Evolution/creation: the underlying dilemma; explaining order

[Pincho Paxton]

guest_of_logic: What false assumptions did you have in mind?

Robert: The strong atheist-evolutionist may believe that science can provide a complete model of order and origins, the creationist theist may believe that scriptural ideology is complete and inerrant in its model of order and origins. Like you said, without omniscience, it would be foolish to think that either position is solid.

Oh, in the original context it seemed that what you meant was that the dilemma itself was predicated on false assumptions, and not just that those who chose one side or other of the dilemma were (or might be) making false assumptions. Perhaps I misunderstood you, or perhaps you changed your mind.

There are other theories that are in-between these two theories of Evolution, and God. For example the theory that the electrons created everything. If that were true, then nature would include a God in Evolution, and that God would be the electrons.

Pincho, would you agree though that electrons are ordered, and that in and of themselves they can't be an explanation of order?

There is an explanation of order in swarms, it is that each member of a swarm has 1 job to do, but all of those 1 jobs = intelligence by number. Like a flock of birds look like a pattern, but in fact they are all just doing 1 thing.

[guest_of_logic]

There is an explanation of order in swarms, it is that each member of a swarm has 1 job to do, but all of those 1 jobs = intelligence by number. Like a flock of birds look like a pattern, but in fact they are all just doing 1 thing.

Mmm, that's interesting but it's more of a contextual and relative explanation of an instance of order than the overarching explanation being sought in this thread for all order. i.e. doing a job is itself an ordered activity, so you've already assumed order in trying to explain it. As has been raised previously in this thread, any explanation of order is going to assume order just by the nature of explanations, but I think we can hope for a more ultimate explanation than what you've provided.

[Gurrb]

the inexplicable cannot be explained. it takes facts to then use logic to make sense of a situation. we have logic, we do not have facts. in the case of this discussion, one believes in religion, the other believes in science... but both believe in faith of some sorts.

men of great power should not have power over great men.

[Robert]

guest_of_logic: What false assumptions did you have in mind?

Robert: The strong atheist-evolutionist may believe that science can provide a complete model of order and origins, the creationist theist may believe that scriptural ideology is complete and inerrant in its model of order and origins. Like you said, without omniscience, it would be foolish to think that either position is solid.

Oh, in the original context it seemed that what you meant was that the dilemma itself was predicated on false assumptions, and not just that those who chose one side or other of the dilemma were (or might be) making false assumptions.

Well both seem to be true as far as I can tell. That both: a. there's a true dilemma explaining order in the universe, and b. there's a "war" between creationists and strong atheists-evolutionists over who has the best chance of 'winning the battle', are based in faulty logic and false assumptions.

If a is inexplainable in any complete sense, then b is rendered mute. That's what I was getting at by "contrived", there is an argument taking place, but I can't see how it has any basis in reality. There can be no winner.

[Pincho Paxton]

There is an explanation of order in swarms, it is that each member of a swarm has 1 job to do, but all of those 1 jobs = intelligence by number. Like a flock of birds look like a pattern, but in fact they are all just doing 1 thing.

Mmm, that's interesting but it's more of a contextual and relative explanation of an instance of order than the overarching explanation being sought in this thread for all order. i.e. doing a job is itself an ordered activity, so you've already assumed order in trying to explain it. As has been raised previously in this thread, any explanation of order is going to assume order just by the nature of explanations, but I think we can hope for a more ultimate explanation than what you've provided.

Order starts with consumption. To recharge energy. That's the first phase. I think what initially happened was that the electrons were catching the Photons, and this was recharging the electrons. Then the electrons had to get to the photons. After generations of the electrons trying to get to the Photons they developed wings, and a nice fractal example is bees. Bees dance, and buzz to make a map to the flower, and electrons buzz when they catch a photon. We pick up the buzz as light waves. Somehow our brain seems to produce fake photons for the electrons to catch, and the buzz produced is an inward vibration, that creates an inward image called imagination. The reward for the electrons is that we watch movies, and give them the real photons that they desire.

So the initial job was to recharge, to consume, and the ability to buzz was an ability to pass a message. Messages passed = intelligence. We know that electricity buzzes, we know that bees buzz, and we know that bees pass messages. Finally we know that an electron can exist at the beginning of the Universe. So if an electron is a creature, then it can easily be the first creature, and if it is the first creature, then it can easily be the creator.

[Blair]

There doesn't seem to be an easy way out of this dilemma. I can think of two possibilities. The first is that God has a nature which cannot be (or at least is not yet) understood by us, and which somehow avoids the infinite regress. The second possibility is to apply the thinking of the first possibility to the "creation" rather than the creator, and to say that its nature is so mysterious that it cannot be (or at least is not yet) understood, but that perhaps science or creative and critical thinking might someday lead to that understanding.

This is basically correct, God is beyond actual detection by any science; A creator having superior knowledge and power can easily conceal itself from the created just through manipulating the properties of energy, just as an A.I character in a computer game is completely unaware of its own context within a programmed game in and of itself.
There are clues left around though, elements that have been uncovered by scientific "discovery", such as ultra-violet light. Beyond the limits of human senses, but nevertheless provable that it's there.

Nature can seem mysterious, but when examined closely, through a philosophical, rather than myopic science lens, it reveals itself quite clearly to be a symbiotic system that was engineered. The idea that the universe is so large that these things happened by sheer accident is a fallacy, it does not hold any logical water whatsoever.

If you give a team of scientists 4 billion years and unlimited budget and resources, they still wouldn't be able to create even dirt, from nothing. It would never happen.

[Animus]

I'm sorry, I don't see this as a proper characterization of the debate between creationists and evolutionists.

For some "evolutionists" I suppose they hold dogmatically to the absence of a creator, but I wouldn't say that this underpins their defense of evolution.

The way I see it, there are these religious zealots who think they know what God is, but simultaneously make contradictory claims like "You can't know the mind of God", "God works in mysterious ways" and "Science will never detect God". But each and every one of these goofusses seems to think they know the mind of God, or can detect God directly. They also claim to know by faith, which could only be surpassed in blatant contradiction by the phrase "Free-Will".

On the one hand there are people with self-contradictory and asinine conceptions of God as Man, specifically a Man who shares all of their values. Out of this, they think, God could not have created a system which does not have their heartfelt values at its core, so they reject the obvious fact of evolution.

On the other hand, the "evolutionists", seem to be wanting to defend an observable fact from the onslaught of idiocy coming from creationism. Whether or not these individuals have metaphysical assumptions or believe in a God is completely a different topic. I can't say that I believe in God, because I fuckin' know God, but the God I know is nothing at all like the God that is known by faith and tithes to a megachurch. The God I know has the universe as its temple and has no need of finite constructs known as Churches. These are only soothers for the adult children of God, accompanied by fanciful bedtime stories.

To me, this is an issue of human maturity. The creationists are like little children and the evolutionists are simply defending an observable fact. I'm not myself very interested in the "evolutionists" metaphysical assumptions because they don't play any pertinent role in the observable fact of evolution which is the issue consistently being debated. If creationists were honest and attempted to move the debate to "What is God?" or "Is God real?" then it would have nothing at all to do with evolution, just as God being real or not has nothing to do with how I put a DVD into my playstation. Sure on some ultimate metaphysical level of description it becomes necessary to ask such questions, but if all I want to do is watch a DVD then its not very helpful at all.

Of course, it is a basic pillar of science that all theories are provisional and no absolute claims are made. Every scientist worth their weight in nerve cells states that science will only ever produce incomplete theories. It is, however, creationists who want to shoehorn absolutism into science and to use their absolute as a refutation of observable evidence.

So to recharacterize this "debate", there are fuckin' loonies on one side, and possibly half-cracked but mildly reasonable peeps on the other.

[Blair]

Well it's like if humans were able to create an A.I human that could even replicate and blend itself biologically (highly advanced technology), and let it exist in its own dome, after a while the A.I would come to the conclusion that it created itself in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

This is the type of dumbassery the human race is making of itself in front of a creator.

[David Quinn]

Boy, you've really gone downhill.

You've managed, in the space of a few months, to go from one of the more interesting posters to by far the least interesting. Quite a feat.

-

[Blair]

Don't call me Boy, yeah.

You are the boy, if anyone. You and Dan.

Humans don't devolve in understanding or in any aspect in a single lifetime, unless they incur some kind of brain damage, which I have not.

It is you, who haven't evolved.

[Nick]

Prince, you really are a fucking idiot.

[Blair]

Oh yeah? well I beg to differ. I know that you are the fucking idiot in this scenario.

[Nick]

No, seriously, you are an absolute fucking moron.

[David Quinn]

What is your take on this dilemma, and in particular how would you go about solving it? Do you agree that the order of the universe demands an explanation? If not, why not? If so, then what is your explanation for the degree to which the universe is ordered?

As with anything else, what we call "order" emerges naturally when the causal conditions are ripe.

For example, in ancient galactic times, seething, chaotic brews of hydrogen and helium naturally coalesced under the forces of gravity and electromagnetic forces to form stars and planets. These were natural processes of "order" emerging out of "chaos".

It happens everywhere around us. It is all perfectly natural. No supernatural or metaphysical explanation is needed.

Your question is wrongly put because it assumes there is something inherently special about "order" that it requires an extra layer of explanation above what is needed to explain occurrences of chaos or randomness.

This kind of thinking, in turn, derives from your ever-present anthropocentric/narcissistic outlook on life.

-

[Ataraxia]

Haha, well put, David.

A natural New Year to you, sir.

[Blair]

No, seriously, you are an absolute fucking moron.

And your criteria for a moron, is what exactly?

Does the fact that my IQ puts me in the top 0.5% of mensa matter at all? probably not.

You are the fucking moron jackass. You will never be but a shadow of me.

[guest_of_logic]

the inexplicable cannot be explained. it takes facts to then use logic to make sense of a situation. we have logic, we do not have facts.

Are you saying that order is inexplicable, and that we don't have sufficient facts to explain order?

Well both seem to be true as far as I can tell. That both: a. there's a true dilemma explaining order in the universe, and b. there's a "war" between creationists and strong atheists-evolutionists over who has the best chance of 'winning the battle', are based in faulty logic and false assumptions.

If a is inexplainable in any complete sense, then b is rendered mute. That's what I was getting at by "contrived", there is an argument taking place, but I can't see how it has any basis in reality. There can be no winner.

I'm not convinced though that a complete explanation is impossible. Just because an explanation is perhaps "circular" or "self-referential", depending on which word we decide fits best, doesn't mean that it can't be complete.

Order starts with consumption.

I like your imagination, Pincho, but as far as I can tell you're still not getting to the root of things, at least in the context of this thread.

guest_of_logic: There doesn't seem to be an easy way out of this dilemma. I can think of two possibilities. The first is that God has a nature which cannot be (or at least is not yet) understood by us, and which somehow avoids the infinite regress. The second possibility is to apply the thinking of the first possibility to the "creation" rather than the creator, and to say that its nature is so mysterious that it cannot be (or at least is not yet) understood, but that perhaps science or creative and critical thinking might someday lead to that understanding.

prince: This is basically correct, God is beyond actual detection by any science

It seems that you're saying that the solution to the dilemma is the first possibility: that God has a nature that we don't understand that somehow avoids the infinite regress. Do you believe then that understanding how His nature avoids the need of an explanation for its order (and hence avoids the infinite regress) is possible at all, ever, for anyone? Do you have that understanding? Does God?

I'm sorry, I don't see this as a proper characterization of the debate between creationists and evolutionists.

Well, as I tried to clarify, I was referring not just to evolutionists, but to evolutionists who are also strong atheists - I don't know whether that affects your reaction.

For some "evolutionists" I suppose they hold dogmatically to the absence of a creator, but I wouldn't say that this underpins their defense of evolution.

I wasn't trying to suggest that it does though - rather, the other way around: their belief in evolution underpins (or at least is a plank in) their belief in the absence of a creator.

As with anything else, what we call "order" emerges naturally when the causal conditions are ripe.

Causal conditions are themselves an instance of order. You're using an ordered phenomenon to explain order in general.

Welcome back. I've been wondering what you've been up to.

[Robert]

I'm not convinced though that a complete explanation is impossible. Just because an explanation is perhaps "circular" or "self-referential", depending on which word we decide fits best, doesn't mean that it can't be complete.

Only priests of both religion and science offer complete explanations. Why bother with fictional characters?

[Jason]

Some musings...

From a scientific perspective:
If you locate this "intelligent designer" prior to the big bang, and have it only responsible for providing the necessary preconditions for the big bang, with no necessity for intervention by the designer in the universe after the big bang(everything after the big bang being explainable by science) - then perhaps the creator would "only" need to seed the universe with (arguably) very simplistic designs. So simple would these precondition be, perhaps, that they may not even have the tendency to elicit the feeling that an intelligent designer was responsible for these preconditions in the first place. I'm thinking of preconditions like fundamental particles and physical laws. Physicists have managed to siphon these down into quite simple laws - does the simplicity of these laws, and the simplicity of the primeval universe, even generate this "watchmaker" feeling?

From a psychological/evolutionary perspective: "order" could be seen as a quality dependent upon, and residing only within consciousness, rather than an inherent quality of the universe. From an evolutionary perspective, it would make sense(to this order perceiving lifeform, at least) that those lifeforms which could perceive order in their environments would gain a survival advantage. I know that one argument would be: there must be order in the environment to begin with, for a lifeform to be able to perceive it. To that argument I would respond with clouds, Rorschach tests and so on - the fact that multiple entirely different patterns and orders can be perceived in apparently the same substrate.

From a combining of psychological/evolutionary/scientific perspective: much recent physics, particularly quantum physics, does not look at all ordered in the conventional sense to most people. It is unintuitive and challenges common sense and common human experience. Would it be reasonable then to assume an intelligent creator, given these very odd and weird and maybe even "disordered" fundamental laws? These laws often seem at odds with the ways that the most intelligent creator we currently know(humans) generally designs things. If we look at many of the religions during pre-scientific times, we often see the idea that the earth, animals and so on were created by one or more intelligent designers/creators - but the picture that they regularly paint of these creation processes always seems to mesh very naturally with common sense and the experience of human beings. Riverbed impressions are made from the slithering body of a giant serpent, lightning is shot down from mighty hammers, and so on - a great contrast to the weird and extremely hard to digest quantumn physics creation of science. It would seem that most people, pre-science, would not find quantumn physics laws to be intuitively the sort of design that an intelligent designer would create - from that perspective it suggests a very tortured and unnatural sort of rationalization on the part of those claiming that the qualities of the modern-physics-reliant universe imply a creator.

From a biological perspective: we humans are capable of creating other intelligent humans without using much conscious intelligence at all. Shoot some sperm in the right hole and wait nine months. In fact, we do better creating other intelligences without the use of our own intelligence than we do with it(think of how weak artificial intelligence currently is.) Given this known situation, why assume intelligence is necessary precondition for creating intelligence and other apparently highly-ordered structures?

[David Quinn]

As with anything else, what we call "order" emerges naturally when the causal conditions are ripe.

Causal conditions are themselves an instance of order.

So a seething, chaotic brew of hydrogen and helium which eventually gives rise to stars and planets is an instance of order? What then, in your opinion, isn't an instance of order?

You're using an ordered phenomenon to explain order in general.

Not at all. Causality cannot be described as a form of order, nor as a form of chaos - just as it cannot be described as a form of tree or mountain. While it effortlessly creates all these things in its own good time, it itself cannot be described by reference to anything it happens to create.

You still continue to miss the heart of causality by an infinite margin.

Order may come from previous instances of order, or it may come from disorder, or a mixture of both. It all depends on what happens to be existing at any one time. There are no fixed rules in this regard.

-

[David Quinn]

Haha, well put, David.

A natural New Year to you, sir.

And to you. Let's hope that we all become more natural in the coming year.

-

[guest_of_logic]

Robert,

Only priests of both religion and science offer complete explanations.

Or at least purport to. I find it odd, though, that on a forum dedicated to ultimate truth, whose aims you seem to generally support, you don't seem to be attracted to the idea of an ultimate (and "complete") explanation of order. As I acknowledged earlier, I might be able to formulate the dilemma better if I were omniscient, but there's definitely something crying out for understanding when it comes to how it is that the universe is so ordered as to produce and/or support self aware life, wouldn't you acknowledge in turn?

Jason,

Great post - thanks for that.

Physicists have managed to siphon [the necessary preconditions for the big bang] down into quite simple laws - does the simplicity of these laws, and the simplicity of the primeval universe, even generate this "watchmaker" feeling?

An alternative word choice in this context for "simplicity" is "elegance", and elegance very much does generate a watchmaker feeling. Granted, which of those words a person would choose might depend on his/her aims.

I know that one argument would be: there must be order in the environment to begin with, for a lifeform to be able to perceive it. To that argument I would respond with clouds, Rorschach tests and so on - the fact that multiple entirely different patterns and orders can be perceived in apparently the same substrate.

I support the original argument, which I'd express in the light of your response as follows: for it to be possible to perceive the subjective/personal order in a substrate that you referred to in your examples, there has to be an underlying "objective" (perhaps "more abstract" is a better choice of words) order in the first place from which that subjective order can be constructed. At a minimum for the two examples that you listed, there must first exist the order of colour/shade and the order of shape before the imagination can take hold. I'd also suggest that the result of the imagination taking hold is better labelled "(an) interpretation (of ordered phenomena)" than "order (itself)", albeit that interpretations themselves are by their nature ordered.

It would seem that most people, pre-science, would not find quantumn physics laws to be intuitively the sort of design that an intelligent designer would create - from that perspective it suggests a very tortured and unnatural sort of rationalization on the part of those claiming that the qualities of the modern-physics-reliant universe imply a creator.

That same perspective could also imply that the creator is far more imaginative and complex than we had previously considered possible - it could even be seen as a more advanced (and therefore more demanding of explanation) order than previously believed in.

From a biological perspective: we humans are capable of creating other intelligent humans without using much conscious intelligence at all. Shoot some sperm in the right hole and wait nine months. In fact, we do better creating other intelligences without the use of our own intelligence than we do with it(think of how weak artificial intelligence currently is.) Given this known situation, why assume intelligence is necessary precondition for creating intelligence and other apparently highly-ordered structures?

Good point, but then, what's the answer? Is it just turtles all the way down? Intelligent order from unintelligent order from unintelligent order, to infinity? Why (or how) then does this infinite series manifest at all?

David,

So a seething, chaotic brew of hydrogen and helium which eventually gives rise to stars and planets is an instance of order?

It is ordered at least to the extent that there are physical laws that control exactly how the hydrogen and helium seethes.

What then, in your opinion, isn't an instance of order?

As I wrote in my opening post, order is relative, so some things are more ordered than others. Conscious life is from a certain perspective more ordered than the hydrogen/helium brew, and it's with order of that degree - i.e. that which supports and underlies the capacity for conscious reflection - that my OP was concerned.

Causality cannot be described as a form of order, nor as a form of chaos - just as it cannot be described as a form of tree or mountain.

We're probably using different definitions of order then. Temporal causality represents order in the sense that cause precedes effect and has a relationship with it. Co-dependent origination as a form of causality represents order in the sense that the parts have a relationship with one another that supports their existence: in other words, co-dependency is an ordered relationship.

[Gurrb]

No, seriously, you are an absolute fucking moron.

And your criteria for a moron, is what exactly?

Does the fact that my IQ puts me in the top 0.5% of mensa matter at all? probably not.

You are the fucking moron jackass. You will never be but a shadow of me.

oh boy. your lack of confidence is showing. you lack creativity in all your posts.

[Animus]

Does the fact that my IQ puts me in the top 0.5% of mensa matter at all? probably not.

Come on, is Mensa really that hard to get into?

Which letter comes next in this series of letters?
B A C B D C E D F ?

Which word of four letters can be added to the front of the following words to create other English words?
CARD BOX CODE BAG HASTE


Seems pretty easy to me...

http://www.mensa.org/workout2.php?

[Jason]

Physicists have managed to siphon [the necessary preconditions for the big bang] down into quite simple laws - does the simplicity of these laws, and the simplicity of the primeval universe, even generate this "watchmaker" feeling?

An alternative word choice in this context for "simplicity" is "elegance", and elegance very much does generate a watchmaker feeling. Granted, which of those words a person would choose might depend on his/her aims.

That seems like clutching at straws, and like you want it both ways. If it's complex it suggests a designer, yet if it's simple it suggests a designer too. I would have thought the "watchmaker" feeling is largely inspired by the fact that a "watch"(or relevant phenomena) is composed of complex finely-tuned mechanisms.

Isn't intelligence, and its creations, very often fundamentally characterized by its complexity? You yourself spoke of a creator necessarily being highly ordered, which sounds similar to "complex."

Perhaps it might be worthwhile to invert the investigation: what, to you, would characterize phenomena that do not imply a creator?

I know that one argument would be: there must be order in the environment to begin with, for a lifeform to be able to perceive it. To that argument I would respond with clouds, Rorschach tests and so on - the fact that multiple entirely different patterns and orders can be perceived in apparently the same substrate.

I support the original argument, which I'd express in the light of your response as follows: for it to be possible to perceive the subjective/personal order in a substrate that you referred to in your examples, there has to be an underlying "objective" (perhaps "more abstract" is a better choice of words) order in the first place from which that subjective order can be constructed. At a minimum for the two examples that you listed, there must first exist the order of colour/shade and the order of shape before the imagination can take hold. I'd also suggest that the result of the imagination taking hold is better labelled "(an) interpretation (of ordered phenomena)" than "order (itself)", albeit that interpretations themselves are by their nature ordered.

A lot of this seems anthropic and tautological to me(not just the above quote.)

It would seem that most people, pre-science, would not find quantumn physics laws to be intuitively the sort of design that an intelligent designer would create - from that perspective it suggests a very tortured and unnatural sort of rationalization on the part of those claiming that the qualities of the modern-physics-reliant universe imply a creator.

That same perspective could also imply that the creator is far more imaginative and complex than we had previously considered possible - it could even be seen as a more advanced (and therefore more demanding of explanation) order than previously believed in.

Again you seem to be very imaginatively and liberally widening the category of phenomena that would imply a creator. It continues to make me question if you're doing this in good faith(pun intended.)

From a biological perspective: we humans are capable of creating other intelligent humans without using much conscious intelligence at all. Shoot some sperm in the right hole and wait nine months. In fact, we do better creating other intelligences without the use of our own intelligence than we do with it(think of how weak artificial intelligence currently is.) Given this known situation, why assume intelligence is necessary precondition for creating intelligence and other apparently highly-ordered structures?

Good point, but then, what's the answer? Is it just turtles all the way down? Intelligent order from unintelligent order from unintelligent order, to infinity? Why (or how) then does this infinite series manifest at all?

Generally I hold, rather tentatively, to the mainstream scientific explanations of these things. Intelligence>from evolution>from the right combination of non-living precursor materials. I'm a little more skeptical of the grandest cosmological theories like the Big Bang, simply because I think they may be straining science's reach at this point in time.