Malicious Intelligent Design and Questions of the Old Testament God

_{Salvador Cordova

September 2, 2012

Philosophy, Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

“The Lord God is subtle, but he is not malicious.”
Einstein

“I have second thoughts. Maybe God is malicious.”
Einstein

Can the Intelligent Designer of life create malicious designs? If the flagellum and other parts of bacteria are intelligently designed, it would raise the question whether microbially-based diseases and plagues are intelligently designed. It seems the best inference from the evidence is that even malicious designs are also intelligently designed.

How can we resolve the problem of malicious design with intelligent design? There are a number of ways some have come to terms with this. The following list is not exhaustive by any means, just slapped together:

0. there is no intelligent design, so it’s not a problem

1. the intelligent designer of malicious designs is malicious, so it’s not a problem, he’s just a bit more malicious than we suppose

2. ID doesn’t have anything to say about bad design or malicious design

3. postpone trying to find an answer and study other questions

4. if the intelligent designers are Extraterrestrials (like Hoyle supposes), they are under no obligation to be benevolent and could well be malevolent

5. there is a benevolent intelligent designer (God) and malevolent intelligent designer (the devil)

6. the intelligent designer is indifferent to our notions of malice, so he essentially doesn’t care

7. some other solution (let the UD commenters offer their opinion)

Now, supposing that the Old Testament God is the Intelligent Designer, Richard Dawkins famously said of the supposed malice of God:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

To which David Berlinski responded, “These are, to my way of thinking, striking points in God’s favor.”

Given that the Old Testament is full of examples of God sending (if not creating) cruel plagues, it stands to reason, from a theological standpoint, malicious design exists. Even in the New Testament, Jesus describes all sorts of malicious Intelligent Design visiting humanity in the form of plagues. Death being visited on Ananias and Saphira, blindness descending on Elymas the Sorcerer, worms eating Herod, and all the plagues of the Apocalypse.

So from the standpoint of Christian theology, God creates malicious designs. If you’re not a Christian, then trying to solve problem of malicious design and the notion of a loving God isn’t a problem. But if you are a Christian, then the explanation of why all the bad things in the world are happening cries out for an answer. I’ve stated before, that one possible explanation is that God makes heaven more meaningful by making the present world miserable. (See 2 Cor 4:17 and Romans 8:20).

But then, what about the genocide in the Old Testament, how is that justified? Even though this is not strictly a question about ID, the objection to genocide in the Old Testament is still used against ID, so I feel it is worthwhile addressing. The materialist critics have raised the issue in UD threads, and I feel it would be helpful to provide responses to their difficult questions.

Surely it would break my heart if I were in the Old Testament and had to do the things that God commanded the children of Israel to do in the conquest of Canaan. Were they murderers for doing what they did? Well, are executioners charged with carrying out justice, murderers? I say no. If the children of Israel were merely the executioners of God’s judgment, then they aren’t murderers.

But how then can God find such guilt in little babies that He should feel justified in destroying them in the way the children of Israel carried out His judgment? One solution is to say that God doesn’t find guilt in the children, and that they died for some other reason. For those that accept ID is true, but don’t believe the Bible is God’s word, a solution is to say that the children of Israel were murderers and that the Old Testament is just spinning their acts of genocide to be something good. Surely everyone has an opinion on the matter, and I will not venture to say who is right or wrong. Few answers are consoling, and perhaps the right answer is even terrifying.

How is it possible God finds guilt in a little baby? I will venture my humble opinion by saying God left answers for us in the pictures of intelligently designed biology. When we exterminate other creatures for our own good will and pleasure (like that rat or cockroach), we don’t think of ourselves being unjust, in fact, just the opposite. Hard as it is to accept, perhaps in the scheme of things, humans apart from God’s mercy and love, are like those detestable cockroaches which we give no thought to exterminating.

Did the cockroach suffer cruelly when I terminated its life? Yes, but in the scheme of what I view as the greater good, my malicious act toward the cockroach was a good thing. He may not think so, but I do. In like manner perhaps, we are a lot less “good” in the universal scheme of things than we suppose.

What, if in fact, we are the villains in the Divine Drama without realizing it. God’s grace is the grace that enlightens us to our true position in the scheme of things. Apart from his mercy, perhaps we’re not as deserving of His goodness as we presume. So if God terminates someone’s life, even if by human standards it seems horribly cruel, in the end that is not the standard by what He judges as good or bad. Sometimes we don’t know if the suffering is because of one’s guilt in God’s eyes or if God had a higher purpose (as was the case in Jobs life).

Thus when God ends the life of humans violently (be it through natural disasters or wars or plagues), he has a right to do so. He may recruit the forces of nature, microbes, humans or various malicious intelligent designs to execute judgment. That is my view, and it is not a popular one, but if the intelligent designer of life is the intelligent designer of the plagues that destroyed Egypt and the plagues that will continue to injure humanity, it would seem He is an Intelligent Designer that is to be feared.

The question then is how we can find it in ourselves to love a God who can do these things? This would almost seem like asking a cockroach to worship me after I just exterminated its family! Now, if we feel we deserve a good life and heaven, I suppose it would be hard to love God, but if we feel we deserve a bad life and hell, and instead are granted eternal life, our viewpoint changes, and it becomes possible to love God.

But, those are my views, and I don’t mean to argue that they should be the views of the readers, or that I’m even close to being right. I’m sure many will find my solution to the problem of malicious design and an Old Testament God an awful solution. That’s fine, but we can’t run away from the evident fact of malicious design, and if the Intelligent Designer is the Old Testament God, we can’t run away from the fact of the malicious designs he has created in this world.

NOTES:
At UD the following related essays have been offered:

0. Craig crushes Ayala

1. The Shallowness of Bad Design Arguments

2. The Reason for Imperfect Self-Destructing Designs — Passover and Easter Thoughts

3. Is suffering in the world evidence against Intelligent Design?

4. Contingencies for failed designs: Airplane magnetos, contingency designs, and reasons ID will prevail

[Update 9/3/2012 9:30 PM EST: Eric Anderson was kind enough to point out Barry’s thread on William Lane Craig, the OP now includes a link to that thread]

[Update 9/4/2012 9:40 AS EST: added a link to the “Passover Post” HT: Butifnot]

Comments

I wrote this to a friend and fellow-believer some time ago FWIW to the discussion here:
The way I see it, what the question boils down to is: "If God is good and could have fashioned creation any way He liked, why is there so much evil in the world that He decided to create?" The answer that seems evident from the scope of the record in God's Word of humankind's redemption, is that God is SO GOOD that He created a cosmos in which ETERNAL consequences would be at stake among those beings to whom He gave the responsibility of free will. Consequences which would revolve around good and evil in a world that is REAL. In other words, it is "good" that people have the responsibility to choose. Especially when you account for the fact that they are doing so in a world which -- by so loving it that "He gave His only-begotten Son" (John 3:16) to save it -- God Almighty has expressed in unmistakable terms His all-out no-holds-barred COMMITMENT to the good. A lot of theologians have gotten that far. But like so many answers in the Word, it's incomplete if you stop in the Gospels. You've got to go to the pinnacle of the revelation to the Church -- and indeed of the whole Book -- which is Ephesians. Specifically, the answer is in Ephesians 3 -- and the whole chapter pertains. But what I would point out here is in verses 10 and 11. From the Greek they read in a slightly "expanded" form (my rendering):
10- For the intended purpose that now unto the rulers and authorities in the spirit realm might be known by the called-out [the Church] the infinitely diversified wisdom of God, 11- According to the Purpose of the Ages which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Because of what the Church of the Body IS -- for all the evil and destruction that would ensue when first the Adversary and then Adam fell -- when God foresaw what the Church of the Body would BE, He determined in all His goodness -- which is LIMITLESS -- that this creation would be, by His own mercy and grace, THE BEST of all possible creations that He could have spoken into being. That's why the Devil would have left Christ alone had he known the Mystery (I Corinthians 2:8). And that's why, "in the ages to come," it will take all eternity for Him to "shew us the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us [in the Body of Christ] through Christ Jesus" that Ephesians 2:7 talks about. What a hope we have, my brother.
jstanley01_{September 15, 2012
September
09
Sep
15
15
2012
12:34 AM
12
12
34
AM
PDT}

This post is worse than useless. "Where were you when I formed the foundations of the earth?" And who are we to question the justice of God?allanius_{September 12, 2012
September
09
Sep
12
12
2012
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

Maliciousness is an intent. The only way to know the intent of God for creation is to read the Bible. Genesis 1:11 clearly states that God created the first living things; grass, herbs, etc.; with the seeds in them. One can conclude from this that all of creation was to have generations, or a cycle of life and death. So, is this creation, where death is a design feature be considered malicious? I think not. It was God's choice how to create the universe. He decided that a relationship for a finite time with one person would not be satisfactory. I can see this inferring how big His brain must be from the infinite complexity of nature. So there is pain, and death, but there is also immense depth to our experience of life. God also gives us eternal life. Finally, pain prevents us from hurting ourselves, physically and spiritually. So I don't see how someone can not understand that creation, with all its suffering was created by a loving God.Peter_{September 11, 2012
September
09
Sep
11
11
2012
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

In the light of the dilemma of the infinite regress versus dogmatism...
Can't be that much of a dilemma.Mung_{September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

WJM: You asked about the origin of the information; it is either an irrelevant scientific question in terms of the phenomena being explained, or it is a philosophical question. As I pointed out, It's relevant if one want's to replace Darwinism with the current crop of ID as a scientific theory. You're free to personally believe whatever you want. WJM: In scientific terms, we don’t trail all cause and effect sequences back to ultimate origins. While it might be interesting to find out from an arsonist where they got their information about how to set fires, it’s irrelevant to the discovery of what was responsible for the fire. You're assuming that "origin" must refer to some ultimate cause, which is a strawman. Darwinism fits under the umbrella of Popper's universal theory of the growth of knowledge. Specifically, the knowledge in question is genuinely created, rather than having existed in some form at the offset. WJM: Because “how the knowledge was created” isn’t at issue, any more than “how gravity was created” or “where the arsonist’s knowledge came from” is relevant to those investigations. First, your analogy is flawed as not all fires are caused by arsonists. Second, I take it you're not an investigator, as the origin of knowledge an arsonist used to create the fire could be relevant in identifying them. For example, if a structure is burnt down using knowledge that only a specific number of scientists could have created (adapting it in a way to burn down that specific structure) we could then check the whereabouts of those scientists at the time of the fire, etc. However, it's unclear why they would actually do this, rather than use some well known way of burning down the structure, as it would as if they left a finger print at the scene. One possible reason is that the structure might be build in such a way that only that knowledge could burn it down. CR: “So, all designer-less theories are “cause and effect” theories? If so, what are theories that *do* contain designers?” WJM: No, I said all cause-and-effect theories go back to “just appeared” or “infinite regress” (or a third, which I omitted – a causeless cause), including design theories. Which is an argument from ignorance. From the following essay on Critical Rationalism… 3. Responses to the dilemma of the infinite regress versus dogmatism In the light of the dilemma of the infinite regress versus dogmatism, we can discern three attitudes towards positions: relativism, “true belief” and critical rationalism [Note 3] Relativists tend to be disappointed justificationists who realise that positive justification cannot be achieved. From this premise they proceed to the conclusion that all positions are pretty much the same and none can really claim to be better than any other. There is no such thing as the truth, no way to get nearer to the truth and there is no such thing as a rational position. True believers embrace justificationism. They insist that some positions are better than others though they accept that there is no logical way to establish a positive justification for an belief. They accept that we make our choice regardless of reason: "Here I stand!". Most forms of rationalism up to date have, at rock bottom, shared this attitude with the irrationalists and other dogmatists because they share the theory of justificationism. According to the critical rationalists, the exponents of critical preference, no position can be positively justified but it is quite likely that one (or more) will turn out to be better than others in the light of critical discussion and tests. This type of rationality holds all its positions and propositions open to criticism and a standard objection to this stance is that it is empty; just holding our positions open to criticism provides no guidance as to what position we should adopt in any particular situation. This criticism misses its mark for two reasons. First, critical rationalism is not a position. It is not directed at solving the kind of problems that are solved by fixing on a position. It is concerned with the way that such positions are adopted, criticised, defended and relinquished. Second, Bartley did provide guidance on adopting positions; we may adopt the position that to this moment has stood up to criticism most effectively. Of course this is no help for people who seek stronger reasons for belief, but that is a problem for them, and it does not undermine the logic of critical preference. Do you see the difference here? WJM: In a designer theory, the designer is claimed to be a necessary cause for the effect. I'm well aware of the claim. My point is the designer doesn't add to the explanation. it's a form of justificationism. WJM: Let’s say we are looking for the origin of a certain artifact, and we come to the conclusion that a designer used some tools to create a stone wheel. Again, we're getting ahead of ourselves, as you've leaped to the conclusion that a designer was involved. Furthermore, you've already referenced knowledge by indicating some form of tool was used, rather than using fast running water, heat, acid or some other means of adapting the stone into a wheel. If you do not know how to use that tool, you can't use it to adapt stone into a wheel. If you incorrectly guess how to use the tool, the resulting wheel might be defective or misshaped in a way that reflects the application of that incorrect assumption. In addition, we have explanatory theories about how people create knowledge. So, it would seem that you've discounted the role that knowledge plays in adapting matter. WJM: You’re the one who is confused. ID is not a theory of “where knowledge comes from”, but rather a theory of identifying where knowledge was necessarily applied towards the solution of a problem. That's my point. I'm not confused, as ID doesn't explain how the knowledge in question was created. If it did, *then* I would have been confused about ID. WJM: Much like astrophysicists infer by deviations from the expected data that some mass in the area is affecting light or other objects – it’s how we discovered several planets and poorly lit stars and why we theorized the existence of dark matter. Again, see my opening comment as to why ID isn't the best explanation. WJM: If biological phenomena require intelligence to exist, then it’s a necessary part of the explanation. That's a big if. The rest of your comment represents justification in that it assumes knowledge comes from an authoritative source.critical rationalist_{September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Where ants unsquashable?
No, they were just a lot quicker and could move out of the way in time.
Fire ants are omnivorous, but their primary diet consists of insects and other invertebrates. Predatory activities of fire ants suppress populations of ticks, chiggers, caterpillars and other insects.
Before the fall they just went hungry.Mung_{September 6, 2012
September
09
Sep
6
06
2012
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

If animals didn't die before the fall what happened to bugs when you stepped on them? Where ants unsquashable?roundsquare_{September 5, 2012
September
09
Sep
5
05
2012
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

1) Malicious design is punishment 2) God probably had a morally sufficient reason for designing bacteria and viruses.roundsquare_{September 5, 2012
September
09
Sep
5
05
2012
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

As to: "Other ethical basis might be enlightened best interest,society functioning under certain guidelines,much as the Ten Commandments provide." actually, as Mr. Murray pointed out, that argument fails big time: Much like the absolute truth claims of materialists, neo-Darwinists cannot maintain a consistent identity towards a stable, unchanging, cause for objective morality within their lives;
The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris's moral landscape argument – William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL_vAH2NIPc
related notes on the failure of absolute truth claims for materialists:
Self-Refuting Belief Systems - Cornelius Hunter - September 2012 Excerpt: Relativism states that there are no absolute truths, but if true then that statement is an absolute truth. Likewise the statement that evolution is a fact, if true, means that we cannot know evolution to be a fact. Why? Because with evolution our minds are nothing more than molecules in motion—an accidental biochemistry experiment which has yielded a set of chemicals in a certain configuration. This leads to what Darwin called “the horrid doubt”: "But then with me 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." Darwin to Graham, William - 3 July 1881 Today evolutionists agree that while a random collection of chemicals doesn’t know anything, nonetheless over long time periods and under the action of natural selection, phenomena which we refer to as knowledge, will and consciousness will spontaneously emerge. And how do we know this? Because evolution occurred and we know that it occurred. Therefore evolution must have created the phenomena of knowledge. The proof is left to the student. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/09/self-refuting-belief-systems.html “One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the popular scientific philosophy]. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears… unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.” —C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry (aka the Argument from Reason) Do the New Atheists Own the Market on Reason? - On the terms of the New Atheists, the very concept of rationality becomes nonsensical - By R. Scott Smith, May 03, 2012 Excerpt: If atheistic evolution by NS were true, we'd be in a beginningless series of interpretations, without any knowledge. Yet, we do know many things. So, naturalism & atheistic evolution by NS are false -- non-physical essences exist. But, what's their best explanation? Being non-physical, it can't be evolution by NS. Plus, we use our experiences, form concepts and beliefs, and even modify or reject them. Yet, if we're just physical beings, how could we interact with and use these non-physical things? Perhaps we have non-physical souls too. In all, it seems likely the best explanation for these non-physical things is that there exists a Creator after all. http://www.patheos.com/Evangelical/Atheists-Own-the-Market-on-Reason-Scott-Smith-05-04-2012?offset=1&max=1 Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? ('inconsistent identity' of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” J. B. S. Haldane ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.
bornagain77_{September 5, 2012
September
09
Sep
5
05
2012
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Velikovskys, Yes, we know that many people base their ethical behavior on "other criteria", but that ultimately begs the question, "how do they judge what criteria should be used to base their ethical behavior on?" You cite "enlightened best interest", but fail to explain by what standard of "enlightenment" or "best", then mention "certain guidelines" without explaining why anyone should adopt them. If we do not assume there to be an external, factual "good", then ultimately all ethics boil down to "because I say so" or "because I feel like it", covered up with a bunch of mealy-mouthed excuses, emotional pleading, concept stealing (Ten Commandments, indeed) and question-begging. Rationally, one is either a moral objectivist, or a moral solipsist. Moral solipsists rarely have the guts to admit it, though.William J Murray_{September 5, 2012
September
09
Sep
5
05
2012
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

BA, Neither, you seem to be under the impression that values only derive from God word, for you perhaps but for many people ethical behavior is based on other criteria. Now the question seems to be ,by what right do we have to enforce one's morality on another. You, because it is written in a book,written by subjective humans, purportedly under divine inspiration. Other ethical basis might be enlightened best interest,society functioning under certain guidelines,much as the Ten Commandments provide.velikovskys_{September 5, 2012
September
09
Sep
5
05
2012
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

critical rationalists said: "So, intelligent design explicitly claims the designer is God? However, this conflicts with claims that ID is agnostic about the designer, including those here on this blog." You asked about the origin of the information; it is either an irrelevant scientific question in terms of the phenomena being explained, or it is a philosophical question. In scientific terms, we don't trail all cause and effect sequences back to ultimate origins. While it might be interesting to find out from an arsonist where they got their information about how to set fires, it's irrelevant to the discovery of what was responsible for the fire. I answered the philosophical question because the scientific one is irrelevant, as I pointed out later. critical rationalists said: "My point is that neither of them actually explain how the knowledge was created. Adding a designer to the mix doesn’t add to the explanation." Because "how the knowledge was created" isn't at issue, any more than "how gravity was created" or "where the arsonist's knowledge came from" is relevant to those investigations. critical rationalists said: "So, all designer-less theories are “cause and effect” theories? If so, what are theories that *do* contain designers?" No, I said all cause-and-effect theories go back to "just appeared" or "infinite regress" (or a third, which I omitted - a causeless cause), including design theories. In a designer theory, the designer is claimed to be a necessary cause for the effect. Let's say we are looking for the origin of a certain artifact, and we come to the conclusion that a designer used some tools to create a stone wheel. Where stone (in general, of any sort) came from, or how stone appeared in the world, or how the materials of the tools came to exist on Earth might be interesting questions that someone can follow up on, but they are irrelevant in the context of explaining the existence of the stone wheel. We know stone exists - how it came to exist is irrelevant to this investigation. We know intelligent designers exist - how they ultimately came to exist is also irrelevant to this particular problem. Where the unknown individual that made the stone wheel got their knowledge to create the wheel is irrelevant. We don't follow cause and effect and explanations back ad infinitum for any particular case, unless we are just philosophically exploring ultimate origins. critical rationalists said: "I’m pointing out that adding a designer doesn’t actually solve the question at hand." Inferring that an intelligent designer is a necessary part of the epxlanation isn't "adding" something that "doesn't solve the problem" any more than "adding" gravity "doesn't solve the problem" of planets orbiting the sun. Gravity is necessary to explain certain artifacts; intelligent design is necessary to explain certain artifacts. Perhaps it doesn't solve the question at hand in a way you want it to be solved - i.e., reduced to unintelligent, material interactions, or an ultimate explanation of what knowledge/intelligence is and where it comes from - but that's your ideological, selectively hypercritical issue. critical rationalists said: "This is why I asked, what explanation does ID present for how this knowledge was created? In the absence of such an explanation, it’s unclear why ID should replace Darwinism." You're the one who is confused. ID is not a theory of "where knowledge comes from", but rather a theory of identifying where knowledge was necessarily applied towards the solution of a problem. Much like astrophysicists infer by deviations from the expected data that some mass in the area is affecting light or other objects - it's how we discovered several planets and poorly lit stars and why we theorized the existence of dark matter. If biological phenomena require intelligence to exist, then it's a necessary part of the explanation. It might not add materialist closure and satisfaction, but it does contribute greatly to how further investigation should continue in light of that necessity. Let's say we find an strange object on another planet and begin investigating it, trying to find the cause for it. By your argument, it adds nothing to the scientific investigation of that object if we come to the conclusion that the object was designed by intelligence. It changes everything about how we investigate that object and opens up all sorts of new questions and investigatory opportunities. critical rationalists said: "Why don’t you start out by explaining how knowledge is created, then point out how Darwinism doesn’t’ fit that explanation." If "knowledge" is just whatever happenstance thought structures come into being by whatever physio-chemical processes happen to survive, then knowledge has nothing to do with any meaningful truth or fact - it's just whatever mental programming happens to be the best for survival. Thus, knowledge = survival programming, which has no necessary relationship to anything truthful or physically valid. If it is best for survival that we believe nonsensical, untrue things, then that is what we will believe and call knowledge - whether it is belief in norse gods or the scientific method. Without a premise of knowledge as something other than just whatever happenstance chemical interactions generate, something necessary and fundamental and related to actual truth, "knowledge" becomes nothing more than biochemical rhetoric; what you claim to "know" is no more meaningful or significant than what anyone in the history of the world has ever felt they "knew" - they're just patterns of varied leaves all generated by the same basic processes. Under Darwinism, there is no significant "knowledge", there is only biochemically produced, happenstance rhetoric, no different in nature than feces tossed by monkeys. None of us can live, much less debate, as if Darwinism generates knowledge; we all live, and debate, as if knowledge refers to and accesses truths that are valid regardless of what biochemical activity happens to produce in our heads. But that's a philosophical point argued by logic; under Darwinism, logic itself is just another evolutionary feature, no more fundamental or valid or true than gills or wings. It's just a set of thoughts chemicals in some primates happen to have produced. critical rationalists said: "Please be specific. Or perhaps your view that “God is the source of all knowledge” indicates you think knowledge isn’t created, but has always existed?" Knowledge isn't created, it is discovered. But again, that's a philosophical question. Note: all of your posts and arguments here are predicated upon knowledge and logic being something more than just a varied set of biochemical impulses that vary from person to person; they assume that we are trying to discover/come to the truth of the matter, and that it can be achieved in spite of bio-chemical programming to the contrary. If my views were actually accepted by you and atheistic materialists as nothing more than my particular biological programming wrought by aeons of natural evolution - the same as yours - you wouldn't argue or debate or try to convince anyone they are wrong, because it would be exactly like a maple leaf trying to convince a pecan tree leaf that it has the wrong shape. If there is no exterior truth, no final arbiter of what is "knowledge", then all you're doing here is rhetoric and sophistry, because everything I know and believe is just as valid, and valid in the same and only way validity exists, as you: It would be what Darwinistic forces happened to program into me with no regard for what would be, according to you, a non-existent standard of truth and knowledge. There's no way to arbit between your case and mine because they would both be nothing more than, and could be nothing more than, the material solipsism of biological programming and perspective.William J Murray_{September 5, 2012
September
09
Sep
5
05
2012
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

The problem is you are thinking as a dogmatist, to a relativist even relativity is relative.
And that is morally good or bad because?bornagain77_{September 5, 2012
September
09
Sep
5
05
2012
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT}

BA , Seven rules for relativists, The problem is you are thinking as a dogmatist, to a relativist even relativity is relative.velikovskys_{September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT}

William: It is premised that God is the source of knowledge – God knows everything that can be known, in the manner that it can be known. So, intelligent design explicitly claims the designer is God? However, this conflicts with claims that ID is agnostic about the designer, including those here on this blog. William: By your method of Occam’s Razor, the more economical explanation for everything is that it “just appeared” as it is when you observe it. I'm not advocating “just appeared”. Nor am I suggesting it's a better explanation. My point is that neither of them actually explain how the knowledge was created. Adding a designer to the mix doesn't add to the explanation. William: All cause and effect explanations eventually go back to either a “just appeared” or infinite regress … So, all designer-less theories are "cause and effect" theories? If so, what are theories that *do* contain designers? William: … so why be hypercritically selective of a designer here? I'm not "hypercritically selective of a designer". I'm pointing out that adding a designer doesn't actually solve the question at hand. It may solve some other problem you personally might want to solve, but not the question evolutionary theory addresses. William: Explanations of a phenomena need not (and indeed, do not) go back to those fundamental alternatives. Explanations need only go to necessary and sufficient explanations for that particular phenomena. You seem to be confused about my question, because that's not what I'm suggesting. We do not replace one theory with another unless the replacement has more explanatory power. This includes providing a better explanation for everything the preceding theory did, and possibility even more. This is why I asked, what explanation does ID present for how this knowledge was created? In the absence of such an explanation, it's unclear why ID should replace Darwinism. William: If the only cause we know of that is sufficient and apparently necessary to generate the phenomena in question is some kind of an intelligent designer, then what’s the problem – other than materialist/atheist ideology – in inferring that an intelligent designer generated the phenomena? First, see my first comment It's a bad explanation for the reasons I outlined. Second, Darwinism fits under the umbrella of Popper's universal theory of the growth of knowledge. It's our most current, best explanation in which knowledge is genuinely created, rather than having always existed or spontaneously appearing. Why don't you start out by explaining how knowledge is created, then point out how Darwinism doesn't' fit that explanation. Please be specific. Or perhaps your view that "God is the source of all knowledge" indicates you think knowledge isn't created, but has always existed?critical rationalist_{September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

This was a interesting article I just ran across: Seven Things You Can’t Do as a Moral Relativist by Greg Koukl Rule #1: Relativists Can’t Accuse Others of Wrong-Doing Rule #2: Relativists Can’t Complain About the Problem of Evil Rule #3: Relativists Can’t Place Blame or Accept Praise Rule #4: Relativists Can’t Claim Anything Is Unfair or Unjust Rule #5: Relativists Can’t Improve Their Morality Rule#6: Relativists Can’t Hold Meaningful Moral Discussions Rule #7: Relativists Can’t Promote the Obligation of Tolerance http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo1/koukl.phpbornagain77_{September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

JLAfan2001 @66: Agreed that Dawkins is incoherent. Also, I think you make a good point about Wilson and others who push the idea of group or kin selection. I have never seen anyone give a rational, coherent explanation of how that is supposed to work. Rather, it is an attempt to rationalize away the existence of altruism, charity, etc. And a poor attempt at that. But if one is a committed materialist and a committed Darwinist, unfortunately that is all the firepower they have at their disposal, so they do the best they can . . .Eric Anderson_{September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

JLAfan2001 @53:
Why would an all-powerful God create through a process that brings such suffering? If evolution and the age of the earth are true then God created through “the survival of the fittest” method which is very cruel.
Even if God created through some evolutionary process (which idea is not particulalry consistent with the evidence; that is, unless we define evolution so broadly as to be different from what most materialists think of when they think of evolution, but this is an aside . . .), why would it be cruel? What is it about survival of the fittest that is cruel? Survival of the fittest certainly has no role in creating. All survival of the fittest means in this context is that some creatures die earlier than others, with all creatures eventually dying anyway. Are you suggesting that the fact of death itself is cruel and that the only way existence would not be cruel is if there were no death?Eric Anderson_{September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

JLAfan2001, Care to explain *how* "atoms" wired together in a certain fashion produce consciousness? And how it is only a subset of those "atoms" in human brains that achieve this? (Since not all of the brain's neurons are related to conscious experience.) You can't, and neither can anyone else. At best, neuroscience has been able to show correlation, but not causation. Of course neuro networks in our brain are correlated with conscious states. But nobody has been able to demonstrate causation. Pure speculation at this point. Anything beyond that at this point is not science. So then, where is the scientific support for your assertion that evolution is "cruel?" You have none.CentralScrutinizer_{September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

Critical rationalist said: "This also leads me back to my earlier question. What is the origin of the knowledge the designer used to create the biological adaptations we observe? " It is premised that God is the source of knowledge - God knows everything that can be known, in the manner that it can be known. Critical rationalist said: "A designer that “just was”, complete with the knowledge of which genes would result in just the right proteins which would result in just the right biological features, already present, serves no explanatory purpose. This is because one could more economically state that organisms “just appeared”, compete with the knowledge of which genes would result in just the right proteins which would result in just the right biological features, already present." By your method of Occam's Razor, the more economical explanation for everything is that it "just appeared" as it is when you observe it. All cause and effect explanations eventually go back to either a "just appeared" or infinite regress, so why be hypercritically selective of a designer here? Explanations of a phenomena need not (and indeed, do not) go back to those fundamental alternatives. Explanations need only go to necessary and sufficient explanations for that particular phenomena. If the only cause we know of that is sufficient and apparently necessary to generate the phenomena in question is some kind of an intelligent designer, then what's the problem - other than materialist/atheist ideology - in inferring that an intelligent designer generated the phenomena? Where the designer got the knowledge to do what it did, or where the designer came from, is irrelevant to the point that it is the best explanation for something. I could equally insist that unless you can tell me where gravity came from, and why it is set at the value it is set at, then you have no business invoking it as an explanation for any observed phenomena.William J Murray_{September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

scordova:
But, those are my views, and I don’t mean to argue that they should be the views of the readers, or that I’m even close to being right.
Typical Salvador, Doesn't even mean to argue that he's even close to being right. Just spewing words, to no end. But forget about Malicious God's, what about malicious gods, people vested with too much power and too little self-restraint?Mung_{September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

Sal I am excited about your new website, very cool endeavor. Just a note to that other recent post - many YEC's, perhaps most YEC scientist even, were just creationists, of course, until they reexamined the evidence and found it,surprisingly, quite consistent with youth. nephesh chayyah, the breath of life that was given to invertebrates, seems like consciousness. God expressed sorrow that he would have had to destroy the animals in Nineveh. CR - Multiple-Designers has been well criticized. You're asserting that 'Darwinism' has any of the creative powers ascribed to it when it is only change-and-loss.butifnot_{September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

JLAfan2001 "Where's the value in that?" Where indeed? Yet it matters to us. So the altruism itself does have a value, which neither evolutionary theory explains adequately. I mentioned it to remind you that doubting Christianity because people disagree about it should lead you to doubt atheism for exactly the same reasons. But atheism really doesn't have an explanation for why values matter to us so much, but Christianity does. Explanatory power, that is. You talk about "the illusion of altruism and free will". Who exactly would that illusion be fooling? Is it our illusion of consciousness? In which case, who's being fooled by that illusion? "I only think I'm thinking" begs the same question - the brute fact is you can only have problems about it because you are really you. "Sometimes I almost feel on fire with the immensity of this: each of us is a person, alive, growing and relating," (Os Guinness, Doubt). Good book. You said earlier, "Perhaps it is just a series of atoms in our brain." Where does that "just" come from? If you discover that Shakespeare's plays are all made of letters, how does that detract from anything, or explain it? C S Lewis wrote in one of the Narnia stories about the children being introduced to a star. "In our world," one of them said, "a star is a ball of burning gases." The other replied, "Even in your world that is not what a star is, just what it is made of."Jon Garvey_{September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

On the other hand, a designer could have gone out of its way to accentuate its role in designing biological organisms. One way of doing so would be to create organisms in a way that conflicted with Darwinism. Was the designer surprised by the rise of Darwinism? Did the designer know Darwinism would arise, but could only design organisms in a way that collaborated it, rather than conflict with it? An abstract designer with no defined limitations doesn't need to be efficient, practical, cost effective, etc. Nor would designing organisms in a way that conflicts with Darwinism require any sort of logical impossibility. From an earlier comment… One necessary consequence [of Darwinism] is that organisms should appear in the order of least to most complex. In addition, organisms should appear over time, rather than appearing all at once. If organisms appeared all at once or in the order of most complex to least complex, there is no way to vary Darwinism to explain it. Darwinists [would] have no where to go. We can say the same regarding organisms born with new, complex adaptations for which there were no precursors in the parents or complex adaptation that has survival value today, but was not favored by selection pressure in it's ancestry (such as bears with the ability to detect and use internet weather forecasts as a means to determine when to hibernate) In all of these cases, some completely different explanatory theory would be needed. For example, one of the arguments against Darwinism is that proteins could not have evolved because it required finding just the right genes, that result in just the right proteins, that result in just the right biological features. However, if a designer is capable of determining the specific way it designed the genome would eventually result in specific biological features, it's unclear why this same designer wouldn't have known this same specific design would also eventually result in the rise of Darwinism as a theory to explain it. How can it know one, but not the other? Note: what I am doing here is taking intelligent design seriously, in that I'm assuming it's true in reality for the purpose of criticism, and that all observations should conform to it. This also leads me back to my earlier question. What is the origin of the knowledge the designer used to create the biological adaptations we observe? How did it know that just the right genes would result in just the right proteins that would result in just the right biological features? A designer that "just was", complete with the knowledge of which genes would result in just the right proteins which would result in just the right biological features, already present, serves no explanatory purpose. This is because one could more economically state that organisms "just appeared", compete with the knowledge of which genes would result in just the right proteins which would result in just the right biological features, already present.critical rationalist_{September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

I would add two more possibilities. 07. There are a number of designers that are equally powerful, but each had different goals. The resulting biosphere is a strategic compromise. 08. The designers are equally powerful twins. However, one is perfectly good and the other is perfectly evil. The resulting biosphere is a standoff in which neither ended up with what they intended. I'd also note that, assuming the terms "good" and "evil" can be used to determine what a designs a designer would or would not produce, either of these are better theories than an abstract designer with no defined limitations as there are more ways they can be found to be in error. To use an example, even the statement that "all swans are white", which is found in conflict with observations and therefore false as a whole, is better than merely "all swans have a color" as the former has more ways to be found wrong. All theories usually contains errors to some degree. In my example, the error is "all", but it does bring us closer to the truth than merely "all swans have a color" because it encompasses the theory that there are *white* swans. Popper called this property Verisimilitude. I'm also assuming that one actually attempts to criticize the theory that there was a committee of designers, rather than one. For example, If one uncritically accepts there is only one designer, this is the equivalent of saying "all swans have a color" since you are intentionally choosing not to criticize it. However, in comparison to my additions, there are even better theories for the origin of the biosphere that have significantly more informational content (and therefore more significantly more ways to be found in error) and greater verisimilitude. For example, it's logically possible one or more designers intentionally went out of its way to obscure its role in designing biological organisms. Even if this was the case, Darwinism would still be the best explanation because it encompasses the theory that the biosphere appears *as if* adaptations of organisms were created by genetic variation that was random to any specific problem to solve and natural selection. IOW, the theory encompasses a specific means by which the designer set out to obscure it's role, which could also be found false as compared to some other specific means of obscuring its role. As such, this too represents a better theory than merely an abstract designer with no defined limitations. This is one example of what I mean when I say the current crop of ID is a bad explanation.critical rationalist_{September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Centralscrutinizer Ah ha! Found the link http://edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2012/08/animals-are-conscious-in-other-news-sky.html Jon I agree with you that Dawkins does contradict himself on this. He himself has said that we dance to the tune of our DNA so how can we rise above our selfish gene unless evolution imbues us with altruism? I think that is quite beyond the scope of evolution. It would have to evolve our genes properly in order to form a different brain that can produce chemicals and atoms which could then produce the illusion of altruism and free will. Also, I find Wilson’s theory somewhat disturbing. Even with group or kin selection, all altruism boils down to is another method of survival. It seems that the only important thing is the propagation of the species or the genes rather than the personhood of the individual. Where’s the value in that?JLAfan2001_{September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

"It’s like saying that the selfish gene was the driving force behind evolution (al la Dawkins) and now that we have the appearance of consciousness, evolution now says we should be altruistic. IOW, if it was good enough for my grandparents, why isn’t good enough for me? ?"
Dawkins, of course, recognises the value of altruism, and says we can and should rise above our genes. Some of us doubt he has adequate grounds for that (unless God gave him his innate moral sense). That other atheist, E O Wilson, is at loggerheads with Dawkins because he is convinced that the evidence shows cooperation is at least as important as competition in evolution. Which draws attentionb to the fact that Darwin's "red in tooth and claw" version of nature owed as much to Malthus' theories of population as to dispassionate observation of nature. As it happens I live in the country, and it takes a huge effort as I observe nature to make it fit that "one agony upon another" picture they paint. The creatures actually seem to enjoy life more than most people do.Jon Garvey_{September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Centralscrutinizer Aw nuts!!! I forgot to attach the link and now I can't find the blasted log post. I know it's at Edward Feser's blog. What's your God worship answer?JLAfan2001_{September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

JLAfan2001: Funny you should ask about animal consciousness. I came across this article the other day. Admittedly, I haven’t read all of it but it seems to affirm that animals do have consciousness.
"Seems to affirm" on what scientific basis?
If they do then what’s so special about man’s consciousness?
If they don't, then you assertion that evolution is cruel is false.
Perhaps it is just a series of atoms in our brain.
Perhaps not. Where's your science?
If God is not all powerful then why worship him?
That's a subjective question with a subjective answer. My answer probably differs from yours.CentralScrutinizer_{September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

Centralscrutinizer Funny you should ask about animal consciousness. I came across this article the other day. Admittedly, I haven’t read all of it but it seems to affirm that animals do have consciousness. If they do then what’s so special about man’s consciousness? Perhaps it is just a series of atoms in our brain. If God is not all powerful then why worship him? What’s his limitations? Did he crate the universe or not, maybe the creation of man was out of his power and nature had to do it, maybe raising the dead is beyond him too? Jon I concede the point that if man found God’s secret, we were only able to find out because of Genesis. The text could have lied about it instead of being forthcoming but I still find those texts suspicious. Also, I wasn’t mentioning the texts from a literal perspective but more from a day-age one. It seems odd to me that the method which brought about man is now “off-limits” to man. It’s like saying that the selfish gene was the driving force behind evolution (al la Dawkins) and now that we have the appearance of consciousness, evolution now says we should be altruistic. IOW, if it was good enough for my grandparents, why isn’t good enough for me? ?JLAfan2001_{September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply