August 13, 2007

SO THE GAME ISN'T PLAYED ACCORDING TO HOYLE EITHER:

Hitting a Nerve with 'Evolutionists' (David Warren, 8/13/07, Real Clear Politics)

[T]he edifice of official atheist materialism continues to crumble, under the pressure of actual scientific inquiry. Mr Behe's recent book, The Edge of Darwinism: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, does a fairly good job of testing the three iron struts from which Darwinism was welded: random mutation, natural selection, and common descent. He is able to leave only this last standing.

This last week we learned of the collapse of one of the latest props of "deep evolutionism," which was also one of the earliest (the ancient Greeks first thought of it): the very popular "panspermian" hypothesis that life was first seeded on the earth by materials arriving in comets. It has been kicked away by Paul Falkowski, and other biologists and oceanographers from Rutgers and Boston universities, studying DNA samples frozen in the Antarctic ice. (See, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.) They showed that nothing of any earthly genetic use could have survived the journey.

Like every other modern essay in "evolutionism" (i.e. evolution as a religious cosmology), the idea behind panspermianism is to transfer the problem of life's origin on earth, out of the finite space and time of the earth's own geological history, and into some abstract place where the laws of chance have an infinite amount of time to do whatever is necessary.

But new problems keep arising in this quest, for even if you could prove the trigger for biological life was pulled elsewhere, long before the earth was formed, where does that get you? We can now roughly date the origin of our universe, and 15 billion years more-or-less is proving much too short a time for random processes to produce a non-random result. Verily, 15 billion times 15 billion years is still not nearly enough time.


Saw a bumper sticker tonight that said something like this:

Militant Atheist
I don't know anything and you don't either

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 13, 2007 9:52 PM
Comments

Substitute "Easter Bunny" for "God", and see how you still feel. That's pretty much the way everyone else does.

Posted by: Juno at August 13, 2007 10:54 PM

Are you saying everyone believes in the easter bunny but not God? Or that God is an easter bunny? Coherency in argument is still a valued commodity, even amongst darwinists.

I often wish that petulance had been spanked out of the baby boomers, but, alas...

Posted by: Randall Voth at August 14, 2007 2:23 AM

". . . 15 billion years more-or-less is proving much too short a time for random processes to produce a non-random result. Verily, 15 billion times 15 billion years is still not nearly enough time."

It seems as though the author has been cribbing David Berlinski, whose essay in Commentary, "The Deniable Darwin" (http://www.rae.org/dendar.html) came out in 1996. He elegantly explains that the universe isn't old enough for random mutation to result in us.

If you structure your critique of Evolution properly, Time is on your side.

Posted by: Ed Bush at August 14, 2007 6:15 AM

No one doesn't believe in the Easter Bunny, just at a certain age you realize he's your father, not a bunny.

Posted by: oj at August 14, 2007 6:23 AM

The Father, who is a son, and Easter bunny. A new trinity. And the adherents of this belief are called Bunions. heh.

Posted by: Ed Bush at August 14, 2007 7:06 AM

It's a simple metaphor: the loot that you think appears magically is just a gift from the father.

Posted by: oj at August 14, 2007 7:28 AM

The bumper sticker I saw said:

"Militant Agnostic: I don't know and you don't either!"

Posted by: Genecis at August 14, 2007 1:16 PM

Yeah, I've seen that around too. Kind of misunderstands the whole idea of "faith" but I'm no theologian.

The one I roll my eyes at is "I'm already against the next war!"
Way to cede the moral high ground, Mr. Smug Peacenik.

Posted by: Bryan at August 14, 2007 1:55 PM

Geez oj,

Can't you take a joke?

Posted by: Ed Bush at August 14, 2007 9:18 PM

Geez oj,

Can't you take a joke? I know what a meta is phor.

All best,

Ed

Posted by: Ed Bush at August 14, 2007 9:21 PM

One of Warren's errors is to think that the "random processes" evolutionists refer to are purely random. They aren't: they are constrained by natural laws. Such constrained randomness creates changes much more quickly than theoretically pure randomness, and yes, the universe is old enough for that.

For an online example of constrained randomness creating life-like forms, see John Conway's Game of Life. Just scribble in the squares and hit "start." More at Wikipedia. (I'd leave another link but don't want to get caught by the spam filter.)

Posted by: PapayaSF at August 14, 2007 9:44 PM

Please do not post comments pretending to be another commenter. Pap is nowhere near stupid enough to use obvious intelligent design to try to prove "nature".

Posted by: oj at August 14, 2007 11:07 PM

Glad you think I'm not stupid, after calling me a racist for objecting to illegal immigration. (Amazing how you can claim to know that, since you only know what I've written here, none of it "racist" to anyone saner than Al Sharpton, and don't know my race, or the race of any of my friends or former roommates or dates).

It's about science, OJ. Scientists set up experiments to model how things work in the real world. That doesn't make everything they do "intelligent design." You can argue that natural laws come from God if you want. But the argument that the universe is too young for life to have developed through randomness constrained by laws is simply wrong. Obviously we can't create a test universe and wait 15 billion years in order to prove this; we have to conduct small-scale experiments and use logic and common sense to extrapolate.

Posted by: PapayaSF at August 15, 2007 12:20 PM

There's a name for experiments set up by intelligent beings: intelligent designs. Your argument that evolution functions as set up by intelligent beings is Intelligent Design, not Darwinism. But, fret not, no one is actually a Darwinist.

You should be more troubled that your supposed belief in Darwinism is coupled with nativism--both are racist.

Posted by: oj at August 15, 2007 2:52 PM

Wanting legal immigration but not illegal immigration is not "nativism."

Posted by: PapayaSF at August 15, 2007 3:32 PM

Yes, if you supported just legalizing the unlimited immigrants you'd not be a nativist.

Posted by: oj at August 15, 2007 4:08 PM

There's a name for experiments set up by intelligent beings: intelligent designs. Your argument that evolution functions as set up by intelligent beings is Intelligent Design, not Darwinism.

That has to be the most incoherent sentence ever.

Pretty typical of Intelligent Designism.

Posted by: eski at August 15, 2007 8:25 PM

From within a syllogism everything outside looks incoherent. That's why they're fatal to thought.

Posted by: oj at August 15, 2007 10:17 PM
« WHO NEEDS THE BRAIN WHEN YOU'VE GOT PINKY?: | Main | THERE'S A REALISTIC THREAT FOR YOU--JUDAISM WILL BE ESTABLISHED AS OUR NATIONAL RELIGION: »