the cosmological argument, 3
You next claim that only matter and mind exist, and that since something exists now, something eternal must exist (a conclusion you reach via the first law of thermodynamics, that the sum total of mass-energy must be conserved). You then claim that since you have proven that matter ‘had a beginning’, and is therefore not eternal, only mind can be eternal.
It’s pretty obvious where this is heading, but your statement about the existence of mind, for which you claim there is irrefutable evidence based on the work of Dr John Eccles, is misleading. According to your essay, Dr. Eccles won the Nobel Prize for distinguishing that the mind is more than merely physical. He showed that the supplementary motor area of the brain may be fired by mere intention to do something, without the motor cortex of the brain (which controls muscle movements) operating. In effect, the mind is to the brain what a librarian is to a library. The former is not reducible to the latter.
This is a very bold assertion indeed. While it is true that Eccles was a dualist in his approach to the mind-body problem, it is simply incorrect to claim that he won the Nobel Prize for showing that the mind had extra-material properties. Eccles shared the 1963 prize with two other physiologists. The lengthy and detailed presentation speech explains that Eccles received the prize for his part in the understanding of how nerve cells are excited and inhibited through synapses. The processes described are purely material.
You end the main body of your essay with the confident but naïve assertion that, ‘The evidence speaks clearly regarding the existence of a non-contingent, eternal, self-existent Mind that created this Universe and everything within it.’ In fact you have produced no such evidence.
Your concluding remarks about Stonehenge move us towards an argument from design, and I will make no comment on them here. However, your swipe at evolution strikes me as completely absurd, and I cannot refrain from comment. You quote R L Wysong, writing in 1976:
Everyone concludes naturally and comfortably that highly ordered and designed items (machines, houses, etc.) owe existence to a designer. It is unnatural to conclude otherwise. But evolution asks us to break stride from what is natural to believe and then believe in that which is unnatural, unreasonable, and...unbelievable.... The basis for this departure from what is natural and reasonable to believe is not fact, observation, or experience but rather unreasonable extrapolations from abstract probabilities, mathematics, and philosophy.
The theory of evolution is accepted by scientists within the field because of its enormous explanatory power and because it accounts for all the observable evidence. To claim that it is based on ‘unreasonable extrapolations from abstract probabilities’, etc, is as completely incorrect as it is possible to be. The fossil record is accounted for by evolution and is not accounted for by any alternative theory. The only alternative theory to evolution that I know of is creationism and the fixity of species, a theory completely discredited by the evidence, or lack thereof. That is why the theory had to be abandoned in the nineteenth century. Any theistic argument for the existence of God has to account for the theory of evolution – it cannot credibly be rejected.
It’s pretty obvious where this is heading, but your statement about the existence of mind, for which you claim there is irrefutable evidence based on the work of Dr John Eccles, is misleading. According to your essay, Dr. Eccles won the Nobel Prize for distinguishing that the mind is more than merely physical. He showed that the supplementary motor area of the brain may be fired by mere intention to do something, without the motor cortex of the brain (which controls muscle movements) operating. In effect, the mind is to the brain what a librarian is to a library. The former is not reducible to the latter.
This is a very bold assertion indeed. While it is true that Eccles was a dualist in his approach to the mind-body problem, it is simply incorrect to claim that he won the Nobel Prize for showing that the mind had extra-material properties. Eccles shared the 1963 prize with two other physiologists. The lengthy and detailed presentation speech explains that Eccles received the prize for his part in the understanding of how nerve cells are excited and inhibited through synapses. The processes described are purely material.
You end the main body of your essay with the confident but naïve assertion that, ‘The evidence speaks clearly regarding the existence of a non-contingent, eternal, self-existent Mind that created this Universe and everything within it.’ In fact you have produced no such evidence.
Your concluding remarks about Stonehenge move us towards an argument from design, and I will make no comment on them here. However, your swipe at evolution strikes me as completely absurd, and I cannot refrain from comment. You quote R L Wysong, writing in 1976:
Everyone concludes naturally and comfortably that highly ordered and designed items (machines, houses, etc.) owe existence to a designer. It is unnatural to conclude otherwise. But evolution asks us to break stride from what is natural to believe and then believe in that which is unnatural, unreasonable, and...unbelievable.... The basis for this departure from what is natural and reasonable to believe is not fact, observation, or experience but rather unreasonable extrapolations from abstract probabilities, mathematics, and philosophy.
The theory of evolution is accepted by scientists within the field because of its enormous explanatory power and because it accounts for all the observable evidence. To claim that it is based on ‘unreasonable extrapolations from abstract probabilities’, etc, is as completely incorrect as it is possible to be. The fossil record is accounted for by evolution and is not accounted for by any alternative theory. The only alternative theory to evolution that I know of is creationism and the fixity of species, a theory completely discredited by the evidence, or lack thereof. That is why the theory had to be abandoned in the nineteenth century. Any theistic argument for the existence of God has to account for the theory of evolution – it cannot credibly be rejected.
posted by Stewart at 2:29 pm
8 Comments:
I do wonder just why there is no fossil evidence representing the various observable stages in the evolution of one species to another. For example, there are fossils for various types of apes and humans, but what about fossils for an ape half-way through the transformation into a human? Whilst I reject the theory of creation for lack of plausible evidence, I only subscribe to the theory of evolution because it is at least partly provable. When it is completely provable, then that would be just fine and dandy, now would it not? :-)
Marc Fearby (Australia)
Humans are apes, but that's not important.
"no fossil evidence representing the various observable stages in the evolution of one species to another"This is not true in the larger sense, ie. evolution from one species, through many different species into a new species that is very different from the first.
For the formation of one species to the next, without any intermediate species, it would be very difficult to find observable stages and I don't know whether any have been. There are good reasons for this though, firstly fossils only form given certain conditions and secondly, because any clear difference between two fossils would mean that they are different species.
Many "half-way apes" have been found, see here.
-Travis
The Hominid species map certainly looks interesting, and constitutes more proof of the theory of evolution than the bible ever could for the existence of God, but sadly, it's got no hope of convincing my Jehovah's Witness colleage at work. He lent me a book, from their point of view, explaining creation, and I must say that it did help to cast a few seeds of doubt about the theory of evolution, but I'm not about to front up at the local Kingdom Hall, though :-)
The "theory" of evolution is just that, a theory, but it's a good one that will be made better by irrefutable evidence in the fossil record. If the Hominid species map were that extensive, various religions wouldn't be able to poke so many holes in it, unfortunately.
I even went down to our local Christian bookstore (it felt very strange) and I bought a book titled "Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil", which is responsible for some of the doubts I now hold regarding the theory of evolution. The author makes a good case, so it's people like this that I would like to see convinced by the fossil record, and perhaps then, we might finally be able to put the matter to rest.
Marc Fearby (Australia)
Most of the 'holes' that I've seen or been presented with are either misrepresentations, based on discredited information or appeals to ignorance. I'd be interested to hear some of the reasons why you're not sure about evolution, not to debate, but to see if there's something new or something I've missed.
The "theory" of evolution is just that, a theory,I shudder everytime I hear this, because almost every time it is being used in the common sense, not the scientific sense. Now, I can't tell from what you've written whether you are using it that way, so I'll point out anyway that the theory of evolution is about explaining what has been observed: chronological ordering of fossils showing accrued features, speciation, common DNA, etc. That evolution occurs is a fact, that evolution brought Earth's species to their current condition is a scientific fact and the mechanism by which it occured is the theory of evolution.
but it's a good one that will be made better by irrefutable evidence in the fossil record.Ain't no such thing as irrefutable evidence, I've met people on discussion boards who accept evolution but still believe that the universe is 6000 years old, reconciling the two by saying that the fossils were put in place so that humans would have the resources to learn about evolutionary mechanisms. An idea that doesn't make much sense, but can't be disproven. More evidence will improve the specifics of the theory and make it harder to misrepresent, but it won't make it more convincing.
we might finally be able to put the matter to rest.
Never.
-Travis
I am reasonably confident about the theory of evolution, however, I would have to say that my confidence level would be around the 90% mark. I am a 100% atheist, so I am thus inclined to take the theory of evolution as fact, however, the only doubts I harbour are those pertaining to the fossil record.
In the book on evolution I referred to above, the author quotes numerous sources that say that the fossil record does not support their arguments, nevertheless, they still take the theory of evolution as fact. This is much the same as somebody saying that they still believe in God, even though much of the Bible is full of silly stories.
For one thing, I would very much like to see a fossil that represented the half-way point between a four-legged creature and one capable of flight. Most people who believe the theory of evolution say that four-legged creatures definitely evolved into flying ones. Well, that's very nice, but there isn't one piece of fossil evidence that would support that claim. Nobody, to this date, has found a creature that has half-arms, half-wings.
Though some might say that the conditions for fossilisation are extremely rare, the laws of probability by now should have allowed for the discovery of a fossil representing the half-way point between two, distinct, species.
My final word is that there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any of the deities on offer, and the only explanation any reasonably, free-thinking, individual could accept would be the theory of evolution, and perhaps the big bang, or many cyclic big bangs. Accepting anything else as the truth is just wishful thinking. The two, scientific, theories just mentioned at least allow for refinement as additional evidence comes to hand.
Marc Fearby (Australia)
I am reasonably confident about the theory of evolution, however, I would have to say that my confidence level would be around the 90% mark. I am a 100% atheist, so I am thus inclined to take the theory of evolution as fact, however, the only doubts I harbour are those pertaining to the fossil record.I'm the other way around. To me there's plenty of evidence for evolution and the principle is so simple that I would have to make several large assumptions that conflict with my general understanding about this planet in order to be unsure of it. But deism doesn't require any, so I'm thoroughly agnostic about that particular type of religion.
For one thing, I would very much like to see a fossil that represented the half-way point between a four-legged creature and one capable of flight. Most people who believe the theory of evolution say that four-legged creatures definitely evolved into flying ones. Well, that's very nice, but there isn't one piece of fossil evidence that would support that claim. Nobody, to this date, has found a creature that has half-arms, half-wings.Assuming that "half-way point" is a figure of speech, since an actual midpoint would probably correspond to a third distinct species such as a two legged dinosaur, then yes transitional fossils have been found. Now, I haven't read that book so I don't know exactly what the author is referring to but there are fossils of reptiles with feathers on their arms and many half-reptiles, half-birds. And then there's the many flightless birds and animals with half-wings that exist today.
This other page talkorigins page has a list of some more transitional fossils. But that's enough about this; we both accept it, just to different levels.
I'm sorry i'm late - probably too late - with my responses to your comments. Let me say that i'm very gratified and excited that i've been able to stimulate a discussion around these issues. That's precisely what i want to do.
First, to Travis, with whom i'm more or less completely in agreement on evolution, thanks in particular for your links to websites on the hominids and on refutations of anti-evolutionists' claims. A very handy resource.
To Marc - I think it is fair to say that evolution is a fact, and that the theoretical side of it refers to the mechanism of evolution. For Darwin, this was natural selection.
You claim that the apparent patchiness of the fossil record shouldn't allow the claim that evolution is a fact. Firstly, the fossil record is not as patchy as you may think, but more importantly, anyone who rejects evolution must still account for the evidence in some way, with an alternative theory. Rejecting evolution presumably means taking up a non-evolutionary theory. a theory that species did not evolve. How then can we account for the fact that the fossil record, which goes back nearly 600 million years, includes no early fossils of now-existing species, and is full of fossils of species now extinct but with features similar enough to be recognisable? Why are the earliest fossils of more rudimentary life forms, if not for evolution from the simple to the increasingly complex? How did humans 'spring into life' late in the piece, if they did not evolve from already existing species? An alternative explanation to evolution would have to be very strange, perhaps involving extra-terrestrial landings or some such. Anti-evolutionists can mutter and complain all they like, they still have to account for the evidence at the end of the day. Of course, since most of them are God-bothererers, they can simply invoke God, and lots and lots of mystery.
I'm sorry that my blog has of late been bogged down in more personal observations and i hope to return to philosophical issues shortly, mostly around science and religion.
I hope I did not come across as an anti-evolutionist - far from it. I would just like to see the evidence so irrefutable, that the god-botherers would give up and stop waking me up on Sunday mornings :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home