Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't real

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated G through PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9890
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by Res Ipsa »

This is a standard creationist ploy. They used to do it with the eye. “What good is half an eye?” And then evolutionary biologists showed how the eye developed in detail. Having been shown that the eye wasn’t all or nothing, did they admit they had been wrong? No. They just switched organs and continued to use the same fallacious attacks.

Also, in the face of DNA and fossil evidence that shows the paths of descent, creationists moved from attacking the entire theory to attacking specific traits.

It’s whack a mole. No matter how many times science refuted these arguments, creationists simply make the same old bad arguments in a new context.

Ceeboo, do you believe that your God had the power to create a universe governed by laws that would have permitted the evolution of cellular mitosis without God’s intervention?
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951

EAllusion
God
Posts: 18013
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by EAllusion »

Ceeboo without question has been exposed to explanations for why "what good is half a wing?" arguments misunderstand evolutionary biology and has repeatedly seen these type of arguments get debunked in specific cases. Yet he presses on. There's not much you can do at that point. Recommending reading materials on evolutionary science isn't helping. I think you have to accept you aren't going to persuade him with rational argument and reply either to practice your ability to explain the subject or for the benefit of other readers where it might click.

EAllusion
God
Posts: 18013
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by EAllusion »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Ceeboo, do you believe that your God had the power to create a universe governed by laws that would have permitted the evolution of cellular mitosis without God’s intervention?


I think his skepticism here is aimed at the evolution of meiosis. Though, not really, because if he understood meiosis, I'm not sure he'd be asking the questions he is. So it's more skepticism in the evolution of the anatomy of sexual reproduction in vertebrates.

User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9890
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by Res Ipsa »

EAllusion wrote:
Res Ipsa wrote:
Ceeboo, do you believe that your God had the power to create a universe governed by laws that would have permitted the evolution of cellular mitosis without God’s intervention?


I think his skepticism here is aimed at the evolution of meiosis. Though, not really, because if he understood meiosis, I'm not sure he'd be asking the questions he is. So it's more skepticism in the evolution of the anatomy of sexual reproduction in vertebrates.


Maybe I misread, but I thought he included both in his list of impossible things.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951

User avatar
Chap
God
Posts: 13969
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by Chap »

Ceeboo wrote: I have no issues with you sharing your opinion with me that the evolutionary processes involved in sexual reproduction is not nearly as far-fetched as I think it is. But to be clear with you, I don't think it's just far-fetched, I think it's completely impossible (preposterous in fact).


Chap wrote:
And the most frightening thing for evolutionary biologists is that none of them has ever asked the obvious question of how sexual reproduction could possibly have evolved.

And now, on an obscure ex-Mormon discussion board, the gallant Ceeboo steps forth and asks the killer questions. As a result, the whole rickety structure of evolutionary 'science' will surely collapse before our eyes, amidst anguished howls of "Why didn't we think of that before? WHY???"

Oh wait ... I see that the Ceeboo haters of the Deep State have already swung into action. They have not only cobbled together a lengthy Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... production

... but they have also, in a typically underhand way, started to insert entries in library catalogues of books on the evolution of sexuality supposedly published years ago! Pathetic, no?

They've even put one on line, supposedly published in 1978 by Cambridge University Press:

The Evolution of Sex
John Maynard Smith
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1978

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... production

If we keep an eye open, we shall see dozens of fake articles and books making their appearance. But it will take more than that to maintain the ragged shreds of scientific plausibility which are all they have left after Ceeboo has blown their cover.



Ceeboo wrote:Chap,

You are one of the many who are absolutely convinced - no problems there. I think (?) we can still be friendly even if I am not as convinced as you are, no? After all, I am a fairly good guy who takes care of my family, treats my fellow humans with kindness and respect and I am a productive tax paying citizen. I assume you are the same.

So, given the much ore important stuff (like I listed above) I don't think that my personal skepticism around Darwinian evolution should prevent us (you and I) from living amongst one another on this earth. In my mind, this topic is fascinating and no matter what you believe about it (or I believe about it) it's still fascinating IMO and I enjoy discussing it.

That's all I have for you.


Look: it's like this.

Driving while under the influence of alcohol is anti-social, and is seen as a moral fault, since it endangers others.

Expressing opinions on important topics while under the influence of a degree of ignorance that could be easily removed by a little serious study is also anti-social, and a moral fault, since it exposes others to being misled.

In your case, it would only have taken a glance at the Wikipedia article on 'Evolution of sexual reproduction' for you to learn that sexual reproduction is a much more basic matter than males putting penises inside females, which you profess to find so puzzling: it can happen even at the level of one-celled living things, by the direct exchange of genetic material.

And have you never heard that even at the level of complex organisms, male and female fish don't need to copulate at all in order to reproduce? The female lays her eggs and the male ejaculates sperm into the water nearby?

The problem is that, as you say "enjoy discussing" this stuff, but not enough to study any of the huge amount of serious but accessible books and articles that are available out there and would enable you to understand what you are talking about, at least more than you do now. But you can't be bothered, and so you go on and on coming back to post your ignorant and confused stuff over and over again. And some poor sap will read it, and end up believing nonsense.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.

EAllusion
God
Posts: 18013
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by EAllusion »

The insect world actually has a lot of very intricate "lock and key" sexual organs. If not grasping co-evolution in mammalian genitals is blowing his mind, I wonder how he'd react to the weird and horrifying world of insect sex.

mikwut
God
Posts: 1605
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:20 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by mikwut »

If I were Ceeboo I would take the recommendations of his interlocutors but I would add a few things as well.

First, one of the philosophical questions that often gets ignored in these skeptic believer evolution debates is the nature of naturalism itself. Let's say Ceeboo does as Chap requests and reads up on evolution and actually says like he has in the past on other issues, you know what I was wrong - the evidence for evolution is very strong? I don't understand what that would have to do with his belief in God? Because an attitudinal or perspectival question still remains. Is naturalism itself benign? Or, yah I'll use the term here for emphasis, magical? There is a rational impasse respecting this philosophical question, because it is attitudinal and perspectival, not narrowly evidential toward one way of thinking.

Atheism views evolution from the benign naturalist lens, looking at all of natural life as if it were just brute fact. G.K. Chesterton made the observation in his brilliant essay, Ethics of Elfland, (For the skeptics, who might find Chesterton’s reasoning unscientific they might find it interesting that it was included by Martin Gardner, the former editor of Scientific American, in his anthology, Great Essays in Science, along with essays by Darwin, Eddington, Fermi, and Einstein.

His point boils down to, is naturalism benign? Trees bearing fruit, flowers being beautiful, love existing aren't logical truths or mathematical brute facts, they are existing things that aren't logically necessary, they could be imagined otherwise. They don't have to be the way they are like 3 is greater than 2. We cannot say why an egg can turn into a chicken any more than we can say why a princess can turn into a frog. He calls this, “This elementary wonder,” He argues that enchantment, wonder, the magic of appearing in this world is a metaphysical reality. The atheist calls an egg turning into a chicken benign and a princess turning into a frog magical. But naturalism isn't benign and it isn't conceptually different than the princess and the frog no matter how much time is added. To make his point in reverse he argues that if a benign naturalist were to find himself in a magical filled world consisting of trees that bear burning candlesticks, plants that can sing enchanting songs, a princess that turned into a frog, fairies and enchanted creatures the naturalist would benignly pursue his methodological naturalism in the same way as our current world. Nothing would be different to him. But to the one who doesn't give in to the benign the magical is emphasized.

So, if I were Ceeboo I would argue so what to the evidence of naturalism and evolution in the benign view, what is wrong you guys that you don't see the magic of the natural world and what it can imply? There exists a wealth of evidence that evolution isn't only supported by historical contingency, adaptation and chance mutation but also by natural law. Physicist Jeremy England has proposed that life may be the result of law and inevitable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka8573QQKW4 So we don't necessarily have to accept the happy accident idea of life, but that it was inevitable. Self organization is a law built into nature, the very laws of physics themselves help for life to inevitably arise. Many molecular and chemical processes necessary for life are just law, self organization, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12468283. These inevitable processes of evolution can rationally be viewed in more than one way, again benign or enchanted?

We further see in evolution the same morphology appearing separately, not by a one off mutation or chance process. Nature appears law given so the same features in biology appear although not related. For example, most of us are aware of the African cheetah, but most of us are unaware that there existed an American Cheetah that was almost identical in structure and form. These examples of convergent evolution are so numerous they can't all be listed, Life as we know it seems to be just the fabric of nature. Law like. A hypothesis that if you rewound the tape all over again life as we know it would inevitably arise. Alien planets would be inhabited by not some foreign imagination of life, but the inevitable life as we know it and has emerged. Where do those life giving enchanting law like abilities come from? That question just returns us to the benign or enchanted philosophical question that doesn't rationally allow for the one or the other to be eliminated.

So, if I were Ceeboo I would just learn how enchanted evolution is and keep telling his interlocutors what makes them so certain naturalism is so boringly benign?

mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell.
-Michael Polanyi

"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40

User avatar
SteelHead
God
Posts: 8251
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:40 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by SteelHead »

I would say nature is not benign, it is indifferent.

A fertilized chicken egg become a chicken is a natural process, a frog becoming a princess save for rewriting the DNA would be a different kind of thing.
Last edited by SteelHead on Sat Apr 06, 2019 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin

mikwut
God
Posts: 1605
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:20 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by mikwut »

Hi Steelhead,

Indifferent might be just as good a word for my argument. Thank you.

A fertilized chicken egg become a chicken is a natural process, a frog becoming a princess save for rewriting the DNA would be a different kind of thing,


The point being made is our attitude, our wonder, our view of any natural process. What do you mean when you say "natural"?

mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell.
-Michael Polanyi

"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40

User avatar
SteelHead
God
Posts: 8251
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:40 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by SteelHead »

The process for a fertilized cell inside a chicken egg to develop into a chick is written into its DNA, barring abnormalities and outside conditions it will follow what it is encoded to do. A frog becoming a human princess is not.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin

mikwut
God
Posts: 1605
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:20 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by mikwut »

Steelhead,

I don't know what to say to the obvious. Of course what you wrote is agreed on. What point are you making that you believe contradicts my initial post?

mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell.
-Michael Polanyi

"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40

User avatar
SteelHead
God
Posts: 8251
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:40 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by SteelHead »

I guess I might be mis-parsing:

This elementary wonder,” He argues that enchantment, wonder, the magic of appearing in this world is a metaphysical reality. The atheist calls an egg turning into a chicken benign and a princess turning into a frog magical. But naturalism isn't benign and it isn't conceptually different than the princess and the frog no matter how much time is added.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin

User avatar
SteelHead
God
Posts: 8251
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:40 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by SteelHead »

**dupe**
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin

mikwut
God
Posts: 1605
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:20 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by mikwut »

Hi Steelhead,

Even Richard Dawkins sees the incredibly, awe inspiring fact of evolution (a chicken from an egg). The wonder involved is almost just obvious. I don't know what your missing?

mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell.
-Michael Polanyi

"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10031
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by Lemmie »

So, if I were Ceeboo I would just learn how enchanted evolution is and keep telling his interlocutors what makes them so certain naturalism is so boringly benign?

I'm missing your point too, mikwut. People haven't been objecting on the basis of how he feels about his interpretation, but rather that his interpretation involves bad science or no science.
We cannot say why an egg can turn into a chicken any more than we can say why a princess can turn into a frog.

Yes we can.
He calls this, “This elementary wonder,” He argues that enchantment, wonder, the magic of appearing in this world is a metaphysical reality. The atheist calls an egg turning into a chicken benign and a princess turning into a frog magical. But naturalism isn't benign and it isn't conceptually different than the princess and the frog no matter how much time is added.
I disagree, it is absolutely conceptually different. Also, what does it matter how one feels about it? I'm an atheist and personally I think the world of nature is amazing, wonderful, and enchanting, but if another atheist is maybe closer to Monk who can't abide 'nature in my shoe' and prefers indoor amazements, it wouldn't change the science underlying the process.

EAllusion
God
Posts: 18013
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by EAllusion »

Mikwut is hinting at, but not actually spelling out an exotic argument he is fond of. In truth, I don't think he ever really spells it out. He sorta flirts with a few distinct philosophical arguments that require some background knowledge to understand. Usually they are attempts at sneaking God in through a difficult philosophical problem associated with justifying some commonly thought thing. But if you engage those instead, I don't think it ever really comes into focus what he's actually saying. If I were ya'll, I'd ask him to spit it out.

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 10554
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by honorentheos »

mikwut wrote:Atheism views evolution from the benign naturalist lens, looking at all of natural life as if it were just brute fact. G.K. Chesterton made the observation in his brilliant essay, Ethics of Elfland, (For the skeptics, who might find Chesterton’s reasoning unscientific they might find it interesting that it was included by Martin Gardner, the former editor of Scientific American, in his anthology, Great Essays in Science, along with essays by Darwin, Eddington, Fermi, and Einstein.

His point boils down to, is naturalism benign? Trees bearing fruit, flowers being beautiful, love existing aren't logical truths or mathematical brute facts, they are existing things that aren't logically necessary, they could be imagined otherwise. They don't have to be the way they are like 3 is greater than 2. We cannot say why an egg can turn into a chicken any more than we can say why a princess can turn into a frog. He calls this, “This elementary wonder,” He argues that enchantment, wonder, the magic of appearing in this world is a metaphysical reality. The atheist calls an egg turning into a chicken benign and a princess turning into a frog magical. But naturalism isn't benign and it isn't conceptually different than the princess and the frog no matter how much time is added. To make his point in reverse he argues that if a benign naturalist were to find himself in a magical filled world consisting of trees that bear burning candlesticks, plants that can sing enchanting songs, a princess that turned into a frog, fairies and enchanted creatures the naturalist would benignly pursue his methodological naturalism in the same way as our current world. Nothing would be different to him. But to the one who doesn't give in to the benign the magical is emphasized.

I take offense to the argument that a person with naturalistic views, i.e. an atheist, must be closed to viewing the miracle of existence and the universe with wonder, awe, and deep appreciation. That we are here, and the incredibly unlikely events occurred that allowed any one of us to be in a state to recognize and appreciate it is wonderful, miraculous and fully internally so without need to impose supernaturalism onto those words in order to give them any meaning. In fact, I'd argue that the person who inserts the unnecessary, i.e. a theist, is effectively a graffitiing defacer imposing on the wonder of it all to try and assert themselves in much the same way a vandal puts their own importance above that of the world as they find it. It's painting a cock and balls on nature.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa

EAllusion
God
Posts: 18013
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by EAllusion »

honorentheos wrote:I take offense to the argument that a person with naturalistic views, i.e. an atheist, must be closed to viewing the miracle of existence and the universe with wonder, awe, and deep appreciation. That we are here, and the incredibly unlikely events occurred that allowed any one of us to be in a state to recognize and appreciate it is wonderful, miraculous and fully internally so without need to impose supernaturalism onto those words in order to give them any meaning. In fact, I'd argue that the person who inserts the unnecessary, i.e. a theist, is effectively a graffitiing defacer imposing on the wonder of it all to try and assert themselves in much the same way a vandal puts their own importance above that of the world as they find it. It's painting a cock and balls on nature.


No, what he's saying is something more along the lines of, "Belief in God is like wonder, so if you experience wonder and find it meaningful, then you understand my belief in God is justified. If you don't, then wonder is cut off from you too." Your natural reaction to that is probably, "wtf?" There's a few bad ways he might try to get there, but they are clever-bad arguments that take some knowledge to understand why they suck. I'd advise to be be careful in asking him to explicitly make the argument with detail.

User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 20858
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

I was watching BBC's new 'nature' series today, and was absolutely stunned and amazed by the variety, wonder, and resiliency of life here on our small globe. There was one particular shot of krill, underneath the antarctic ice sheets, nibbling at some microbes, and I was struck by the shot. Knowing that us simians have evolved over time to develop the curiosity and wonderment to eventually develop a suit, a breathing aparatus, and technology not only to get someone to that location to take that shot, but to comprehend the sheer impossibility of how life has adapted to survive and flourish under virtually incomprehensible circumstances.

Instead of saying goddidit, why can't us humans embrace the brotherhood of life that this planet has welcomed us into? The fraternal order of glory that is nature and natural processes? There's no need to ascribe to a designer that which nature bears witness. Life is enough. The universe itself is enough to feel humility, gratitude, and now that we know better, a sense of stewardship.

I'm Doctor CamNC4Me. And I'm a grateful atheist.

- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.

Understanding the world as an amoral, chaotic system that is in a constant flux of competing entities all driven by an innate biological determinism is both redpilled and blackpilled.

User avatar
subgenius
God
Posts: 12873
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by subgenius »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:I was watching BBC's new 'nature' series today, and was absolutely stunned and amazed by the variety, wonder, and resiliency of life here on our small globe. There was one particular shot of krill, underneath the antarctic ice sheets, nibbling at some microbes, and I was struck by the shot. Knowing that us simians have evolved over time to develop the curiosity and wonderment to eventually develop a suit, a breathing aparatus, and technology not only to get someone to that location to take that shot, but to comprehend the sheer impossibility of how life has adapted to survive and flourish under virtually incomprehensible circumstances.

Instead of saying goddidit, why can't us humans embrace the brotherhood of life that this planet has welcomed us into? The fraternal order of glory that is nature and natural processes? There's no need to ascribe to a designer that which nature bears witness. Life is enough. The universe itself is enough to feel humility, gratitude, and now that we know better, a sense of stewardship.

I'm Doctor CamNC4Me. And I'm a grateful atheist.

- Doc

humility and gratitude are virtues to you because of western Christian indoctrination in your life, culture, and education. You value these because of "goddidit" and not because of some imaginary atheism, because atheism can't rationalize these as being virtuous without...western Christian indoctrination.
But i get ya, you think "random coincidence" makes sense because it maintains your self as center of universe.
You should get a kick out of the difference between a domed space and cathedral space. Prime cause be damned!

eta: "nature has no virtue dood"
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent

User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9890
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm

Re: Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't rea

Post by Res Ipsa »

mikwut wrote:If I were Ceeboo I would take the recommendations of his interlocutors but I would add a few things as well.

First, one of the philosophical questions that often gets ignored in these skeptic believer evolution debates is the nature of naturalism itself. Let's say Ceeboo does as Chap requests and reads up on evolution and actually says like he has in the past on other issues, you know what I was wrong - the evidence for evolution is very strong? I don't understand what that would have to do with his belief in God? Because an attitudinal or perspectival question still remains. Is naturalism itself benign? Or, yah I'll use the term here for emphasis, magical? There is a rational impasse respecting this philosophical question, because it is attitudinal and perspectival, not narrowly evidential toward one way of thinking.


Hello mikwut. I think the philosophical questions you raise get ignored because the believer isn't just defending belief in God: he or she is defending specific beliefs in a specific God that the existence of evolution threatens. If you simply look at a more general belief in God, then I don't see how accepting the theory of evolution impact belief in God at all.

I think you're using "benign" as a stand in for something else. Are you perhaps asking "Is naturalism natural or magical?" If that's it, I think it would be more productive to just ask whether naturalism is magical or not magical.

mikwut wrote:Atheism views evolution from the benign naturalist lens, looking at all of natural life as if it were just brute fact. G.K. Chesterton made the observation in his brilliant essay, Ethics of Elfland, (For the skeptics, who might find Chesterton’s reasoning unscientific they might find it interesting that it was included by Martin Gardner, the former editor of Scientific American, in his anthology, Great Essays in Science, along with essays by Darwin, Eddington, Fermi, and Einstein.


I'd say that Chesterton's reasoning has to stand on its own.

mikwut wrote:His point boils down to, is naturalism benign? Trees bearing fruit, flowers being beautiful, love existing aren't logical truths or mathematical brute facts, they are existing things that aren't logically necessary, they could be imagined otherwise. They don't have to be the way they are like 3 is greater than 2. We cannot say why an egg can turn into a chicken any more than we can say why a princess can turn into a frog. He calls this, “This elementary wonder,” He argues that enchantment, wonder, the magic of appearing in this world is a metaphysical reality. The atheist calls an egg turning into a chicken benign and a princess turning into a frog magical. But naturalism isn't benign and it isn't conceptually different than the princess and the frog no matter how much time is added. To make his point in reverse he argues that if a benign naturalist were to find himself in a magical filled world consisting of trees that bear burning candlesticks, plants that can sing enchanting songs, a princess that turned into a frog, fairies and enchanted creatures the naturalist would benignly pursue his methodological naturalism in the same way as our current world. Nothing would be different to him. But to the one who doesn't give in to the benign the magical is emphasized.


OK, now I am completely confused by your use of the word "benign." Would you please define how you are using it? It's difficult to see how the fact that most of what we encounter in every day life is contingent rather than logically necessary leads to what he goes on to argue.

And maybe it's the age of the book, but the bit about not being able to say why an egg becomes a chicken spoils the argument.

Finally, his use of the word "magic" isn't clear. If by being "magic" he simply means that this hypothetical world has laws that permit and explain why plants can sing and a princess turns into a frog, then, yes, a methodological naturalist would study and experiment to discover what those laws are. But would that be magic?

mikwut wrote:So, if I were Ceeboo I would argue so what to the evidence of naturalism and evolution in the benign view, what is wrong you guys that you don't see the magic of the natural world and what it can imply? There exists a wealth of evidence that evolution isn't only supported by historical contingency, adaptation and chance mutation but also by natural law. Physicist Jeremy England has proposed that life may be the result of law and inevitable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka8573QQKW4 So we don't necessarily have to accept the happy accident idea of life, but that it was inevitable. Self organization is a law built into nature, the very laws of physics themselves help for life to inevitably arise. Many molecular and chemical processes necessary for life are just law, self organization, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12468283. These inevitable processes of evolution can rationally be viewed in more than one way, again benign or enchanted?


I'm a methodological naturalist, so I don't think that life on earth was created by magic. That doesn't keep me from feeling a sense of awe and wonder when I'm out hiking or reading a book on evolution. I'm afraid you might be swapping meanings of "magic" around: magic as a non-natural occurrence vs. magic as something that generates a feeling of awe and wonder.

This is an interesting twist for me. Up above, you just got done stressing the contingency of life. Now you're jumping to the inevitability of life. Certainly its possible that the laws of the universe make life inevitable, but we've actually seen no evidence of that. They certainly don't make life inevitable everywhere and we've had no chance to investigate a planet similar to ours.

mikwut wrote:We further see in evolution the same morphology appearing separately, not by a one off mutation or chance process. Nature appears law given so the same features in biology appear although not related. For example, most of us are aware of the African cheetah, but most of us are unaware that there existed an American Cheetah that was almost identical in structure and form. These examples of convergent evolution are so numerous they can't all be listed, Life as we know it seems to be just the fabric of nature. Law like. A hypothesis that if you rewound the tape all over again life as we know it would inevitably arise. Alien planets would be inhabited by not some foreign imagination of life, but the inevitable life as we know it and has emerged. Where do those life giving enchanting law like abilities come from? That question just returns us to the benign or enchanted philosophical question that doesn't rationally allow for the one or the other to be eliminated.


Convergent evolution in no way shows that chance mutations are not involved. Likewise, it does not mean that "nature" or any other guiding force propelled the evolution in both lines. Actually, there is considerable doubt over whether the "American cheetah" should properly be called a cheetah at all. We only have a sample of one planet, so concluding that life is "the fabric of nature" substantially overstates the evidence. As does any claim that if we started the earth over we would end up with the same creatures today.

And all this leaves me with at the end is asking: why should I believe there is some entity that "created" the laws? I see no good reason, and so I don't.

mikwut wrote:So, if I were Ceeboo I would just learn how enchanted evolution is and keep telling his interlocutors what makes them so certain naturalism is so boringly benign?

mikwut


All that looks like is a false dichotomy: naturalism isn't boring at all, but is filled with awe and wonder.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951

Post Reply