being censored/banned. Dave Scott must be asleep at the wheel.OilBoy
March 22, 2007
March
03
Mar
22
22
2007
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT
To jmcd: My thoughts exactly. Morality, or at least what appears suspiciously like ethical behaviour is observable in pre-christian groups as well as animal groups. The creationists get into conniptions at the suggestion that mindless evolution can lead to the development of moral behaviour, but I see no problem, in fact, we should expect nothing less. Moral/ethical behaviour has a survival value for a group and this is why it has been selected for in human & animal species. Why is this so hard to understand?OilBoy
March 22, 2007
March
03
Mar
22
22
2007
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT
H'mm, Maybe I should add a bit, on the structure of thought about morality:
Principles are broad general guidelines that all persons ought to follow. Morality is the dimension of life related to right conduct. It includes virtuous character and honorable intentions as well as the decisions and actions that grow out of them. Ethics on the other hand, is the [philosophical and theological] study of morality . . . [that is,] a higher order discipline that examines moral living in all its facets . . . . on three levels. The first level, descriptive ethics, simply portrays moral actions or virtues. A second level, normative ethics (also called prescriptive ethics), examines the first level, evaluating actions or virtues as morally right or wrong. A third level, metaethics, analyses the second . . . It clarifies the meaning of ethical terms and assesses the principles of ethical argument . . . . Some think, without reflecting on it, that . . . what people actually do is the standard of what is morally right . . . [But, what] actually happens and what ought to happen are quite different . . . . A half century ago, defenders of positivism routinely argued that descriptive statements are meaningful, but prescriptive statements (including all moral claims) are meaningless . . . In other words, ethical claims give no information about the world; they only reveal something about the emotions of the speaker . . . . Yet ethical statements do seem to say something about the realities to which they point. “That’s unfair!” encourages us to attend to circumstances, events, actions, or relationships in the world. We look for a certain quality in the world (not just the speaker’s mind) that we could properly call unfair. [David Clarke and Robert Rakestraw, Readings in Christian Ethics, Vol. 1: Theory and Method. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002), pp. 18 – 19.]
As the highlighted underscores,the chief challenge of evolutionary materialism on ethics and morality, is to bridge the is-ought gap. Arguably, an ought is not derivable merely from an is:
However we may define the good, however well we may calculate consequences, to whatever extent we may or may not desire certain consequences, none of this of itself implies any obligation of command. That something is or will be does not imply that we ought to seek it. We can never derive an “ought” from a premised “is” unless the ought is somehow already contained in the premise . . . . R. M. Hare . . . raises the same point. Most theories, he argues, simply fail to account for the ought that commands us: subjectivism reduces imperatives to statements about subjective states, egoism and utilitarianism reduce them to statements about consequences, emotivism simply rejects them because they are not empirically verifiable, and determinism reduces them to causes rather than commands . . . . Elizabeth Anscombe’s point is well made. We have a problem introducing the ought into ethics unless, as she argues, we are morally obligated by law – not a socially imposed law, ultimately, but divine law . . . . This is precisely the problem with modern ethical theory in the West . . . it has lost the binding force of divine commandments.[Holmes, Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions (Downers Grove, IL: 1984), pp. 70 – 72, ]
This comes out with double force once we look at what a right is: If we admit that we all equally have the right to be treated as persons, then it follows that we have the duty to respect one another accordingly. Rights bring correlative duties: my rights . . . imply that you ought to respect these rights. [IBID, p. 81.] Therein lieth the dilemma of the evolutionary materialist would-be ethicist. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 22, 2007
March
03
Mar
22
22
2007
01:21 AM
1
01
21
AM
PDT
Continuing: 2] You cannot just write off an argument as circular especially when its not. Have a look above, again:
evolutionary theory does not touch on morality . . . . We also see the beginnigs of human morality in the animal kingdom including empathy and arguably altruism.
See why I point to the circle and the resulting self-contradiction? 3] Apes, being our closest evolutionary cousins, happen to show the qualities of a primitive moral structure. Or, is that a projection based on our own thought world, that thereby gains unwarranted plausibility? [Look back at the debates over behaviourism and the issue over existence and causative power of the mind in a material world to see what I am pointing to.] 3] When we take hunter gatherer societies that have been studied we see a much more complex moral system but one that is not quite as complex as our own. We have no reason to think that they have changed that significantly. Note the circle again. H-G societies in many cases are populations of marginalised and driven out refugees, often from civilisational catastrophes. [Take home lesson, civilisation is fragile. For instance cf the Greek dark aged before the Classical period, and the similar one that followed the collapse of the W Roman Empire. Maroonage in the Caribbean is in significant ways quite similar.] And, in fact, we have excellent reason to note that the selfsame principle of fairness exprectatrion in the in-group that drives morality in the so-called "Civilised" world underlies moral thought in contemporary H-G societies. The context and applications may be simpler, but the logic and principles are not. 4] We then have the last ten thousand years of human civilization through which we see a gradual though not constant increase in complexity of social mores, religious doctrines of morality, and societal institutions of law. First, a largely speculative and question-begging reconstruction. That is, how much is theory-independent data and how much is paradigm filtering? Second, we must not confuse the complexity of societal rules of application with the underlying concept, principles and logic of morality. 5] the argument I did profer that is circular was the “can you imagine a human society without morality?” No, and that is just what speaks to the point that core morality is a universal, objective, built-in phenomenon. So, given the worldview challenges above, what best explains that observation? In short, I infer to design of the mind, including morality -- which BTW has room for Apes etc to have limited mentality. My Theism has no inordinate problems accounting for morality and mind, though of course there are many mysteries that face us all and invite further research. (For me that is reverse engineering Creation . . . so I have confidence that it can be done.) By contrast, your as yet unmet challenge is to account for mind and morality relative to evo mat principles and permitted dynamics. I have shown in brief above why I think the result is invariably incoherent and factually inadequate. For chance plus necessity in light of the predator-prey patterns of nature lead to: might makes right, a very familiar, sad and destructive pattern over the past 150 years, including in Darwin's own social darwinism. [On that cf WD's recent posts in this blog.] GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 22, 2007
March
03
Mar
22
22
2007
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT
JMCD: 1] The reliability of our minds i[s] shaped by our experiences in life. We know our minds are reliable because of the successes we have in life. The issue is not that we observe the fact of reliability, but that the premises of evolutionary materialism invariably point away from it. In short, this is first a factual inadequacy problem, then a logical coherence problem for the evo mat worldview, leading to breakdown of its explanatory power. That is, if evo mat then the reliability of minds is questionable, but minds are reliable in fact so evo mat is contrary to fact and self-undermining. Plantinga's presentation is a good recent statement, but here is my own "simplistic" summary, which you may wish to read first:
[evo mat] argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature. Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance. But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this picture. Thus, what we subjectively experience as "thoughts" and "conclusions" can only be understood materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains. (These forces are viewed as ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance and psycho-social conditioning, within the framework of human culture.) Therefore, if materialism is true, the "thoughts" we have and the "conclusions" we reach, without residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity. Of course, the conclusions of such arguments may still happen to be true, by lucky coincidence — but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we have “proved” them. And, if our materialist friends then say: “But, we can always apply scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” then we must note that to demonstrate that such tests provide empirical support to their theories requires the use of the very process of reasoning which they have discredited! Thus, evolutionary materialism reduces reason itself to the status of illusion. But, immediately, that includes “Materialism.” For instance, Marxists commonly deride opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismiss qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? And, should we not simply ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is simply another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze?
Structurally, this is a reductio argument, familiar from mathematics. If E then NOT_R, but R so NOT_E. Furhter to this, the underlying challenge is that again lucky noise and natural regularities are here seen to have the problem of getting to complex specified information on their own terms: namely, that in our minds. Pause . . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 22, 2007
March
03
Mar
22
22
2007
12:31 AM
12
12
31
AM
PDT
Back to the core argument Speaking of a natural worldview you sat "it undermines the very reliability of the minds that we need to make materialist arguments." I am familiar with The writings of Lewis on the subject that essentially make that argument, and I have never been able to understand the logic of that argument. The reliability of our minds if shaped by our experiences in life. We know our minds are reliable because of the successes we have in life. If my mind was unreliable I couldn't pass a math test. If the math test is just as unreliable, being a product of mind, then many of my peers' minds happen to be unreliable in precisely the same manner. It is our social interactions and our educations that serve to verify the efficacy of our thought processes. In short I have never understood how the origin of a process has anything to do with its current reliability. I also do not see a natural development of morality as necessarily being an a-rational or irrational process. Why can in not be a process of semi-intelligent to intelligent beings making rational decisions? That is essentially what the evolution of economy has been. It has undergone enormous leaps in complexity of the development of human society. It has done so through a process of many small rational decisions that has created a well ordered system that makes modern civilization possible. If you don't agree I hope you don't have a retirement fund. To post #20 re: You cannot just write off an argument as circular especially when its not. Apes, being our closest evolutionary cousins, happen to show the qualities of a primitive moral structure. They are capable of showing compassion, self sacrifice, and they have social rules. ID does not dispute evolution just its mechanisms so I do not think I am in error calling apes our closest evolutionary cousins. When we take hunter gatherer societies that have been studied we see a much more complex moral system but one that is not quite as complex as our own. We have no reason to think that they have changed that significantly. They may be removed in time, but they are not removed in technology our means of survival. They are removed from practically everything that we can look back to in history and point to as a cause for change. Whether some are long lost remnants of civilizations that left no proof of their existence is pretty speculative, but to assume that every hunter gatherer society studied is so would be a bit problematic. Even if that were the case those people were still living the same way ergo under the same rules of survival that primitive man was. We then have the last ten thousand years of human civilization through which we see a gradual though not constant increase in complexity of social mores, religious doctrines of morality, and societal institutions of law. It does not seem too circular to take a linear progression of events to show that a gradual change of sorts took place. The argument I did profer that is circular was the "can you imagine a human society without morality?" Well can you? I sure can't. The fact that its circular does not necessarily make it a moot point. If you want data to back all that up I'll let you know when I have a few spare years. I'm just going on what I know from my education in history and anthroplogy which were respectively an underghraduate major and an undergraduate minor of mine.jmcd
March 21, 2007
March
03
Mar
21
21
2007
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
Follow-up: I note JMCD: evolutionary theory does not touch on morality . . . . Morality certainly predates civilization. Contemporary hunter gatherer groups have or had well developed structures of morality . . . . human morality predates montheism by tens of thousands of years (far longer then the first known monotheistic religions have existed). We also see the beginnigs of human morality in the animal kingdom including empathy and arguably altruism. . . . . As civilization dawned and our social interactions became more varied and complex so has our moral sense. 1] Do you not see that you have in the main argued in a circle, and have by adverting to an existing evolutionary theory based account of morality, contradicted your self? 2] Now, too, my primary point has to do with evolutionary materialism as the worldview core holding together the belt of evolutionary models and theories from hydrogen to humans. That account of reality is self-referentially incosistent [cf links above], starting with accounting for the credibility of mind. 3] Problems with accounting for morality and the reality of obligation are derived therefrom, e.g. if our sense of obligation to do the right is an illusion, why should we trust other senses such as that one argument makes sense and antother does not? Especially, if our thoughts are at most epiphenomena deriving from adaptive survival processes. [Address the Plantinga point, in short.] 4] Contemporary hunter-gatherer groups are not properly evidence on original human society, as they are at least as removed in time as "Civilised" groups are. They could be "survivors" of civilisational catastrophes, etc. The linguistic complexity of the languages of many so-called primitive cultures, makes the thesis further questionable. 5] Similarly, the assumed evolutionary account of religions is question-begging. What about the often encounteres missiological phenomenon, of animism where a High God [often then recognised as the Biblical God] is known, but the demons/gods have to be placated by various rituals. Much of the success of modern missions has been because Christianity was seen as the initiative of the High God to break the power of the demons. {Also cf the story of the Karen of Burma here, on survival of primitive monotheism thatanticipated the coming ofa message fromt eh True God, then welcomed Adinoram Judson et al as the expected and prophesied messengers of that God. They are the most Christian people group in the world today. Nor is this an isolated case.] 6] The assertion that the beginnings of human morality -- which is based on conscience and reasoning linked to the sense of right and wrong and obligation -- can be discerned in animal behaviour, is first circular. Second, it is anthropomorphising or worse reductionist. 7] Kindly document your reconstructed "history" of the rise ogf morality on data independent of evolutionary theorising and associated chronologies. Absent such, you are simply arguing in a circle again. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 21, 2007
March
03
Mar
21
21
2007
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PDT
For one thing evolutionary theory does not touch on morality. I also do not share the same roadblocks for a natural explanation for morality. Morality certainly predates civilization. Contemporary hunter gatherer groups have or had well developed structures of morality. The penalties for immoral behavior ranged from temporary social ostracization until behavior was changed to permamnent group ostracization for serious infractions. I cannot imagine how humans could function together without a moral sense. It may be very important for many of us to see morality as coming from God, but we should understand that human morality predates montheism by tens of thousands of years (far longer then the first known monotheistic religions have existed). We also see the beginnigs of human morality in the animal kingdom including empathy and arguably altruism. This is a point I have made here before, but there is a fortuitously timed article in the NYTimes today concerning that very question. Its not great but not altogether bad for pop sci writing either. As civilization dawned and our social interactions became more varied and complex so has our moral sense. I do not think that a hunter gatherer thought with the same moral complexity that we do today, but I also do not see a problem getting from there to here.jmcd
March 20, 2007
March
03
Mar
20
20
2007
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
Hi folks: I see I need to follow up a bit: 1] Evo Mat., re JMCD: I don’t see how it is at all self refuting if morals are indeed a natural and necessary by product of human society. First, a big "if" indeed. Then, the links above show why I was speaking of the general self-refuting nature of evolutionary materialism as a WORLDVIEW. For, it undermines the very reliability of the minds that we need to make materialist arguments. Darwin's remark on whether we should trust the ruminations of an overgrown monkey brain are still very much with us. [Cf the recent book on C S Lewis' dangerous idea, etc. Plantinga has some very interesting arguments on this too. So do many others. This is a real issue for materialism and any other theory that reduces mind to deterministic and/or chance forces. One can -- counting out for the moment [for the sake of this reductio argument] the issues over generating CSI, account for adaptive responses, but not for credibility of our abstract thought world.] That is, the worldview core of the evolutionary materialist research programme is self-referentially and irretrievably inconsistent. So, it cannot account for mind, the very minds we use to think the required thoughts. 2] If morals are required by definition to transcend humanity then yes they would be illusory. If on the other hand morals are rules within societies to allow socially complex beings to function together somewhat productively then morals are certainly not illusory. We come here to the corollary, that morals, as a thought system, become incoherent under evo mat worldview assumptions. First, moral-ITY is not to be confused with mores, regulations and laws etc. Societies have rules and they sometimes help them work, but that is not at all the same as the issue: are we in actuality -- not justr illusory perception -- morally OBLIGATED? [And if we are THAT deluded, why should we trust our brains as they secrete thoughts as the liver secretes bile . . .?] A glance at a typical quarrel will show the difference: we perceive a moral law of fairness,and it is pretty much universal. Nor, do we reject that, batting it aside as a lion bats aside the bleat of a gazelle. [Predator-prey patterns and rules work pretty well too . . . as measured by survival of the fittest: the slowest lion has to be faster than the slowest gazelle or he will starve,and the fastest gazelle has better be faster than the fastest lion too.] 3] A test case or a few: Just this week past we here in Montserrat were dicussing the story of Olaudah Equiano, on the 200th anniversary of the law that brought about the ending of the Atlantic slave trade in the teeth of powerful economic and military interests. Here is his central plea, fr Ch 2:
I remember in the vessel in which I was brought over, in the men's apartment, there were several brothers, who, in the sale, were sold in different lots; and it was very moving on this occasion to see and hear their cries at parting. O, ye nominal Christians! might not an African ask you, learned you this from your God, who says unto you, Do unto all men as you would men should do unto you? Is it not enough that we are torn from our country and friends to toil for your luxury and lust of gain? Must every tender feeling be likewise sacrificed to your avarice? Are the dearest friends and relations, now rendered more dear by their separation from their kindred, still to be parted from each other, and thus prevented from cheering the gloom of slavery with the small comfort of being together and mingling their sufferings and sorrows? Why are parents to lose their children, brothers their sisters, or husbands their wives? Surely this is a new refinement in cruelty, which, while it has no advantage to atone for it, thus aggravates distress, and adds fresh horrors even to the wretchedness of slavery . . .
So, why did the British lion listen to this puny bleating African gazelle? [The first listed subscriber to the book was the Prince of Wales.] Similarly, we can look at the arguments back-forth on racism [the Darwin-Hitler link is sadly well worth a sobering look], Marxism and revolutionism, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, and the gap between embryo-destructive stem cell research and ethical stem cell treatments, etc., multiplied by the media spin and propaganda games that are notoriously out there. In short, it is a massively substantiated fact that we understand ourselves to be morally obligated, especially when we are wronged. Evo mat makes no sense of that, for reasons detailed in the prev. linked. Other systems of thought including those tied to the historical origin of modern science, do make sense of that and do not run into the incoherences of materialism. Why then do we see even abuse of power to enforce the evo mat core and paradigm against those who advocate opening up the thinking to include the potential of Mind on origins related issues? [e.g. Sternberg, Gonzalez, Dover etc?] So, this is a multidimensional phil and public policy issue tied to the science one . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 20, 2007
March
03
Mar
20
20
2007
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT
OilBoy: "They are all a way of describing how the world works and are completely free of values. If we have any value it is completely independant of these disciplines, and instead a product of what we make of our time here on earth: our creativity, condideration to others, etc." This is what it ought to be like, but far from what it is like. kairosfocus' post gives a good assessment of this situation. Darwinism is not science, it is a philosophy of materialism - generally but not necessarily atheistic. That's why it's also called methodological naturalism. One of the glaring results of Darwinism is what Provine stated - as I quoted him above. Here it is again with more quotes from evolutionists on this matter:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. ~ William Provine [Darwins’s notebooks] include many statements showing that he espoused but feared to expose something he perceived as far more heretical than evolution itself: philosophical materialism — the postulate that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. ~ Stephen Jay Gould There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched. When Hull claimed that “the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials”, he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin’s theories. ~ Ernst Mayr We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubsantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover the materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. - Richard Lewontin- Harvard geneticist "to avoid saying how far I believe in materialism, say only that emotions, instincts, degrees of talent which are hereditary are so because brain of child resembles parent stock." - Darwin - private notes
As you can see these guys don't even try to hide this "dark side" of Darwinism any more. So clearly your statement Oilboy is wrong. One could quote volumes on these "beliefs" from virtually ALL of the Darwinist high priests. Anyone that doesn't think Darwinism is packed full of materialist, religious and moral implications needs to return to school and learn how to read and how to critically analyze words. You are gravely mistaken if you think it's just "evolution" as a mere "science" with no moral or religious underpinnings. Ideas have consequences. Seeing that Darwinism directly effects ones view of what a human is it has tragic consequences on human life. Unfortunately most Darwinists aren't smart enough to figure this out. Some see it but live in denial & pretend it isn't true. Or, finally, some being smart enough to see it, they themselves nevertheless live according to borrowed values - generally something derived from Judeo/Christian values. Darwinism has already had devastating consequences for humans. The story of Ota Benga, for example, is one of the many tragic fruits of Darwinism. Or abortion? Or how about the holocaust? See Richard Weikart's book "From Darwin to Hitler"Borne
March 19, 2007
March
03
Mar
19
19
2007
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT
kairos says: "The crux is, that in effect, if mind is the product of chance and/or necessity through cosmological, chemical and biological evolution then sociocultural development driven by those underlying forces, how we think and decide, thus morals a fortiori, are the mere products of a-rational or even irrational foces at play, so are delusional and/or utterly untrustworthy." Well that depends on your definition of morals. If morals are required by definition to transcend humanity then yes they would be illusory. If on the other hand morals are rules within societies to allow socially complex beings to function together somewhat productively then morals are certainly not illusory. Our continued existence is proof of their efficacy. kairos concludes: " Thus, evolutionary materialism is self refuting and entails that our word of thought is a matter of might makes truth and right." I don't see how it is at all self refuting if morals are indeed a natural and necessary by product of human society. As far as might making truth and right, well that has essentially been the history of humanity. Hopefully we are at the beginning of an era where stability and cohabitation will continue to be more attractive then confrontation and violence. We probably won't see any post industrial countries going to war with one another thanks in no small order to the deterrence of nuclear retaliation. Again though it is self interest guiding a state's behavior and not the prevailing moral code of its citizenry.jmcd
March 19, 2007
March
03
Mar
19
19
2007
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
I recently presented a paper related to this subject at the EPS forum in February (see www.greer-heard.com under schedules). What I think we're seeing is an advanced form of skepticism as cosmologists valiantly attempt to build a model that lacks singularities, boundaries, boundary conditions, fine-tuning, etc. To do so requires the abandonment of the reality of time and causation. See, for example, Julian Barbour's "The End of Time". The truly interesting part of this is that it requires abandoning the concept of evolution (i.e. 'things change with respect to time as described by reliable laws of physics'). Since biological macroevolution is a special case of this larger type of evolution, that puts cosmologists directly at odds with biologists. At the conference I asked ID critic Keith Parsons that, given this choice, which would he drop (Darwin or cosmology)? He indicated he would drop cosmology. Hence I am not at all surprised if a general skepticism developed with respect to cosmology.sinclairjd
March 19, 2007
March
03
Mar
19
19
2007
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
Hi OilBoy: I see your: Evolution,Science (or ‘Darwinism’/'materialism’ if you like) have NOTHING to say about ‘values’. The basic problem here is that: 1] there is an institutionally powerful and widely encountered evolutionary materialist research programme in science, which 2] has in it a belt of theories that "explain" origins from hydrogen to humans, but also, 3] As Lakatos points out, 4] Also has in it a worldviews core, namely materialism etc, that DOES have in it major implications relative to not only values but the basic credibility of the mind, etc. 5] There are many major discussions of this that can be accessed in libraries, bookstores or on the Internet. Try names like C S Lewis or Alvin Plantinga for a start. [Dawkins' The God Delusion is a telling case, from the other side.] Indeed, the very term "values" is in part reflective of the influence at work. For, formerly we spoke of MORAL TRUTHS, not mere "values." In my always linked [cf my name] there is a section that discusses these issues. I excerpt, desperately briefly:
Consider especially the issue that our direct intuitive knowledge that we think, decide and act may well be more certain than the theories that imply that such an experience is in effect an illusion, for thoughts and decisions are driven by deterministic and/or random forces. If that is so, how can you trust the chains of thought and reasoning that may have led you to decide to accept naturalism as true? . . . . quite often, adocates of evolutionary materialism are expecting us to believe in and act according to binding moral principles. Okay, on such premises, where do these principles come from?
The crux is, that in effect, if mind is the product of chance and/or necessity through cosmological, chemical and biological evolution then sociocultural development driven by those underlying forces, how we think and decide, thus morals a fortiori, are the mere products of a-rational or even irrational foces at play, so are delusional and/or utterly untrustworthy. Thus, evolutionary materialism is self refuting and entails that our word of thought is a matter of might makes truth and right. [Cf intro level discussion here and onward links.] Nor is it a simple matter of general consensus, that the relevant theories and models "are all a way of describing how the world works." Evolutionary materialism and its associated theories are highly controversial and open to serious challenges on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatoty power. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 19, 2007
March
03
Mar
19
19
2007
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT
To Borne, Yet again, the fixation on 'values'. Evolution,Science (or 'Darwinism'/'materialism' if you like) have NOTHING to say about 'values'. They are all a way of describing how the world works and are completely free of values. If we have any value it is completely independant of these disciplines, and instead a product of what we make of our time here on earth: our creativity, condideration to others, etc. Attributing 'values' to Science is like attributing value to a toaster.OilBoy
March 19, 2007
March
03
Mar
19
19
2007
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT
j : "As explained by kairosfocus, I don’t think that Pascal would disagree (nor would I)" I think you're right. Pascal was Christian so he knew well that thought alone did not constitute the only foundation for human value. I just wanted to add something to complete his statements there.Borne
March 18, 2007
March
03
Mar
18
18
2007
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT
Borne: "there is a problem in [Pascal's] reasoning here. ...proclaiming thought or intelligence as the end all answer to the equation of life value is arbitrary at best. Something greater is required. Something of far more enduring stuff, like soul, like being made in the image of God. Otherwise, there is no such thing as human dignity." As explained by kairosfocus, I don't think that Pascal would disagree (nor would I). I provided the Pascal quote because it seems align nicely with Denyse's post. (“ 'If you got rid of us, and all the stars and all the galaxies and all the planets and all the aliens and everybody, then the universe would be largely the same. We’re completely irrelevant.' ... Just think of all the areas of science that would not have got anywhere if the pioneers had taken such a view. The article argues that the universe may well be stranger than scientists can ever hope to understand. ... I don’t go along with the underlying pessimistic assumption that maybe our limited senses prevent us from understanding these things. ... Just think of all the areas of science that would not have got anywhere if the pioneers had taken such a view.") But to draw conclusions about it, the quote must, of course, be taken in the context of Pascal's other "pensées".j
March 18, 2007
March
03
Mar
18
18
2007
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
"Cosmologists often refer to this possibility as “the ultimate Copernican revolution”" Don't they teach these cosmologists (or the idiot writing the original article) anything ? The "Copernican principle" they are alluding too here is based on a gross misunderstanding of the history of science. I'm not sure I could trust anybody this ignorant with predictions about anything.Jason Rennie
March 18, 2007
March
03
Mar
18
18
2007
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: I fully agree. And that was my whole point. :-O I'm still trying to figure out how people could have misconstrued my meaning. Or perhaps I misunderstood theirs?!!? Whatever...Darwinists don't have a bloody clue as to where the value of life forms - any life forms - begins or ends. Materialism fails as a safeguard to human dignity and human rights and moral values - all across the board. Relativism is their only option... Unless they claim to be "theistic evolutionists" - which imo, is almost as useless and constitutes "sucking up to Darwin" to avoid persecution and conflict. Thanks for stating my position with more clarity. ;-)Borne
March 18, 2007
March
03
Mar
18
18
2007
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
I'm sorry to see some misunderstanding here as regards my comments. Perhaps I take too much for granted. First OilBoy: "Why do we have to constantly consider ourselves as having greater (or lesser) value than others ? Surely we should simply be considerate of others (in our or other species), regardless of whether they have inherited ‘value’." I'm afraid you've mis-interpreted me. My statements refer to the human race. Not the value of a particular individual. My whole point is that all human life has equal value. And for good reasons that Darwinists don't have. --------------------- DaveScot: I must admit I'm rather surprised by this response. "There’s no reason why the earth should have more value than Jupiter under the law of gravity. That doesn’t make gravity wrong and neither does your assertion put a dent in whether or not Darwinian theory is true." Your reasoning here escapes me and appears irrelevant to my purpose. What do planets have to do with this? We're talking about the value of human life vs the value of other life and other things under ID vs Darwinism. Clearly humans have more value than worms. Christ said, "you are of more value than a flock of sparrows" Why? So, my "assertion" being founded in the words of Christ is hardly an assertion. But a fact. Of course if you don't believe in him or his words that statement is moot. But humans do have far more value than worms or sparrows. And that value is not based solely upon intelligence. Or, would you care to explain why it wrong to gratuitously kill humans and not worms? On the other hand, Darwinism can assign no real value to life at all. Why? Because Darwinism claims that all of life is mere matter + energy working through natural law. It says spirit or soul does not exist. Darwinists claim that nothing more exists - that's why we call them materialists. In their blinded minds there is no soul or spirit and even mind is nothing but bio-chemical reactions in the material of the brain. If that is true, and I'm saying it is not in case you didn't figure that out, then life has no more intrinsic value than dirt. So what is the foundation of assigning value to life forms under Darwinism? No matter what answer they attempt, Dawkins and Provine et cie. will still be whining with their usual tripe like :
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.
~ William Provine But if that statement is true, where does a higher value for human life come from? It all becomes arbitrary or as Provine states "proximate" - i.e. it's value may change at will. Thus Darwinism fails miserably here. And their whole house of cards comes tumbling down since morals collapse as well seeing they correspond with the value of life. The logical conclusions of Darwinism undo all purpose, moral values and even reason itself since under the twisted Darwinian view reason itself is the consequence of non rational causes and thus as Lewis said "it [naturalism] cuts it's own throat" ID on the other hand ID can posit real values on life simply because it purports that life was designed by a supremely intelligent being with purpose and who quite obviously made humans of a higher level than worms. Surprised you seem to disagree. I suggest you re-evaluate your view of the foundations of the value of life and the destructive consequences they bring to Darwinism or...maybe you should join the Darwinist camp and tell us that we are mere animals?Borne
March 18, 2007
March
03
Mar
18
18
2007
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
Hi Borne: I see: If thought (or even intelligence) is the basis of human dignity where will the insane, the comatose or trisomic find their worth? . . . . Something greater is required. Something of far more enduring stuff, like soul, like being made in the image of God. Otherwise, there is no such thing as human dignity. I expected someone else would have picked up overnight. First, Pascal -- a Christian, Jansenist Catholic thinker -- was adverting to the broad fact of mind as a manifestation of the human spirit, and as pointing to the Origin of that spirit. In that context the disabled, etc have the same innate dignity as the rest of us as they derive from the sme origin, and are simply suffering a handicap. To abuse the handicapped obviously is then utterly without basis,and indeed the history of Judaeo-Christian charity is a witness on this. (Sadly, the history of people within such a worldview who failed to live up to its ethics is sustantial evidence for a core biblical doctrine: the fallenness of man, and our need through penitence and persistence in the path of good to walk to not away from, the light.) It is materialists who have to trace the worth of the human being within their impoverished worldview, and run into a lot of trouble in so doing. For, the ought is not derivable from a mere physical is. Arthur Holmes, in the book, Ethics in the IVP series on phil, said it well:
However we may define the good, however well we may calculate consequences, to whatever extent we may or may not desire certain consequences, none of this of itself implies any obligation of command. That something is or will be does not imply that we ought to seek it. We can never derive an “ought” from a premised “is” unless the ought is somehow already contained in the premise . . . . R. M. Hare . . . raises the same point. Most theories, he argues, simply fail to account for the ought that commands us: subjectivism reduces imperatives to statements about subjective states, egoism and utilitarianism reduce them to statements about consequences, emotivism simply rejects them because they are not empirically verifiable, and determinism reduces them to causes rather than commands . . . . Elizabeth Anscombe’s point is well made. We have a problem introducing the ought into ethics unless, as she argues, we are morally obligated by law – not a socially imposed law, ultimately, but divine law . . . . This is precisely the problem with modern ethical theory in the West . . . it has lost the binding force of divine commandments.[Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions (Downers Grove, IL: 1984), pp. 70 – 72.]
The force of this, he also points out, comes out as soon as we look at the pivotal issue of rights: If we admit that we all equally have the right to be treated as persons, then it follows that we have the duty to respect one another accordingly. Rights bring correlative duties: my rights . . . imply that you ought to respect these rights. [p. 81] For the only sustainable foundation for rights is ethical: morally binding claims we make on one antoher in light of our inherent dignity as humans created in God's image to fulfill his call on our lives. So, one has no proper basis for interfering with another person as s/he seeks to fulfill that awesome potential adn calling. Once that insight is lost in the culture, rights disintegrate into essentially pointless and inconsistent political power games. As, is now all too plainly happening. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 18, 2007
March
03
Mar
18
18
2007
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
There is no reason why humans should have more life value than worms under Darwinism. There's no reason why the earth should have more value than Jupiter under the law of gravity. That doesn't make gravity wrong and neither does your assertion put a dent in whether or not Darwinian theory is true.DaveScot
March 18, 2007
March
03
Mar
18
18
2007
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply