Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Marvin Olasky on theistic atheism – oops, I meant theistic evolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Journalism dean Marvin Olasky notes,

Today’s three great cultural flashpoints are abortion, same-sex marriage, and evolution. We can hedge on them and justify our hedging: Playing it cool here will help me gain for Christ people who would otherwise walk away.

I’m not knocking such considerations. Nor am I assuming that anyone who tries to meld eternal truth and contemporary trends lacks courage: Some do so on evangelistic principle, others because they believe what they’re saying is true. But attempts to unify antitheses generally defy logic.

Over the past 15 years I’ve tried to explain some of the problems of Darwinism. Last year I raised questions about the “theistic evolution” that Francis Collins espouses, but didn’t offer answers—and several WORLD readers have pressed me for more (see “Theistic evolutionist,” July 10, 2009).

Darn. He’s on to the story of the century, and I thought I had it all to myself. He continues,

To put it in terms of an equation, when atheists assure us that matter + evolution + 0 = all living things, and then theistic evolutionists answer, no, that matter + evolution + God = all living things, it will not take long for unbelievers to conclude that, therefore, God = 0.”

Right, exactly, that is the project of “theistic” evolution, so far as I can see. Helping theists get used to a world run by atheists and their values, while still hollering fer Jesus irrelevantly somewhere.

Comments
Gpuccio, Agreed. Thanks for the discussion.veilsofmaya
July 1, 2010
July
07
Jul
1
01
2010
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
veilsofmaya: thank you for your answer. I really don't want to go on with this discussion here, out of respect for the moderators. But I think we have rather well explained our different positions. So, to the next discussion...gpuccio
July 1, 2010
July
07
Jul
1
01
2010
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
@gpuccio (#379) First, I'd like to apologize. I did not mean to single you out personally. Instead, it was an attempt to reference what I had already wrote, rather than repeating myself.
Why? Because solipsism is not a “credible” and “satisfying” explanation. That only means that we choose explanations not only according to pure logic, but also according to many other faculties of our consciousness (intuition, feeling).
I'm not suggesting our intuition or feelings are irrelevant. For example I find sophism highly unintuitive as well. But this far from the only reason I'm not a solipsist. I'm suggesting that our intuitions can and has been wrong on many occasions and wrong in great proportion. This is because our intuition does not scale well as we move to the very large, the very small and the very complex. Furthermore, we seem to agree that there are bad explanations, but how do you know if an explanation is "satisfying" or not? Who or what criteria is being satisfied? Instead, I'm suggesting that there really are ways identify bad explanations. For example, we can specifically say solipsism is a convoluted elaboration of reality. As was The inquisition's implied theory of planetary motion, etc. Furthermore, Solipsism does not explain why the object-like facets of one's self obey laws of physics-like facets of one's self. Nor did the The inquisition's implied theory actually explain planetary motion. Clearly, this is not an appeal to intuition or feeling. Also see my previous comments regarding the seasons and many worlds interpretation quantum mechanics as examples of hard to vary explanations.
The empirical proof? How many people are convinced solipsists?
You do not seem to be taking the implied theory of solipsism seriously. The solipsist experiences everything you and I accept as external to ourselves, but claims it is somehow internal to themselves. Solipsism predicts exactly the empirical observations we observe . This means every every discovery in technology, medicine and particle physics also "supports" solipsism. They just happen to be internal to the solipsist, rather than external. Again, this is why I say solipsism is a convoluted elaboration of reality which we can discard. While I don't want to sound like a broken record, your question suggests you might not have understood this key point.
I don’t understand. Are you affirming that consciousness is not a first person experience?
Please see above. Both yourself and the solipsist are using the same observation to make significantly different claims and draw different boundaries as to what can and cannot be known.
Again, even if solipsims is a consistent explanation of reality, and makes good predictions, how many convinced solipsists do you know?
Not only is solipsism is a convoluted elaboration of reality, it's designed to explain away the prevalent theory of reality. It does not explain why everything merely appears to be real but is not. This is what I meant by taking Solipsism seriously, rather than it's most common use as a logical possibility or to attack realism. In case it's not clear by now, I'm suggesting biological ID is also a convoluted elaboration of TOE and doesn't really explain what we observe. (see comment #280) it's a response to explain away the prevalent theory.veilsofmaya
July 1, 2010
July
07
Jul
1
01
2010
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
mullerpr/gpuccio, Thanks guys, I appreciate the comments and the feeling is mutual. I certainly have been given a lot of food for thought, which is always a good thing. I do intend to stay at UD, although my internet access time is unfortunately sporadic because of work and domestic commitments. But I'll look in whenever I can. All the best 'til next time.Gaz
July 1, 2010
July
07
Jul
1
01
2010
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT
mullerpr: I agree with you: Gaz has been a fine, sincere and constructive interlocutor. I hope he stays at UD and goes on contributing.gpuccio
July 1, 2010
July
07
Jul
1
01
2010
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT
P.S. Gaz, you also forced all of us to revisit our own position. Thanks for that.mullerpr
July 1, 2010
July
07
Jul
1
01
2010
01:40 AM
1
01
40
AM
PDT
Gaz, It was fun, on my part! I know you have been given more than enough pointers to evaluate the consequences of your position. Hope a new subject comes along soon.mullerpr
July 1, 2010
July
07
Jul
1
01
2010
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT
Clive Hayden (375), Amen to that. But if I may have one more comment to set the record straight - vividblue's 372 said I hadn't responded to some specific posts. I don't want leave that unanswered, so I'll just point out, for viv's benefit, that contrary to the assertion I responded to posts 223, 325 and 332 at 224, 326 and 334 respectively. I did not respond to 255 because it only rehashed the same arguments that had already been beaten to death, and I tried to end the discussion shortly after, at 259.Gaz
July 1, 2010
July
07
Jul
1
01
2010
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT
veilsofmaya: I apologize, I had for some reason missed your post #202 on solipsim. I think I owe you at least a brief comment. First of all I can agree that solipsism is "logically" consistent. That is simply a good example of the fact that a logically consiostent explanation is not necessarily a good explanation. Why? Because solipsism is not a "credible" and "satisfying" explanation. That only means that we choose explanations not only according to pure logic, but also according to many other faculties of our consciousness (intuition, feeling). The empirical proof? How many people are convinced solipsists? Second, I don't understand your problems with inference by analogy. It is not an induction in the mathemathical sense. You say: "Since you a person, which you know is conscious, you’re inferring that the next person should be conscious, and the next person, etc." That's wrong. Indeed, you also say: " An analogy would be to illustrate the same point via a different yet related scenario. For example, since you know one computer gave you the right answer, you infer that another computer of the same model would give you the right answer" And that's exactly my point. In the inference by analogy which I described, you are not "inducing" consciousness from one element to the next, and so on to infinite. No. You are simply comparing two classes of elements. The first class is yourself. The second class is all other humans. The two classes has many properties in common (the analogy): external appearance, behaviour, language, and so on. That's why you infer that another property (consciousness), of which you are certain in the first class, and which in the first class is strictly connected to a definite behaviour, is very credibly present also in the second class of elements (the inference). There is no induction from one element to the next, only a simple inference from the first class to the second. I agree that inferences do not give a "certainty" in the sense of deductive reasoning. But all empirical knowledge is based on them. Why I state that this inference is one of the best ever made? Because practically everybody (with the only exception of solipsists, and how many of them do you know?) makes it and strongly believes in it. Why? Intuition, feeling? Maybe. Perhaps this is because it implies all of us are not alone? Perhaps because we all know, deep in our hearts, that we are not alone? Finally, you say: "If consciousness really is a first person experience, then we cannot rely on observations to reject the Solipsist’s claim as both realism and solipsism make the same predications." I don't understand. Are you affirming that consciousness is not a first person experience? That's strange news to me. And what is it, then? If your critical rationalism brings you to such bizarre statements, I don't know what its epistemologic value can be. But maybe I have not understood well your point. I know (not "think") that consciousness is a first person experience. Indeed, the concept itself of "first person exoerience", indeed the concept itself of "person" is modeled on the experience of consciousness. And I do agree with you that "we cannot rely on observations to reject the Solipsist’s claim as both realism and solipsism make the same predications". In the sense that we cannot rely on "observations only". Or on "predictions only". Or on pure logic. We have to rely on observations, predictions, logic plus our cognitive intuition, or conscious feelings, our innate sense of reality and experience, and a lot of other conscious representations and principles. All that is at the basis of our inferences, and our inferences are at the basis not only of our science, but also of our everyday behaviour. IOW, knowledge is not dependent only on logics and predictions, as some fanatics of some specific scientific method would like to believe. Knowledge is a complex, and under many aspects not understood (and, as Polanyi has said, under many aspects not transmissable), experience, on which we base all aspects of our cognitive and practical life. Again, even if solipsims is a consistent explanation of reality, and makes good predictions, how many convinced solipsists do you know?gpuccio
June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT
@nullasalus (#296)
Deutsch talking about the importance of “hard to vary explanations” while cheerfully endorsing both MWI and the Omega Point is comedy writ large.
nullasalus, You have yet to explain exactly why these things are comical. For example, to reach this conclusion I'd suggest that for you'd have to had made a false assumption or have misunderstood what Deutsch means by "hard to vary explanations." You'd also have to discount the explanatory power (or the lack there of) provided by competing theories for the same phenomena. Again, when I gave comment #202 as a reference, you merely summarized it as "tenable." However, I'm specifically referring to the different reasons why gpuccio and I are not solipsists. Gpuccio's reason was essentially an inference of consciousness and is subject to the problem of induction. Apparently the reason why he things this inference should be accepted is that "It's the best inference ever", but it's unclear why. Perhaps he prefers this inference because it implies he's not alone? Furthermore, the solipsist makes the same prediction about the appearance consciousness, and the observations agree with him as well. it's unclear why gpuccio is not a solipsist rather than a realist. This is in contrast to the fact that solipsism proves no explanation why it predicts reality would appear to be real, but is not. It merely attempts to explain away the current theory. Please note that my reasons for rejecting solipsism are not limited to an inference of consciousness in other people. Solipsism is convoluted elaboration of the entirety of reality (with exception of the self), including objects that follow the laws of physics, other people that surprise the solipsist and even disagree with his position that sophism is true! You may disagree that this contrast is significant, but you have yet to explain why. Nor have you provided any better solution to the problem of induction. Even then, your disagreement would not necessitate being "comedy writ large." In regards to quantum mechanics, the classical copenhagen interoperation is primarily an instrumentalist approach due to it's focuses on predictions of quantum phenomena. This is in contrast to the MWI, which not only includes predictions of quantum phenomena, but provides a hard to vary explanation of what causes that phenomena to occur. Furthermore, this explanation has been collaborated by quantum computing in the lab, including the fact that Shor's algorithm does indeed operate at polynomial time. Do you have a better, hard to vary explanation for quantum phenomenon, if any at all? Do you have any explanation that is collaborated by an entirely new field of computation which has verified in the lab? Do you have better explanation why Shor's algorithm can be executed on demeaned and operates at polynomial time, rather than sub-exponential time?veilsofmaya
June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT
And the cause of that effect Gaz is because we are Beating A Dead Horse,,, 8) http://bombmatt.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg http://s75.photobucket.com/albums/i303/MorganKristyReynolds/?action=view&current=2557fc49.flvbornagain77
June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
Thank goodness.Upright BiPed
June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
I'm gavelling this cause/effect argument and the solipsism argument. You all are more than welcome to continue this among yourselves with private messages. We're way off the topic of the thread now, and it's getting to be a little redundant anyway.Clive Hayden
June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT
@Clive Hayden (#364) You wrote:
Solipsism would never posit a designer because it would never posit anything outside of itself, and if it designed its OWN self, it would never need to posit design.
It would appear that you are not taking Solipsism seriously. Remember, the reason I'm not a solipsist is because Solipsism is an convoluted elaboration of reality. That is, the solipsist experiences everything you and I accept as external to ourselves, but claims it is somehow internal to himself. This includes being surprised by discoveries he makes and not having first hand knowledge of having designed everything. The solipsist does not detect design based the presence of absence of recalling having done so himself, but based on his conclusion there is there is no external reality. Furthermore, the solipsist is assuming that he is the designer of the things external to himself which otherwise not have been designed. Last, that there is no external reality does not mean that Solipsism does not present anything, even if it is only presented to one's self. After all, Solipsism suggests there are dream-like aspects of one's self that act like autonomous conscious beings, present alternate theories and disagree with one's self on Solipsism.veilsofmaya
June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
RE 367 "I get a bit suspicious when I see a phrase like “uncaused cause” – surely an uncaused cause is, by definition, basically an effect without a cause?" A self existent entity cannot be an effect since it has no beginning to its existence. Vividvividbleau
June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT
RE 367 "All I’m doing is reporting what appears to happen at the quantum level." If that was all you were doing you would get no push back from anyone but that is not all you are doing. You are going from "this appears to be happening" to "therefore there is no cause" You have yet to justify that leap in logic. You have yet to respond to nulls post in 223, Ilions in 255, uprights in 325 and 332. Assertions are not proof of anything. If you are going to ask people to accept what I now officially think should be called "the poof the magic dragon did it hypothesis" you should attempt to address the posts numbered 223, 225, 325 and 332. So far you have not done so. Vividvividbleau
June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
Gaz- No it's a little different. There was nothing before it that caused it, but it's something like a logical necessity. That's why it's called "uncaused". That is why I am, and others are, a little suspicious of your causeless quantum effects or whatever it is you're claiming exactly. I'm still not quite sure what it is or why we're even talking about it in this thread so I'm going to move on and hope some other interesting topics come up.Phaedros
June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
Phaedros (368), Or you have an effect without a cause.Gaz
June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
Gaz, with the refutation of the hidden variable argument of materialists, transcendent information is shown to be a unique entity, separate from matter and energy, that has demonstrated dominion over matter and energy, (do you have another candidate to explain entanglement, or teleportation, now that hidden variables are refuted?), Entanglement is shown to be instantaneous, with instantaneous being the key word, and thus the information that entangled the photons is shown to be transcendent of any considerations of time and space. As well by transcendent information exercising direct dominion of energy transcendent information, by default, inherits the rights of the first law of thermodynamics from energy, i.e. all transcendent information for all events of energy, past, present, and future, already must exist since energy cannot be created or destroyed by any known material means. That the definition of a photon qubit would be found to be defined by infinite information, and that a photon qubit is, in principle, able to be encoded with infinite information, gives solid mathematical and empirical basis for believing that infinite transcendent information specified the creation of each and every photon at the creation of the universe 13.7 billion years ago. That the creation event would be found to be exceedingly ordered (low entropy) by Penrose (1 in 10^10^123) and to gain entropy ever since, offers another strong piece of evidence that specified transcendent information created this universe since "Gain in entropy means loss of information and nothing more'(Gilbert Newton Lewis). That Quantum teleportation would "destroy" a photon, by displacing infinite information of a photn, only add icing to the cake.bornagain77
June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
No, the uncaused cause is the necessary entity or being that grounds the effects after it, otherwise you'd never get to this moment in time because you'd have an infinite number of preceding causes.Phaedros
June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
Phaedros (335), "Why cant I predict what will happen in one week" It depends what it is - you can predict the moon's phase next week, for instance, it's the complicated and chaotic things with too many variables that you can't predict... "or how a butterfly’s wings flapping in Australia will affect the weather in Brazil or the actions and motivations of others all of the time?" ....yeah, that sort of thing. "It seems to me the simplest explanation fo these events is the fluctuation of energy levels and entropy." Certainly radioactive nuclei are often unstable because of the energy levels of the nucleons - but that doesn't explain why one nuclei will decay whilst another, equally unstable nuclei never will. "I mean look I think you’re still confusing the breakdown of classical mechanics with you’re desire to make this assertion about the breakdown of cause and effect." It's not a desire - in fact I don't desire it. I'm human and prefer a cause to precede an effect. All I'm doing is reporting what appears to happen at the quantum level. "Basically, without cause and effect there is no sequence of events through time and no reality." If we had no cause and effect at all I would agree, but that isn't what I'm saying. "There can be many ways that particular effects are aused by preceding effects an so on back to the uncaused cause." I get a bit suspicious when I see a phrase like "uncaused cause" - surely an uncaused cause is, by definition, basically an effect without a cause?Gaz
June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
bornagain77 (362), "Gaz should you not look for a cause that is not bound by time and space to explain an effect that defies time and space?" That's a very interesting idea, although I'm not sure how I'd go about it. How would I detect a cause that was outside time and space? Also, if causes outside time and spaces can have effect within it, why do we not see this happen at the classical level as well as the qunatum regime? "To presuppose that a cause will be found within time and space to explain an effect that defies time and space, as you have done, is an unreasonable position to start from." No, I'm not presupposing anything, inlcuding a cause that will be found within time and space - I don't think there is one. Willing to be persuaded otherwise but nothing I've seen does it so far.Gaz
June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
Clive Hayden (363), I agree entirely. I've mentioned at least twice to responders here that we should just agree to disagree, but it doesn't even seem we can agree to that!Gaz
June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
veilsofmaya, Solipsism would never posit a designer because it would never posit anything outside of itself, and if it designed its OWN self, it would never need to posit design.Clive Hayden
June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
Gaz,
it may be an argument but it’s not a testable one
Neither is this argument.
and takes us no further.
Neither does this argument.Clive Hayden
June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
Gaz should you not look for a cause that is not bound by time and space to explain an effect that defies time and space? To presuppose that a cause will be found within time and space to explain an effect that defies time and space, as you have done, is an unreasonable position to start from. As far as repeatable experiments that defy time and space: Dr. Quantum - Double Slit Experiment & Entanglement - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579 Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182 "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Wigner That a photon would actually be destroyed upon the teleportation (separation) of its “infinite” information to another photon is a direct controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics. (i.e. a photon “disappeared” from the universe when the entire information content of a photon was “transcendently displaced” from the material universe, in the experiment, when photon “c” transcendently became transmitted photon “a”). Thus, this is direct empirical validation for the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information (i.e. information cannot be created or destroyed). This conclusion is warranted because information exercises direct dominion of energy, which cannot be created or destroyed by any known material means, yet a photon of energy is destroyed by this transcendent means. Thus, this experiment provides a direct line of logic that transcendent information cannot be created or destroyed and, in information demonstrating transcendence of space-time matter-energy, becomes the only known entity that can explain where all energy came from as far as the Big Bang is concerned. That is it is the only known entity which can explain where all the energy came from in the Big Bang without leaving the bounds of empirical science. (as a side note: transcendent information is the primary entity from which all reality presently comes from as far as the wave function collapse of Quantum Mechanics is concerned.) Clearly anything that exercises dominion of the fundamental entity of this physical universe, a photon of energy, as transcendent information does in teleportation, must of necessity possess the same, as well as greater, qualities as energy. i.e. All information that can exist, for all past, present and future events of energy, already must exist. Another line of evidence, corroborating the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information, is the required mathematical definition for infinite information needed to correctly specify the reality of a photon qubit (Armond Duwell).bornagain77
June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
RE 357 "Instead it was designed to show why somethings cannot be predicted and how uncaused things can still be said to obey the laws of physics." Funny but there is a cause of the uncaused things. "But if the puzzle was created by a single stroke of a jigsaw-puzzle-shaped cutter, and has never been disassembled, then none of the positions of the pieces are causes or effects of each other. They were not assembled in any order, but were created simultaneously" The cause of the uncaused things is the jigsaw puzzle shape cutter!! Vividvividbleau
June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
bornagain77 (343), What exactly am I supposed to make of this statement?Gaz
June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
mullerpr (351), Anyone can look at anything and think God made it. If they think, like Newton, that God made it using laws of nature than they can still do useful scientific work. It's when they insist God made it without nature that the science ends.Gaz
June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
Clive Hayden (348), it may be an argument but it's not a testable one and takes us no further.Gaz
June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
1 2 3 13

Leave a Reply