Classic Dualism

Courtesy of the Faraday Institute

I'm part of a Facebook group called Evangelicals for Evolutionary Creation. This is not to say that I've committed myself to standard Evolutionary thinking, but I feel that this group are worthy thinkers to keep an eye on. However, somebody put the following comment on their FB feed....

So I’m getting toward the end of Origins by the Haarsmas. A question arises, if abiogenesis is true, how does this not prove that life can happen without God? This kind of concerns me and it seems to be an open question in evolutionary creationism.

I believe that "Haarsmas" is a reference to Deborah Haarsma, the current president of Biologos, the Christian evolutionary creation organisation. I didn't comment on this statement as the Evolutionary Creation people are more than capable of critiquing such a breathtakingly naive perspective, a perspective with widespread appeal among both Christians and atheists. On this view it's a binary choice: "Either God did it or evolution did it"

I've no doubt said something like the following many times before: Since the enlightenment Western science has merely shown us that the cosmos is sufficiently organized for us to form succinct mathematical statements describing its dynamics. As many Christians fully understand, those descriptions in and of themselves only tell us about the "how?" of the cosmos and not the "why?" - but the "why?" is only a meaningful question if one first accepts that sentience, intelligence and purpose are a priori features of existence.

 If  anything this strange mathematical descriptive elegance only compounds the enigma of the cosmos and tells us little about absolute origins; that is, the ultimate gap, a gap that descriptive science is logically incapable of filling and if pressed simply leaves us with an elegant-descriptions-all-the-way-down regress. In fact, since we have no logically obliging reason for the continued existence of the contingencies of our cosmic reality that ultimate gap is everywhere and everywhen. 

And yet the dualistic view expressed by the above quote is the common default: That is "either God did it or cosmic processes did it"; the underlying assumption of this perspective is that somehow the enigma of cosmic organization has a logical self sufficiency which at best only leaves room for the God of deism or at worst no God at all. Such a perspective might have its origins in the early enlightenment/industrial era when it started to become much clearer that mechanisms (such as a steam regulator & automata) could be developed which meant that machines looked after their own running. The popularist conclusion was that the cosmos must be that kind of mechanism. Such mechanisms appeared not to need any prayerful ritualistic support or mystical input of any kind to continue. On this perspective sacredness seems to have been purged from what was now thought of as a self sustaining profane cosmos. 

But the realization that such mechanisms were so startingly sophisticated enough to beg the question of their design seems to have been lost on many people: One such person in our modern era is (atheist?) theologian Don Cupitt of the Sea of Faith movement. Also, blowhard atheist Richard Carrier is of this ilk. Carrier is so convinced by the sophistry of his flawed view of probability and randomness that he believes probability to be logically sufficient to fill in the God-gap.  And yet Carrier succeeded in identifying that our cosmic context lacks some logically self-sufficient kernel, although Carrier's erroneous concept of probability doesn't provide that kernel. 

***

It is surely ironic that the self same virtuoso cosmic organization which for some fills in the God-gap actually intensifies the nagging enigma of the absolute origins question; the contingent particularity of that organization is amazing. In fact as I have shown, evolution itself (if it has occurred) is effectively creationism on steroids.  And yet it is the underlying dualism of God vs evolution that much of the North America Intelligent Design movement (NAID) trades on. They will deny it of course, but whenever they open their mouths it is easy to see that they are exploiting the popularist God-of-the-gaps "Intelligence vs blind natural forces" dichotomy. To attack standard evolution on the scientific basis that the evidence is insufficient is one thing but to attack it on the basis of a half-cocked dualist philosophy is quite another - and I put it to the NAID community that although they affect to claim theirs is a scientific dispute their ulterior reasoning is in fact based on the popular appeal of their philosophical dualism, whatever they might claim. That appeal, however, is understandable I suppose because the above quote from a Facebook page is in fact the tip of a huge market iceberg of popularist thinking which the NAID's dichotomized explanations address and by which they make their money, trade and continue in mutual backslapping. For more on NAID see here, here and here.

NOTE: Luskin's God-of-the-Gaps paradigm

As I've made it clear before I don't think much of NAID theorist Casey Luskin's competence as an apologist for Intelligent Design. This post on Evolution News, which describes Luskin's views, cements his reputation as a God-or-of-the-Gaps apologist.  As I've said above I have no intellectual commitment to standard evolutionary theory, but what is clear, evolution or no evolution, one cannot get away from the question of intelligent design. That Luskin is so anti-evolution, a priori, is evidence that he still thinks subliminally in dualist and atheist categories in so far as he believes it to be  a choice between "blind natural forces vs intelligent design"..... where he interprets evolution atheistically in terms of "blind natural forces". Ergo, Luskin is a God-of-the-Gaps apologist whatever he claims. 

Creation, Probability and Something for Nothing? Part V

 Let's Carry on Carriering Part V

This is my continuing critique of an article by commercial historian and unquenchable blowhard Richard Carrier. In his article Richard believes he has used probability calculus to show that "No god [is] needed" to create a universe. Well, in this instance there is no need for me to argue either for or against atheism; for the purposes of this post it is sufficient for me to show that Richard's misunderstanding and mishandling of probability and randomness hamstrings his polemic completely.  In Part II I pointed out where his argument comes off the rails and from that point on he constructs a teetering house of cards. 

The other parts of this series can be found here....

Quantum Non-Linearity: Let's Carry on Carriering Part I

Quantum Non-Linearity: Let's Carry on Carriering Part II

Quantum Non-Linearity: Let's Carry on Carriering Part III

Quantum Non-Linearity: Let's Carry on Carriering Part IV

On the whole Richard started his article well. In the first part of this series we saw Richard defining what he referred to as Nothing; note the capitalized N. Richard tells us that this kind of Nothing is what you are left with when all mere logical contingencies have been removed and one is left with a bare minimum of logical truisms, truisms which can't be removed without logical contradiction. I had no problems with this proposal. I also agreed that many of the classical "proofs" for God's existence are very dubious to say the least.  But I noted that Richard said nothing about the actual content of this exotic and mysterious placeholder he calls "Nothing" and I went on to say that this omission allows theism to slip in by the back door. Richard might have attempted to lock and bolt the front door but he's left the back door wide open. However, for my current purposes there is no need for me here to smuggle in God using "back door theism" because my focus is on his foundational logical errors, errors which bring his house of cards crashing down, never mind that he's actually failed to even lock the front door.

Let me finish this opening section with this: As I might have said before, theism, particularly Christian theism, is at the very least a mythological world view which for me is the abductive narrative making a whole lot of retrospective sense of an otherwise very perplexing and meaningless world. Moreover, it provides compelling insights into the human predicament; for me personally it is a successful "Weltenschauung"  (world-view) which is actually more than mythology; it is mythology++. However, we must concede that world-views attempt to encompass and synthesize a very wide field of proprietary experience and unique personal histories and therefore Worldview analysis is a rather subjective and contentious business on which the agreement theorem hits the rocks.

Although I would recommend Christianity to atheists even if they are to regard it as only a compelling mythological world-view, I nevertheless respect and understand their perspective given the cosmic context which has developed in our consciousness since the enlightenment  ...although I have little sympathy with the kind of flawed and triumphalist polemic we get from Richard Carrier. 

***

RICHARD: Probability of Something from Nothing. Proposition 8 holds that “when there is Nothing,” then “every possible number of universes that can appear has an equal probability of occurring,” and Proposition 9 holds that therefore “the probability of Nothing remaining nothing equals the ratio of one to n, where n is the largest logically possible number of universes that can appear.” We can therefore calculate limits on how likely it is that something would exist now, given the assumption that once upon a time there was Nothing—not a god or quantum fluctuation or anything else, but literally in fact Nothing.

MY COMMENT: I've already covered propositions 8 and 9 in part IV but I'll outline again Richard's two main embarrassments here. 

In the above Richard has assumed that if he is given a probability this implies he has in his hands an objective source capable of randomly creating outcomes. This is an error on at least two counts as we will see. I can, however, accept  this:

Proposition 8 holds that “when there is Nothing,” then “every possible number of universes that can appear has an equal probability of occurring,”

But then this doesn't follow:

Proposition 9 holds that therefore “the probability of Nothing remaining nothing equals the ratio of one to n, where n is the largest logically possible number of universes that can appear.”

As I remarked in the previous parts, probability is an intelligible concept only if one first assumes the existence of an observer who is able to form an enumerated (or denumerated) ratio of what are believed to be logical contingencies. That is, probability presupposes the existence of a self-aware observer cognitively sophisticated enough to express information in terms of Laplace's classical probability quotient. For example, in proposition 8 we really haven't got a clue as what this mysterious object or entity called Nothing is likely to create, if anything at all. Therefore Richard is right in suggesting that in the absence of any further information “every possible number of universes that can appear has an equal probability of occurring,” Well, as I know Richard himself realizes it's going to be quite an intellectual challenge denumerating all the possible universes in order to return a Laplacian probability ratio here, but the principle entailed is apparently coherent and comprehensible; for as far is our quantified ignorance is concerned we are left with a ratio of 1 to n where n is clearly some huge number. 

But between the two propositions 8 & 9 there is a serious logical fallacy. The probability ratio of 1 to n pertains to an observer's subjective information level and not some potential creation dynamic which pertains to Nothing. Moreover, this probability is conditioned on our complete lack of knowledge as to which logical contingency of the n possibilities which Nothing, so called, will "choose" to create. Those apparent possibilities includes any number of n universes where n actually includes the "null" universe; that is, the universe with nothing in it. On this basis Nothing, so called, sounds like a pretty sophisticated object; don't you think Richard? (Arguing that with Nothing there is nothing to stop it creating something can be turned on its head: Viz: There is nothing to stop Nothing remaining as Nothing; this kind of polemic is just informal verbal sophistry!)

Well, we know that Nothing didn't create the null universe so on the basis of these informational conditions the probability of the creation of a particular universe,  which I shall call U_p, can be symbolized by:

Prob(U_p/E) = 1/(n-1)

....where E is the information condition that a universe is known to exist, although at this stage we don't know which particular universe exists. Now, assuming we know which universe of the n-1 possible universes has been created (because we can look out and observe it) then n = 1. Therefore on these updated informational conditions... 

Prob(P_u/E) = 1/1 = 1 !!!

...which only goes illustrate just how conditional probabilities are upon observer information. For the very reason that probability is a measure of observer ignorance it is an entirely incoherent move to then try to use it to impute a creative dynamic to an object such as Nothing of which we know very little.  Probability in and of itself is not a creative dynamic; rather it concerns our knowledge or lack of knowledge about the object in question. 

What is very clear is that whatever Prob(P_u/E) works out at we have no logical right to infer that Nothing will consequently generate universes at random....along such lines, I suspect, Richard is thinking. A quantified probability does not imply randomness, although the reverse is not true ....the patterns of randomness often entail probability because these patterns are so algorithmically complex that they are from a human angle, practically unknowable in succinct algorithmic terms. Therefore random outcomes can usually only be expressed in terms of probabilities (Unless we've got a book of randomly generated numbers which we've memorised!).

***

RICHARD: Assume that only the numbers 0 to 100 exist, and therefore 100 is the largest logically possible number of universes that can appear. In that event, the probability that Nothing would remain Nothing (the probability of ex nihilo nihil) is 100 to 1 against. There being 101 numbers, including the zero, i.e. the continuation of nothing being the condition of there arising zero universes, and only one of those numbers constitutes remaining nothing, then there are 100 times more ways for Nothing to become something, than to remain nothing. And when there is Nothing, there is nothing to stop any of those other ways from materializing, nor does anything exist to cause any one of those ways to be more likely than any of the others.

It is therefore logically necessarily the case that, if we assume there was ever Nothing, the probability of ex nihilo nihil is less than 1%.

Of course, 100 is not the highest number. Go looking, you won’t find a highest number. It is in fact logically necessarily the case that no highest number exists. So really, the probability of ex nihilo nihil is literally infinitesimal—infinity to one against. One might complain that we don’t really know what that means. But it doesn’t matter, because we can graph the probability of ex nihilo nihil by method of exhaustion, and thus see that the probability vanishes to some value unimaginably close to zero.

MY COMMENT: Here we go again. Richard has projected his otherwise coherent probability examples onto the cosmos as if they entail a creation dynamic. This is very apparent in these sentences.....

In that event, the probability that Nothing would remain Nothing (the probability of ex nihilo nihil) is 100 to 1 against.

It is therefore logically necessarily the case that, if we assume there was ever Nothing, the probability of ex nihilo nihil is less than 1%.

So, according to Richard he can project what is in fact a purely subjective measure of information (i.e. probability) onto this mysterious big deal he calls Nothing and then come up with the conclusion that Nothing will very likely create a universe! This does not follow because those probabilities reside in his observer's head; those Laplacian ratios don't reside "out there". 

***

RICHARD: We therefore do not need God to explain why there is something rather than nothing. There may also be something rather than nothing simply “because there just is.” There isn’t any actual basis for assuming “nothing” is the natural state of anything, or that there has ever really been nothing. We could honestly just as fairly ask why should there be nothing rather than something. No God is needed here. But even if we are to presume that there ever once was Nothing, we still need no further explanation of why then there is something. Because that there would be something is then as certain an outcome as makes all odds.

Formally:

·         If Proposition 1, then Proposition 2

·         If Proposition 2, then Proposition 3

·         If Proposition 3, then Proposition 4

·         If Proposition 4 and Proposition 1, then Propositions 5 and 7

·         If Proposition 5 and Proposition 1, then Proposition 6

·         If Propositions 5, 6, and 7, then Proposition 8

·         If Proposition 8, then Proposition 9

·         If Proposition 9 and Proposition 1, then the probability that Nothing would produce something is incalculably close to 100% and therefore effectively certain to occur.

   MY COMMENT:  Well OK let's run with the idea that "We do not need God to explain why there is something rather than nothing", whatever Richard means by "God" in this context. But according to Richard we do need two other things:

    Firstly, of course, we need this enigmatic entity called "Nothing". But all we know about Nothing is that it is the irreducible logical truism left when all logical contingencies/possibilities have been eliminated; according to this account trying conceive absolutely nothing is in fact a contradiction (I suspect that's true). That word "Nothing" however, is a place holder for what may well be a very exotic truism capable of creating who knows what.  Fair enough Richard, this point of yours has a good feel about it as far as I'm concerned.

    But secondly, Richard is asking us to accept his very logically dodgy maneuver involving the projection of subjective probabilities onto Nothing and then assuming that this is sufficient to give Nothing a dynamic with creative potential. Well yes, Nothing may well be sophisticated enough to be creative (in fact as a Christian I believe this entity is creative) but to suppose that human ignorance somehow projects that creative potential onto Nothing is not the way to argue the case! It's a bogus argument. And I say it yet again; probabilities pertain to a measure of observer ignorance and don't create anything.

  But if I'm understanding him aright Richard does have a fallback position which I can respect: He says above "There may also be something rather than nothing simply “because there just is.”. That is very reminiscent of this post of mine on Galen Strawson where I quote Strawson suggesting that the universe "just is"; that is, it's just brute fact and to hell with abductive mythologies like Christianity which bring sense, purpose and meaning. If you simply find it impossible to believe that some kind of personal God has created our kind of universe with its all too off-putting human predicaments and suffering, then I have sympathy with that response. But I'm not sympathetic with Richard's cack-handed logic pushed through with self-recommending claims about his intellectual authority. Self-praise is no recommendation.

****

    As we've seen in the previous parts of this series the logic of Richard's list of connected propositions is OK up until about proposition 5 when his analysis really goes off the rails as he hits the question of probability and randomness. In the above Richard talks about not needing God. But whatever he means by God in this context, the creative potential he allocates to Nothing is startling to say the least and it looks suspiciously god-like. In particular if Nothing's creative powers extend to the capability of generating patterns of randomness that in itself is a pretty god-like trait: First and foremost random patterns are contingent - they have no logical obligation and there is no known logical contradiction entailed by their non-existence. Secondly, if we are talking algorithmic generation, randomness of varying degrees entails either very long and complex  algorithms or very large generation times or a combination of both.  In the ideal mathematical limit of pure randomness one or both of these two features extend to infinity.

    If Richard is trying to tell us that the creative source he calls Nothing is in fact a generator of genuinely random patterns then I think we are clear what Richard Carrier's god looks like. 

 

****

.....to be continued...? 

    There are still some remaining paragraphs to consider in Richard Carrier's post but as far as the thrust of my criticism is concerned his closing passages will entail just more of the same kind of critique; that is, criticism of his fallacies revolving round his misconceptions about probability and randomness. So, I may or may not finish the series depending on how I feel and whether I consider it to be time well spent....I'll see.

   CAVEAT

   Disagreeing with Richard Carrier on the above issues should not be taken as a sign that I identify as being a member of some polar opposite tribe. For example, it is likely that I agree with him on many issues particularly when he is criticizing the hard-right. 

Let's Carry on Carriering Part III

In this post I continue analyzing a blog post by super-duper, self-recommending professional atheist Richard Carrier. 

For most of the last two parts of this series (See Part I and Part II) I was actually getting on quite well with Richard's post titled The Problem with Nothing: Why The Indefensibility of Ex Nihilo Nihil Goes Wrong for Theists • Richard Carrier Blogs

I probably agree with Richard in so far as agreeing that many theists have muffed their arguments re. the existence of God. For example: The cosmological argument, the ontological argument, the fine-tuning argument, the Kalem argument, the first cause argument, the moral argument etc are for the most part polemical bodges.  In fact, we can drop all those arguments in this particular connection as my terms of reference are restricted to a critique of Richard's post; in my opinion his arguments as to the ultimate source of the cosmos are no less bodged than those arguments for God I've listed. (And I say that as Christian myself; for me theism is a retrospective sense making abduction)

As we saw in Part II crucial to Richard's argument is his concept of "Nothing", that is "Nothing" spelt with a capital N. "Nothing" is the hard kernel of irreducible logical truisms that you are left with when you've subtracted all logical contingencies; that is mere logical possibilities. It's unfortunate terminology that he's called it "Nothing" because as we saw in Part II it is clear that Nothing is in fact Something and a very sophisticated Something at that! This is clear because to create Richard's much desired randomness a very sophisticated source of creation is required. Other than that, however, Richard doesn't and probably can't give us much detail about just what constitutes Nothing (= Something). I can go along with Richard's identification of this mysterious irreducible Nothing (= Something). Moreover, it seems that this Something is the origin of our apparently highly contingent universe with all its ordered and random complexities. Wow!

But in the second half of Part II, it became very clear to me that as he developed his reasoning our Richard, in his enthusiasm to debunk theism, is utterly unaware that he goes completely off the logical rails. The consequences of the resulting train cash are then felt throughout the rest of his post. As we get to his Proposition 7 he continues to consolidate his error....

***

Richard: Proposition 7: If nothing (except logical necessity) prevents anything from happening to Nothing, then every logically possible thing that can happen to Nothing has an equal probability of occurring.

Every logically possible thing that can happen to Nothing is as likely to happen as every other possible thing that can happen. This is a logically necessary truth. So it again cannot be denied without denying Proposition 1. Or, again, Proposition 4, if you want to desperately wrestle again with what it means for Nothing to be ungoverned by any rules about what happens—but you’ll lose every time; because that’s what Nothing logically entails. So the only way out left is to go all the way back to becoming one of those whackadoos who deny Proposition 1. Good luck with that.

My Comment: Well, as I said in Part II, I would want to enthusiastically embrace Proposition 1 and Proposition 4, but as I also said in Part II, I certainly wouldn't accept Richard's interpretations which he goes on to construct upon these propositions. 

As we've seen Nothing (= Something) is a very mysterious object, and Richard isn't elaborating it. That's fair enough though; we are all a bit in the dark about the Unknown God Something that is the origin of the universe. Richard acknowledges the existence of this Big Unknown in his entirely acceptable Proposition 3 where he says If there was ever Nothing, then nothing governs or dictates what will become of that Nothing, other than what is logically necessary.  Whatever the Big Unknown is it must be logically necessary.

But, and here's the kicker, in the above courier font quote Richard also tells us: 

if you want to desperately wrestle again with what it means for Nothing to be ungoverned by any rules about what happens—but you’ll lose every time; because that’s what Nothing logically entails.

Now compare that statement with Proposition 3 where we read If there was ever Nothing, then nothing governs or dictates what will become of that Nothing, other than what is logically necessary. Notice the difference? Richard has suppressed that Big Unknown; namely, "what is logically necessary". Clearly Nothing is governed by rules; that is the rules of logical necessity, whatever they may be. He also tells us above what he thinks one of those logical rules governing Nothing might be: Viz: 

Every logically possible thing that can happen to Nothing is as likely to happen as every other possible thing that can happen. This is a logically necessary truth.

That is, Richard is trying to get past us the very questionable notion that equal a priori probabilities is a truism from which he can then deduce a dynamic which leads to every possible happenstance that can happen (presumably at random) at some point or other. But as I said in Part II, probability only coherently pertains to observer information about possible happenings. It is therefore contingent upon the existence of an observer whose information may vary from other observers; that is, equal a priori probabilities is an observer relative feature. Moreover, observers able to compute ratios of possibilities (which is how probability is defined) are necessarily very sophisticated entities, entities about which it is unclear whether they are logical necessities or not; certainly, when it comes to individual human observers it seems we are not talking logical necessity.

Richard then jumps from that error to another error: Viz: That of assuming that once one has a probability, it implies a dynamic about what then actually happens: I suspect he is thinking "randomness" here; randomness is a configurational object which does in fact display a highly complex form of contingency rather than being a logical necessity. Moreover, as we saw in Part II randomness does not necessarily follow from an observer relative probability. 

In noting these logical errors there is no need to deny Proposition 1 as Richard's whackdoos do. 

***

Richard: In case it’s not obvious, here is why Proposition 7 is logically necessarily the case:

1. For any one possible thing that can happen to Nothing to be more probable than another, some rule, property, or power would have to exist to make it so.

2. By definition Nothing contains no rules, properties, or powers.

3. Therefore, no rule, property, or power would exist to make any one possible thing that can happen to Nothing more probable than another.

4. Therefore, no possible thing that can happen to Nothing can be more probable than another.

So accepting Proposition 1, and thus Proposition 2, you must accept Proposition 7. As Proposition 7 merely states what is logically necessarily the case when 1 and 2. And 1 and 2 entail that that which is logically necessarily the case must always obtain whenever there is Nothing.

My Comment: The foregoing is utterly incoherent. Richard is trying to tell us that Nothing has no rules and yet he has admitted that it is constrained by what is logically true (fair enough) and then goes on to identify what he thinks to be one of those logical truths : Viz equal a priori probabilities (which isn't a logical truth and is observer relative) and then wrongly logically connects this with a dynamic with the ability to generate contingencies (at random?). So again, whilst we can enthusiastically embrace propositions 1 and 2, I must reject proposition 7 which is a fanciful invention of Richard's imagination and is certainly not a logical truism. 

In his proposition 8  Richard continues to build his house of cards.....

***

Richard: Proposition 8: If every logically possible thing that can happen to Nothing has an equal probability of occurring, then every logically possible number of universes that can appear has an equal probability of occurring.

This is logically entailed by the conjunction of Propositions 6 and 7. So again it cannot be denied without denying, again, Proposition 1.

My Comment: That's Richard's continued abuse of probability for you! As I've said probability is not logically fundamental or axiomatic.  For probability to be an intelligible concept one must first posit observers sophisticated enough to construct and understand ratios of possibilities. And again, Richard wrongly assumes that probability logically entails the dynamics of random happenstance. So, as with proposition 7, in his botched enunciation of proposition 8 Richard finds himself up a creek without a paddle. He tries to pressure our acquiescence to this nonsense by the intimidating suggesting that if we don't accept it then we commit the cardinal logical sin of not accepting proposition 1. And I thought it was only cult leaders like Ken Ham who try to intimidate! 

***

Richard's suggestion as to the potential source of the cosmos is beginning to look suspiciously like the passe notion of a random generator as the source of the cosmos and that we necessarily exist in what by chance is a very ordered part of that immense maximally disordered cosmos. I'm not going to be too hard on him here because this common fanciful invention of the imagination, which conjures up the specter of a meaningless random universe, is a nightmare which confronts us all at some time or other as it did for example Conan-Doyle's hero Sherlock Holmes in the short story, The Cardboard Box:

“What is the meaning of it, Watson?” said Holmes, solemnly, as he laid down the paper. “What object is served by this circle of misery and violence and fear? It must tend to some end, or else our universe is ruled by chance, which is unthinkable. But to what end? There is the great standing perennial problem to which human reason is as far from an answer as ever.”

So, I'm in no position to be judgmental of genuine boarder-line atheists (like for example Mr. mice guy Brian Cox and that should also include Don Cupitt) who are an understandably having a struggle giving meaning to the cosmos.  But in Richard's case we must factor in that he is a professional atheist whose income depends on him fervently, vehemently and vociferously defending his brand of atheism just as theme park manager Ken Ham defends his lucrative brand of young earthism at all costs using the most insulting of spiritual terms about those who disagree with him, as we have seen.

...to be continued

INTERESTING LINKS

1. Sir Richard Attenborough's comments are worthy of applause in my view: 

Quantum Non-Linearity: David Attenborough on God

NAID pundits Hedin and Sewell rightly criticized

Acknowledgement: I think this picture comes from the Faraday Institute, 

a Christain organization of scientists. It sums up well the NAID 

 community's dogmatic and entrenched (and politicized) version of 

Intelligent Design

In a post on Panda's Thumb Evomathematician Joe Felsenstein justifiably criticizes North American Intelligent Design (NAID) pundits Eric Hedin and Granville Sewell for the weakness of their anti-evolution arguments. See Felsenstein's article here: Eric Hedin, meet Granville Sewell

I have critiqued the work of both Sewell and Hedin myself. Below are links to some of the articles I've written.

ON HEDIN

Quantum Non-Linearity: NAID pundit William Dembski on AI

Quantum Non-Linearity: North American Intelligent Design's response to my 27 June & 2 July posts. Part 2

Quantum Non-Linearity: North American Intelligent Design's response to my last two posts. Part 1

ON SEWELL

Quantum Non-Linearity: Make it IDist proof and along comes a better IDist

Quantum Non-Linearity: Caution! You are about to enter Intelligent Design's false dichotomy zone!

Quantum Non-Linearity: Western Dualism in the North American Intelligent Design Community. Part 2

Quantum Non-Linearity: IDISTS

Quantum Non-Linearity: Once More into the False Dichotomy Zone: "Naturalism vs. Design".

Quantum Non-Linearity: Evolution and Computation

Quantum Non-Linearity: Granville Sewell; Still Getting it Wrong.

Quantum Non-Linearity: Thermodynamics and Evolution – Again.

And while I'm here: I have also critiqued IDists Nametti and Holloway for their halfcocked notion of "Algorithmic Specified Complexty".  See here:

Quantum Non-Linearity: Breaking Through the Information Barrier in Natural History Part 5

And again, while I'm here it's unfair to miss out Casey Luskin:

Quantum Non-Linearity: Naive Intelligent Design: Part III

***

Felsenstein presents two examples of the kind of hand waving arguments we get from these two NAID pundits. About Hedin's hand waving Felsenstein writes: 

Eric Hedin’s argument [against evolution] boils down to simple incredulity, without any logical proof of a barrier to evolution by ordinary evolutionary processes.

In my opinion that sums up much of the anti-evolution polemic one gets from the NAID tribe as a whole. But although one can criticize NAID thinking at a technical level (as does Felsenstein) it is also possible to criticize them from the very theistic basis which we know motivates most NAID endeavors; that is, NAID logic has internal incoherence. As a Christian myself this approach interests me (But of course one can't expect an atheist like Joe Felsenstein to respect a theistic approach).

As I've repeated so many times in this blog the NAID community as a whole are intoxicated by a blind natural forces versus intelligent design dichotomy. The irony is that the concept of Intelligent Design itself actually undermines the NAID community's dualistic dichotomy: For if one posits a creator God (as I do) then the very concept of blind natural forces becomes problematic; if an Omniscient, Omnipotent God has created those highly contingent and very special "natural forces" with the foresight of omniscience they can hardly be usefully labeled as blind and natural. See the following link where I suggest it is at least arguable that even standard evolution (if, repeat if, it has occurred) is not only highly unnatural but in fact constitutes creation with a vengeance....

Quantum Non-Linearity: NAID Part IV: Evolution: Creation on Steriods

See also the link below for Christian biologist Denis Alexander's comments which are in effect critical of NAID....

Quantum Non-Linearity: Denis Alexander: "I would suggest dropping the term 'methodological naturalism'"

Just as the NAID folk have irreversibly committed themselves (unnecessarily) to an outright anti-evolutionism they have similarly committed themselves (unnecessarily) to an outright and dogmatic anti-Junk DNA position. Again, ID itself undermines NAID's absolute certainty of this position: For even if we allow that life entailed an Omniscient, Omnipotent God directly tinkering with DNA during its long natural history we know so little about the methods and motives of that inscrutable intelligence that it is quite possible that like a human programmer this entity, for whatever mysterious reason, decided to leave or even insert dormant and redundant code in the DNA. None of this is to say that junk DNA exists (or doesn't exist), but the absence of junk DNA isn't a necessary implication of ID. 

I've come to the opinion that NAID thinking has less to do with a dispassionate intellectual position than it does the taking up of a variety of polemical postures which have more to do with tribal political badging (and badgering) than the studied detachment of heroic investigative thinking: See my article here: Quantum Non-Linearity: NAID Part V: Politics and North American Intelligent Design. Linked to their political branding are politically contrarian and anti-academic-establishment notions connected with climate change, vaccines, masks, gun law, sex & gender and paranoia about a large deep state and regulation of capitalist excesses (*1). One also has to throw into the mix young earthism, flat earthism and even conspiracy theorism and Trumpism, all of which are tribal subdivisions within the broad church of what is essentially an anti-establishment popularist movement. 

The arrogant atheism of someone like Richard Carrier is fueling the politically polarizing fires with his own very flawed version of "natural forces". Carrier simply doesn't understand probability and randomness which to his mind can be (ab)used as the ultimate logical truisms, the ultimate insentient creative "natural force". For him probability is at the heart of an atheist mythology about the aseity of a creative source which stands in as a kind of god-dynamic. Interestingly Sea of Faith theologian (and atheist!) Don Cupitt also gets carried away with the subliminal but spurious & curious assumption that the "mechanical universe" entails a self-sustaining efficacy; see here: Quantum Non-Linearity: The Sea of Faith and Don Cupitt. Part I.

For more on the popularist vs establishment polarization see here: Views, News and Pews: Religious Popularism vs Academia).

Finally let me make this clear: Along with Christian physicist and theologian John Polkinghorne I can claim to be an intelligent design creationist, but I reject the NAID community's entrenched, dogmatic and highly politicized popularist version of ID. In the early days of this blog I was sympathetic, but no longer. 

ADDENDUM 19/12

I was interested to read this quick report by David Klinghoffer on a NAID conference at the prestigious wood-paneled Cambridge University (UK)...

“Doesn’t the Fossil Record Prove Darwin Right?” | Evolution News

He raises well known challenges to standard evolutionary theory (e.g. The fossil record doesn't appear to provide strong evidence of that necessary implication of standard evolution, namely evolutionary gradualism). It's no skin off my nose if the current proposed mechanisms of evolution are false since I haven't put down big stakes (either way) in bog-standard evolutionary mechanisms.

But of course, NAID has huge stakes in anti-evolutionism (They have also put down big political stakes). With its intoxicating "natural forces vs evolution" dichotomy it has inextricably tied their version of ID to an anti-evolutionary position (*2). This of course means that should a successful development mechanism of natural history gain sufficient evidence their dichotomy would imply that ID is false and atheist Richard Dawkins who is enamored of the same dichotomy wins!

Klinghoffer betrays his intoxication with the NAID dichotomy when at the end of an otherwise agreeable post writes of the discontinuities in the fossil record.....

Such explosions of creativity are just what you’d predict from the activity of a designing mind, a source of biological information outside nature that has shaped the long history of life.

Sorry David that's not a necessary prediction of ID. As I've said so often, even bog-standard evolution requires careful design. But like Richard Dawkins NAID is having none of it: According to NAID, if evolution has occurred then we must all become atheists like our Richard!

Footnotes:

*1. Anger at private health insurers: Fuel for Marxist agitators!

The dark fandom behind CEO murder suspect Luigi Mangione - BBC News

*2 I'm of the opinion that NAID has driven its stakes so deeply because they are now part of an anti-establishment popularist political trend with Trump-world as the chief bellwether.

INTERESTING LINKS

1. May be not!

 A scientist may have just proven that we all live inside a computer simulation

2. Put science into the hands of market entrepreneurs?

Scientists as scoundrels

Far right Libertarianism.....

Milei has not minced words about his feelings towards scientists. Rather than having their research subsidized by the government, he said during a forum in September, “I invite them to go out into the market. Investigate, publish and see if people are interested or not, instead of hiding like scoundrels behind the coercive force of the state”.