On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 08:35:35 -0700, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>VJ>I think the matter deserves an 'evolutionary' explanation - otherwise
>>Darwinists could be justly accused of not thinking through the
>>implications of their faith.
>SJ>Thanks for this. It is related to the peculiar fact that according to
>Darwinism a series of historical accidents in the shape of random
>mutations in species of apes, which were selected for survival in Africa 5-
>10 mya, have produced a species (namely Homo sapiens) that has a
>mathematical facility to understand the underlying mathematical laws
>upon which the universe is constructed:>>
PM>And? Are you saying that mathematical reasoning is impossible to
evolve?
This is just one more example of a favourite Darwinist trick of trying to
shift the burden of proof to the critics. If Darwinists cannot explain
something, they demand *the critic* show that what the Darwinists cannot
explain is "impossible" to explain. But since a universal negative is itself
"impossible" to prove, Darwinism is again protected from falsification.
What I *do* claim is that: 1) Darwinism *has* not explained how "a series
of historical accidents in the shape of random mutations in species of apes,
which were selected for survival in Africa 5-10 mya, have produced a
species (namely Homo sapiens) that has a mathematical facility to
understand the underlying mathematical laws upon which the universe is
constructed."
Indeed it was this very point that drove Wallace, the joint discoverer of
Darwinian evolution by variation and natural selection, to abandon it as a
general theory of evolution:
"In considering the question of the development of man by known natural
laws, we must ever bear in mind the first principle of 'natural selection', no
less than of the general theory of evolution, that all changes of form or
structure, all increase in the size of an organ or in its complexity, all greater
specialization or physiological division of labour, can only be brought
about, in as much as it is for the good of the being so modified. Mr Darwin
himself has taken care to impress upon us, that 'natural selection' has no
power to produce absolute perfection but only relative perfection, no
power to advance any being much beyond his fellow beings, but only just
so much beyond them as to enable it to survive them in the struggle for
existence. Still less has it any power to produce modifications which are in
any degree injurious to its possessor, and Mr. Darwin frequently uses the
strong expression, that a single case of this kind would be fatal to his
theory. If, therefore, we find in man any characters, which all the evidence
we can obtain goes to show would have been actually injurious to him on
their first appearance, they could not possibly have been produced by
natural selection. Neither could any specially developed organ have been so
produced if it had been merely useless to him, or if its use were not
proportionate to its degree of development. Such cases as these would
prove, that some other law, or some other power, than 'natural selection'
had been at work. But if, further, we could see that these very
modifications, though hurtful or useless at the time when they first
appeared, became in the highest degree useful at a much later period, and
are now essential to the full moral and intellectual development of human
nature, we should then infer the action of mind, foreseeing the future and
preparing for it, just as surely as we do, when we see the breeder set
himself to work with the determination to produce a definite improvement
in some cultivated plant or domestic animal. I would further remark that
this enquiry is as thoroughly scientific and legitimate as that into the origin
of species itself....
Range of intellectual power in Man. - First, let us consider what this
wonderful instrument, the brain, is capable of in its higher developments. In
Mr Galton's interesting work on 'Hereditary Genius', he remarks on the
enormous difference between the intellectual power and grasp of the well-
trained mathematician or man of science, and the average Englishman. The
number of marks obtained by high wranglers, is often more than thirty
times as great as that of the men at the bottom of the honour list, who are
still of fair mathematical ability; and it is the opinion of skilled examiners,
that even this does not represent the full difference of intellectual power. If,
now, we descend to those savage tribes who only count to three or five,
and who find it impossible to comprehend the addition of two and three
without having the objects actually before them, we feel that the chasm
between them and the good mathematician is so vast, that a thousand to
one will probably not fully express it. yet we know that the mass of brain
might be nearly the same in both, or might not differ in a greater proportion
than as 5 to 6; whence we may fairly infer that the savage possesses a brain
capable, if cultivated and developed, of performing work of a kind and
degree far beyond what he ever requires it to do....
We see, then, that whether we compare the savage with the higher
developments of man, or with the brutes around him are alike driven to the
conclusion that in his large and well-developed brain he possesses an organ
quite disproportionate to his actual requirements - an organ that seems
prepared in advance, only to be fully utilized as he progresses in
civilization. A brain slightly larger than that of the gorilla would, according
to the evidence before us, fully have sufficed for the limited mental
development of the savage; and we must therefore admit, that the large
brain he actually possesses could never have been solely developed by any
of those laws of evolution, whose essence is, that they lead to a degree of
organization exactly proportionate to the wants of each species, never
beyond those wants - that no preparation can be made for the future
development of the race that one part of the body can never increase in size
or complexity, except in strict coordination to the pressing wants of the
whole. The brain of pre-historic and of savage man seems to me to prove
the existence of some power, distinct from that which has guided the
development of the lower animals through their ever-varying forms of
being." (Wallace A.R., "The limits of natural selection as applied to man,"
[1875], in Dixon B., ed., "From Creation to Chaos," 1991, pp292-293,296-
298)
However, as Wallace points out, Intelligent Design theory *can* explain
this forward planning. The Intelligent Designer first set up the laws of
nature in mathematical form and then brought about a being in His image
who could understand those laws.
>SJ>Denton notes that there is a "unique correspondence" between "the
>logic of our mind and the logic of the cosmos" that enables us "to
>comprehend the world" and that "it is hard to avoid the impression that a
>miracle is at work here":>>
PM>People sometimes interpret observations as if they are 'miraculous'. Of
>course miracles do not necessarily require 'intelligence' on the other side.
This is just a red-herring to avoid facing up to the fact of the "unique
correspondence" between "the logic of our mind and the logic of the
cosmos".
Real "miracles" *do* "require 'intelligence' on the other side."
>SJ>To put it in a nutshell, Davies observes that "mathematics...is...unique
>to humans" >>
PM>A very anthropocentric presumption.
Do you know of any "mathematics" that is practised by non-"humans"?
And even if it was "anthropocentric", so what? As Denton shows
"anthropocentricism" was the basis of science only two centuries ago, and
it is now reemerging with overwhelming scientific support:
"It is remarkable to think that only five centuries separates the current
skeptical ethos in the West from this profoundly teleological view of
reality. The anthropocentric vision of medieval Christianity is one of the
most extraordinary-perhaps the most extraordinary-of all the presumptions
of humankind. It is the ultimate theory and in a very real sense, the ultimate
conceit. No other theory or concept ever imagined by man can equal in
boldness and audacity this great claim-that everything revolves around
human existence-that all the starry heavens, that every species of life, that
every characteristic of reality exists for mankind and for mankind alone. It
is simply the most daring idea ever proposed. But most remarkably, given
its audacity, it is a claim which is very far from a discredited prescientific
myth. In fact, no observation has ever laid the presumption to rest. And
today, four centuries after the scientific revolution, the doctrine is again
reemerging. In these last decades of the twentieth century, its credibility is
being enhanced by discoveries in several branches of fundamental science.
(Denton M.J., "Nature's Destiny," 1998, pp3-4)
"The defenders of the anthropocentric faith in medieval Europe knew very
little, indeed virtually nothing, about the natural world....Given the almost
complete absence of any knowledge of the natural world, given also the
erroneous nature of so many other far less audacious beliefs, it is all the
more remarkable that the most presumptuous of all their beliefs, the central
axiom of the Christian faith, on which the whole of medieval civilization
was based, has stood the test of time and the critical scrutiny of four
centuries of science."(Denton M.J., "Nature's Destiny," 1998, p370)
"Reinforcing further the teleological position is the fact that its credibility
has relentlessly grown as scientific knowledge has advanced throughout the
past two centuries. In the early part of the nineteenth century when
chemistry was just beginning, the only biocentric adaptations that Whewell
was able to cite in his Bridgewater Treatise as evidence for a biocentric
design were a few of the thermal properties of water. But by Henderson's
time in the first decade of the twentieth century, while ironically the last
vestiges or teleology were being exorcised from mainstream biology,
advances in physiological and organic chemistry had revealed an additional
and highly significant series of mutual adaptations in life's constituents
which provided for the first time a significant body of evidence consistent
with the view that our own carbon-based life is unique and that the laws of
nature are specifically tailored to that end." (Denton M.J., "Nature's
Destiny," 1998, p384)
"Note also that theories or worldviews are most often accepted not
because they can explain everything perfectly but because they make sense
of more than any competitor does....the teleological model of nature
presented here is far more coherent and makes far more sense of the
cosmos than any currently available competitor. The idea that the cosmos is
a unique whole with life and mankind as its end and purpose makes sense
and illuminates all our current scientific knowledge...No other worldview
comes close. No other explanation makes as much sense of all *the
facts*."(Denton M.J., "Nature's Destiny," 1998, p384. Emphasis in
original.)
>SJ> Note here that while Darwinian natural selection cannot explain the
>capabilities of the human brain to know the underlying mathematical laws
>of physics, an Intelligent Designer *could* arrange these so-called
>"chance events" to progressively build the "wiring pattern" of the human
>brain in such a way that it could in the future be called upon to
>comprehend and master the laws of physics!>>
PM>Of course, the intelligent designer you have in mind could do
>anything.
Agreed. He can certainly do more than a `blind watchmaker'!
PM>After all lacking any evidence
There is plenty of "evidence" for an "intelligent designer". The problem is
that you won't even consider it. To test this, please state *in advance*
what "evidence" you would accept for an "intelligent designer".
PM>or proof
There is no such thing as "proof" in science, Pim. You continually set
up unreasonable and inconsistent standards to protect your shaky
position.
PM>anything is possible and nothing is impossible.
Agreed. God *could* do anything, but what He *did* do is contrained by
the evidence.
PM>That Darwinism or more exactly those applying Darwinism cannot
>explain something hardly means that there is no such explanation.
Agreed. But it doesn't mean there *is* "such" an "explanation" either!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------