Evolution: Theory or Fact. or Are there signs of intelligent design in Pennsylvania

[haldir]

Hi Pure,

You replied with the following two arguements.

1. Assume the universe has a beginning in time, say at the "Big Bang" 11 billion years ago.

Consider the aggregate of all events (of nature) from the BB onward to now, including the BB.

By the 'self evident' principle, this aggregate has a cause (reason, explanation).

That would be some non natural cause/force/agent.

----
2. Alternatively, assume the universe goes back infinitely far in time (infinite regress of causes).

Consider that infinite chain from {wherever} to the BB to now.

That chain must have a cause (reason, explanation),

Ergo, a non-natural one, as above.

It will not surprise you to know that I have problems with both.

In arguement 1, you state that the aggregate of events has a cause - of course it does, but this does not imply "reason" or purpose. Further, given that the aggregation of events is fundamentally without direction towards a goal, the conclusion that this must be caused by a non-natural cause/force/agent is illogical. The same arguements hold true for your second scenario. The conclusion would only hold true if it could be demonstrated that under no set of circumstance could natural causes have generated the aggregate of events.

So much for breakfast eating.

 

[Pure]

Hi Haldir.
I guess the word 'reason' was misleading; I simply meant, as in "The reason he went to McDonalds is that he was hungry."
"Reason" need no imply intention as in "The reason I'm here on this earth is that my father met my mother, one fine summer day, and got a little carried away." I simply mean, an explanation why something is, or came about; a proposed basis on which the thing in question can be understood, particularly as to why it exists.


But let's stick to cause.

In arguement 1, you state that the aggregate of events has a cause - of course it does, but this does not imply "reason" or purpose. Further, given that the aggregation of events is fundamentally without direction towards a goal, the conclusion that this must be caused by a non-natural cause/force/agent is illogical. The same arguements hold true for your second scenario. The conclusion would only hold true if it could be demonstrated that under no set of circumstance could natural causes have generated the aggregate of events.

So much for breakfast eating.

I'm afraid you're ignoring the premises of the argument

when you say, "The conclusion would only hold true if it could be demonstrated that under no set of circumstance could natural causes have generated the aggregate of events."



To recap:

1.Every state of affairs (event) has a cause. As we agreed.

2. We have assumed in Argument 1, that The Universe (all of nature, all phenomena of nature, then and after) originated in a Big Bang. (That is, the BB is the first event of nature; every event of nature comes after it (excepting the BB).)

It's an aggregate and you agree the whole thing has a cause.

By 2. it cannot be natural.

----
The second argument deals with an hypothesized infinitely long string/web of causes (i.e., 'no beginning'; no 'first event of nature') All events of nature are included in this aggregate, again by hypothesis.

But by 1. The aggregate has a cause. etc.

-----

If you or anyone is interested in this old argument, there was a clash of two fine philosophers about it-- under the label 'argument from contingency': Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston.

http://www.ditext.com/russell/debate.html

 

[haldir]

Ok - here we go again.

I am not ignoring the premises of the arguement but merely not pre-judging the conclusion - or rather, not ascribing causes to events that I know nothing about.

Both scenarios are fundamentally the same because they pre-suppose that there has to be a material "something" before our experienced reality. For me, I cannot conceive of what this may be, but I am confident that our understanding of untlimate origin will improve. I see no need, logical or otherwise, to conclude that the "universe" (whatever that may be) requires an external, non-natural cause ( a contradiction in terms in my book). As I have stated repeatedly - the fact that we cannot explain things from our current state of understanding does not mean that we will never be able to explain them.

To be frank, what really pisses me off about the circular logic that the ID/creationists use is that it is an excuse NOT to think.

If we accept that your conclusions about the BB are correct (which I dont) then where does that take us? If there is an "external intelligence" behind all this then surely everything that happens after BB is pre-ordained - otherwise there can be no direction and therefor no "intelligence" behind it all.

If this is accepted, then where do we, as humans stand? Surely, every criminal has a get out of jail card - it wisnae me - a big god did it and ran away (pardon my patoi). The point is - if there was a non-natural, intelligent cause behind BB, then everything that follows should fullfill a plan, and thus nothing happens by chance, we have no free will and even the worst of humanity is explicable as (for want of a better word) divine planning.

Anyway - enough of this. This thread started as a debate about ID v evolution and here we are talking about the BB etc. I ask again where is the EVIDENCE, what is the motivation of the ID/creationist lobby? Do we really NEED to know why we are here? Is it not enough to live our lives to the best of our abilities, damaging as few people as possible?

If you want eternity - atoms are apprently immortal (unless smashed by particle physicists) - every atom of our bodies will return to nature in some form. Ponder.

Pure - I'm bored now. Cough the ID evidence or I'm finished here.

 

[rgraham666]

And then comes the big question, "Who created the creator?"

 

[Pure]

Hi Haldir,
Well, I've given the url's for the best arguments, a few of which I've tried to recap. So far as I can see, the "Intelligent Design" view has four main pillars:

1) The mostly a priori 'contingency' argument you don't like. It has one empirical premise: There is at least one contingent event.

2) The 'holes' in the neo Darwinian theory, some logical ['just-so' stories; no predictive power], some factual; in the latter regard:

3) From experience we don't know of any serious 'jumps in complexity,' esp. the arising of irreducible complexity that are NOT in some way related to (something like) 'intelligence.'

4) There is no principled way to argue pure 'metaphysical naturalism' (that nature is all there is; that all natural events have causes entirely within nature.) At best it's a handy rule of thumb for science to stick to natural measurable events and go looking for their natural causes.

I certainly don't want to bore you, but that's how I'd summarize the situation.

Your argument that intelligent cause implies pre ordainment is pretty shakey, and hastily improvised, so probably not worth pursuing.

As to policy, I'd favor a bit of philos of science in the science courses, and making them NOT grind axes against (make claims against) any religion.