Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court

Evolving lies


Steve Kellmeyer

February 26, 2005


As even disinterested observers admit, any theory that has to account for both Giganotosaurus and Genesis is going to require nuance. Unfortunately, the people involved in the evolution-creationism debate tend to lack the quality to a startling degree. As a result, the evolution-creation debate is extremely silly and wildly amusing. But, that having been said, one side has waged a dirty fight, and it is time that we who watch the struggle with popcorn in hand insisted on fairness all around.

Have you heard of The Selfish Gene? It is Exhibit A in the gallery. The problem lies precisely in the title of Richard Dawkins' work, and I use the verb "lies" most deliberately. You see, Dawkins gets in an illegal kidney punch on the creationists before you even open the book.

He isn't alone. Reading through the evolutionist arguments, we hear constantly of "the evolutionary imperative to preserve the individual" or "self preservation is the first law of nature." We hear about good genes, bad genes, junk genes, advanced species, less advanced species. There is only one thing they don't mention. This whole line of conversation is a lie.

Every time a supporter of evolution speaks this way, he is explicitly denying the evolutionary theory he pretends to support. Now how can this be? Dawkins seems quite the supporter of evolution.

He is. And that's the problem.

You see, Dawkins, Gould, et. al., are quite willing to punch the daylights out of a creationist and knock him to the mat, but they don't fight clean. They simply refuse to stay in their own corner of the English vocabulary while the referee is giving the count. Let me explain.

Take the word "good." Something can only be good if it has a teleology, a purpose. That is, something is good only insofar as it is a necessary component towards achieving a good, as opposed to a bad, end. But here's the kicker. In order to have a purpose, there must first be an intellect and a will. That is, you must be a person. Only a person can have a purpose. Tables don't have a purpose. They don't think, "I suppose I will support the dishes for breakfast today." Tables just are. "Good" is a value judgement persons employ when they consider the use of an object in reference to the purpose they have in mind. The words "good" and "bad" have no meaning apart from persons.

And, there's another debased word: "person." What is a person? The word "person" is a strictly theological term, developed in the second century to describe the three Persons of the Trinity. There is one God, but three Divine Persons. The three Persons of the Trinity are distinguished only by their divine relations. Human persons are in the divine image and likeness. A human person is a created entity that is called into a relationship with the Divine Persons of the Trinity by the Trinity Himself. We humans are persons only because we are called to participate in communion with the Original Three Persons.

This is very important. From the creationist's point of view, if God didn't call us into relationship with Himself, we would be animals, not persons. Because God is Himself, because He calls us, we become ourselves, persons.

So Dawkins cheats when he uses the word "selfish." "Self" can only be distinguished through personhood. In a room filled with inanimate objects, none of the objects think, so none of the objects have a "self-ness." It is only persons who make the distinction between "self" and "other." This is precisely because we, as human persons, are defined only by our relationship to the Three Divine Persons. Divinity is wholly "other" compared to my puny "self." That's how I know my self exists — I ain't Him, so I must be me. The logic is impeccable.

The World According to Evolution

But, the whole point of evolutionary theory is to explicitly deny the need for persons at all, human or divine. Thus, evolution necessarily and specifically must deny the idea of "self." Evolutionary theory teaches one foundational truth: everything depends on the random interaction of chemicals, interactions completely unaffected by the presence or absence of personhood, self-ness or anything like it. Evolution insists on this foundation, in fact.

But, without persons, evolution has no teleology, no purpose. Thus, atheistic evolutionary theory specifically denies that evolution is either good or bad. According to the theory, evolution simply is. It isn't headed for an endpoint. It doesn't have a purpose. Evolution doesn't select good traits or bad traits. It is a mindless process. It can't select. It just is.

Even if it could select, there would be nothing to select. There are no good or bad traits. There are traits that survive and traits that do not survive. Just because a trait survives does not make it good — the trait may only be useful in a highly specialized niche which is swiftly disappearing, and the species with the trait will therefore disappear as the environment changes. The same is true for a trait that does not survive. Complexity only means the trait is probably newer, but newer is not better, nor is older worse. Everything is just a random swirl of chemicals, no meaning, no purpose, no end, no "higher forms" versus "lower forms" of life. Even life is not better or worse than being inanimate. Everything just is.

The Lab Test for Sin

So, when evolutionists use the word "imperative" in regards to evolution, they are lying. As Merriam Webster points out, the word "imperative" is drawn from the Latin imperare, "to command." It means: "of, relating to, or constituting the grammatical mood that expresses the will to influence the behavior of another; expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation; having power to restrain, control, and direct; not to be avoided or evaded : NECESSARY [an imperative duty]."
 
Continued:


"Will," "influence," "entreaty," "restrain"... all of these words require purpose, each requires an intellect and a will. A tree doesn't command. A fungus does restrain. Bacteria are agents of influenza, not influence.

Evolutionists know all this, but they insist on using language that pretends otherwise.

When evolutionists start talking about "self," "selfishness," "good," "bad," or anything remotely touching on personhood, they have — by that fact — stopped using the language of evolution. Poorly-schooled students of evolutionary theory may think they are still discussing evolution, but evolutionary theory specifically denies that they are. The students have anthropomorphized the discussion, pretended a will and intellect are present when none are, they have brought in a factor that is completely extraneous, absolutely irrelevant, to the evolutionary discussion. They are, in short, discussing theology, not science.

But evolutionists don't just pull this trick when discussing DNA. They do the same things when discussing animals. They claim, for instance, that animals make and use tools. But the words "make" and "tool" imply purpose. Only persons have purposes. Certainly we can observe that an animal acts in a specific way, but that does not prove the animal has intentionality. Vines grow toward the sun. Do they intend to grow towards the sun? No. Even if they did, there is no way to prove it scientifically.

Funhouse Mirrors

Science cannot test for intentionality. If science could test for intentionality, then it could test for that subset of intentionality known as disordered intentionality.

Put another way, if you can scientifically prove that apes act intentionally, then you can scientifically prove apes can sin. In fact, if you can prove intentionality, you can prove apes do sin. If you can prove it for apes, you can prove it for men.

I've heard science make a lot of claims, but I've never heard a scientist claim he could demonstrate through lab technique what is a sin and what is not. Yet this is precisely the claim that scientists make when they claim that apes, dolphins, orangutans, tangerines, pick your favorite animate or inanimate object, make and use tools. They are claiming that they can test for intentionality, for sin.

They see an ape take an action — it throws a stick. They anthropomorphize that action (which is not science), saying "Wow, we throw sticks too!" Then they claim that science has demonstrated something when, in fact, the scientist has really only observed and anthropomorphized. Just because a scientist does something doesn't make it science.

In fact, we could extend their reasoning to show the fallacy. I fall down. So do apes. So do unbalanced bricks. Thus, all three must be persons.

See how easy it is? I simply have to begin the observation with the assumption that the things I am comparing myself to possess an intellectual state like mine. By the very fact that anyone assumes this kind of similarity, this kind of connection between the actions of bricks, apes and man, those actions are anthropomorphized. Thus, the scientist assumes what he set out to prove: apes are persons.

"But wait," says the scientist, "I have further argument!"

"Oh?" I reply, "And what might that be?"

"Apes, bricks and persons are all made out of the same subatomic particles! See, this proves definitively that all three are persons!"

Well, no, it doesn't. But this is essentially the DNA argument. So we share much of the same DNA (and all of the same subatomic particles) with apes. So what? Personhood is a function of God's divine call to us to share intimate communion with Him. That call is completely independent of whether or not we have a particular somatic structure or particular material components. Personhood is a gift from God, it is not a consequence of the particular arrangement of components in material reality. Personhood is bestowed from above, it does not bubble up from below.

Why do they think apes are persons? Because they do bad things? So do virii and tsunamis. Oh, so apes have a brain? Very nice — so does an ant. Oh, so it's a rather complex brain? Yes, so is that of a human corpse. So it's a rather complex living brain? Yes, I suppose it is. And?

And... And... AND... So what?

Brains are tools for the intellect. The intellect is an aspect of the immortal spiritual soul. The brain is not itself the intellect, it is the mediating tool the intellect makes use of in human beings to express itself. Strictly speaking, the brain is not necessary for the possession or expression of a person's intellect.

God is Three Persons. God is also anencephalic, but He seems to get on just fine without a brain or even a skull to house it in. So do the angels. So do we. If you don't think so, talk to the saints in heaven. God is Three Persons. He has the one divine intellect and the one divine will. He has no DNA. Angels are persons, they have intellects and wills. They have no DNA. Human beings in heaven are persons, and they are totally separated from their DNA. Personhood, intellect, will, these things are from God. God gives us an intellect and a will so we can respond to His call to enter relationship with Him. Personhood, intellect, will: this is a theology discussion, not a science discussion.

The Language of Kudzu

So why do smart people keep making extraordinarily stupid mistakes of language? The first question is obvious: are these mistakes? Evolutionists are not stupid. They know perfectly well they are mis-using the language. In their own texts, they even go out of their way to point out that their own use of these theological terms is not correct. They put the theological words in quotes, they warn the reader that evolution really doesn't have intentionality, nor does anything that is subject to evolution (including us?). They knowingly, routinely encroach on theological discourse; they knowingly, routinely violate the very science they claim to want to explain.

The scientist might argue that he is simply using the theological word in a new, narrowly scientific technical sense. Alright. It is certainly the case that words change in meaning over time. But, the fact is, due to cultural usages, words have meanings that are independent of what anyone might want them to mean.

Take, for instance, the way particle physics has taken over the use of the word "color" for quarks. "Color" in the macro universe refers to specific wavelengths of light. Quarks are not photons, so speaking of a quark's "color" has no relevance or reference to color as a child with a box of crayons knows color. Intellectually, everyone who has ever read an article about quarks knows this.

But the word "color" is so culturally laden that any use of it, even in a context in which the original definition clearly has no application, causes the person encountering the word to react in a certain way. When we see the word "color" next to a quark, we inevitably picture the quark as a pinhead speck of a specific color — red or blue or green — even though we know intellectually that this is perfectly silly. Quarks don't emit photons, they don't have color in a macro-sense.

Now, in physics, this double meaning of "color" is not a problem because mentally visualizing a red quark doesn't interfere with the quark concept. None of the calculations involved, none of the discussions concerning the particle, touch on anything remotely close to the original meaning of the word "color." The habit of the mind to visualize the color is slightly annoying, but nothing more.

But with evolutionary theory, it is different. Evolutionary theory intentionally and repeatedly mis-uses theological terms, terms relating to the person. It specifically attempts to take over the use of the theological vocabulary critical to expressing the very ideas it attacks. It intends to destroy the ability to speak of divinity or personhood at all. Evolution supporters simply co-opt all the words we use to discuss theological concepts, and then they implicitly define those words in ways which divorce them completely from the original theological concepts they were meant to express. And they do this despite the fact that the discipline itself denies it needs those terms.

Like kudzu, the foreign vine in the Southern United States that covers over and destroys everything it touches, evolutionary theory has invaded the English language and stripped it of all theological meaning.

Now, I don't mind hearing a good discussion of evolution. But I strenuously object to the intentional destruction of the English language. If you want to discuss evolution, go right ahead. But stop taking and using words that don't belong to the lexicon of evolution.

In evolution, things happen, neither good nor bad, just things. There is no self. There are just chemicals. That's it. Talk about evolution correctly or don't talk about it. Those who don't stick to correct language, go crazy. Worse, they drag the rest of us with them. I, for one, don't want to go.
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Ad hominem.
More...

you will not take your evidence of creation from a scientist. why should the scientist take evidence from a theist writer? would you take trading advice from a writer of books for children?
it might be wise to make sure the person writing the story has some knowledge of the subject before you take him seriously.
now if you could come up with a few respected biologists who claim biblical creation is true it might be interesting.
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Ad hominem.
More...

OK, well, then let's all of us get right back on point then shall we, Mr. Z? You walked away from the previous discussion, without answering my direct question, and I submit that you are now trying to bury your inability to answer with a pile of irrelevant documentation. So I'll repost my last response, substantially complete, to help us all get right "back on track!"

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Quote where I claimed "instantaneous creation." Design theory doesn't require anything instant, it just says that the universe and life within it is by design....not chance.

By design is that simple, by design rather than by chance....
More...

Where did you claim instantaneous creation? Right here:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=934054&highlight=pure+potentiality#post934054

(scroll down to the phrase "pure potentiality," highlighted in red)

Design theory absolutely requires instant creation. The foundational premise of ID is (1) irreducible complexity, i.e., instantaneous creation of a complete biological system in one step, and (2) specified complexity, i.e., biological evolution cannot have produced life without divine intervention, because the physical universe does not permit information gain by application of random chance.

Premise #1 above, demands the application of magic (instant creation), and #2, which is a purely mathematical construct, has been falisfied by computer simulation, so it is irrelevant to the continued argument in support of ID.

You seem to be having some difficulty answering the question, so I'll rephrase it for you:

What exactly is it that you want public school biology students exposed to -- the possibility that evolution may be directed by an outside force, or the instantaneous creation of life from the mind of God?

If it's the former, I seriously doubt that you will have any objection from any scientific source, INCLUDING Kenneth Miller, Ph.D, the author of the most widely used public school biology text(s). After, all, Dr. Miller is a Roman Catholic, and he has no problem with evolution being directed. He just has a problem with evolution being replaced by magic.

If it's the latter, then you are directly advocating that children be indoctrinated that magic is a realistic alternative to evolution, and you want that indoctrination to occur in the forum of a science curriculum.

And if this is your position, then in my opinion, your argument is insane.

Now, are you going to answer the direct question, or not?
 
zz just answer the freakin q dude. what you afraid of? start playing by the rules of CIVIL discourse engagement!!

ANSWER THE Q PUT TO YOU OR FORFEIT THE GAME!!

:mad:
 
The author made an argument about the use of langage in the ID/Evolution debate.

Whether or not he is an atheist, or theist, is irrlevant to the logical validity of the argument he was making.

Quote from vhehn:

you will not take your evidence of creation from a scientist. why should the scientist take evidence from a theist writer? would you take trading advice from a writer of books for children?
it might be wise to make sure the person writing the story has some knowledge of the subject before you take him seriously.
now if you could come up with a few respected biologists who claim biblical creation is true it might be interesting.
More...
 
I decided you are not an inquisitor, nor is this a court of law in which I am bound to answer your questions, therefore I exercise a choice to your line of questions. Your misrepresentation of my position and direct quotes is sufficient enough to reason for disengagement.

You are an _______ in my opinion.

Anyone who claims that they have won a "debate" or argument, in my opinion in a setting and forum like this is nothing but a public masturbator of sorts, who needs very much to stroke themselves in public for all to see. Self declaration of victory is not much difference than pulling ones own pud, it becomes a necessity when non one else will do the job.....

The absurdity could be displayed by an example, where we have a debate or trial where there is no judge or moderator, and one of the process a person who is representing one side of the story jumps up and claims, "I am the victor, I am the victor. I am the most logical, I am the most reasonable!!!"

To do so is of course not logical, nor reasonable in my opinion. It is the work of someone who daftly believes their shit doesn't stink.

No judge, no jury, just self gratification in a public forum.....

Oh, and no class either.

I have no interest at all in getting back on the track you are running on......

Oh, and this is not ad hominem, and I am not attacking your argument at all, I am attacking you for what I think is your display of vanity and immaturity.

Just because I think you are vain and immature, doesn't mean that your argument is not logical nor valid.



Quote from kjkent1:

OK, well, then let's all of us get right back on point then shall we, Mr. Z? You walked away from the previous discussion, without answering my direct question, and I submit that you are now trying to bury your inability to answer with a pile of irrelevant documentation. So I'll repost my last response, substantially complete, to help us all get right "back on track!"



Where did you claim instantaneous creation? Right here:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=934054&highlight=pure+potentiality#post934054

(scroll down to the phrase "pure potentiality," highlighted in red)

Design theory absolutely requires instant creation. The foundational premise of ID is (1) irreducible complexity, i.e., instantaneous creation of a complete biological system in one step, and (2) specified complexity, i.e., biological evolution cannot have produced life without divine intervention, because the physical universe does not permit information gain by application of random chance.

Premise #1 above, demands the application of magic (instant creation), and #2, which is a purely mathematical construct, has been falisfied by computer simulation, so it is irrelevant to the continued argument in support of ID.

You seem to be having some difficulty answering the question, so I'll rephrase it for you:

What exactly is it that you want public school biology students exposed to -- the possibility that evolution may be directed by an outside force, or the instantaneous creation of life from the mind of God?

If it's the former, I seriously doubt that you will have any objection from any scientific source, INCLUDING Kenneth Miller, Ph.D, the author of the most widely used public school biology text(s). After, all, Dr. Miller is a Roman Catholic, and he has no problem with evolution being directed. He just has a problem with evolution being replaced by magic.

If it's the latter, then you are directly advocating that children be indoctrinated that magic is a realistic alternative to evolution, and you want that indoctrination to occur in the forum of a science curriculum.

And if this is your position, then in my opinion, your argument is insane.

Now, are you going to answer the direct question, or not?
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I decided you are not an inquisitor, nor is this a court of law in which I am bound to answer your questions, therefore I exercise a choice to your line of questions. Your misrepresentation of my position and direct quotes is sufficient enough to reason for disengagement.

You are an _______ in my opinion.

Anyone who claims that they have won a "debate" or argument, in my opinion in a setting and forum like this is nothing but a public masturbator of sorts, who needs very much to stroke themselves in public for all to see. Self declaration of victory is not much difference than pulling ones own pud, it becomes a necessity when non one else will do the job.....

The absurdity could be displayed by an example, where we have a debate or trial where there is no judge or moderator, and one of the process a person who is representing one side of the story jumps up and claims, "I am the victor, I am the victor. I am the most logical, I am the most reasonable!!!"

To do so is of course not logical, nor reasonable in my opinion. It is the work of someone who daftly believes their shit doesn't stink.

No judge, no jury, just self gratification in a public forum.....

Oh, and no class either.

I have no interest at all in getting back on the track you are running on......

Oh, and this is not ad hominem, and I am not attacking your argument at all, I am attacking you for what I think is your display of vanity and immaturity.

Just because I think you are vain and immature, doesn't mean that your argument is not logical nor valid.
More...

As you wish, Mr. Z. Our conversation is ended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top