|
home | what's new | other sites | contact | about |
||
|
Word Gems exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity
Anthropic Principle: Part II Why the Anthropic Principle is Undoubtedly True
return to "Evolution Controversy" contents page
less here than meets the eye “Anthropic Principle: Part I” presented materialists’ primary objections concerning the universe having been designed with Mankind in mind. But let’s take a closer look. There’s “less here than meets the eye.” In my “Clear Thinking” article you’ll find ten dishonest debating tactics. Many of them are on bawdy and shameless display with the Anthropic-Principle attacks.
Clear-Thinking Rule #7 For example, “Clear-Thinking Rule #7,” the employment of jokes, sarcasm, and cynicism to distract from, and to minimize, the impact of the real issues at hand. People do this when they don’t have anything credible or important to say. Attempting to cover up the weakness of their position, they’ll try to make you look like a fool by using humor as a weapon. This is what the Doug Adams “mud puddle” joke is all about. Actually, I like the joke, it is funny, and Doug Adams is a great humorist. But humor takes on cultish garb if used to distract from a serious proposition that requires discussion; that is, as decoy that would lead you away from the truth.
Clear-Thinking Rule #8 Richard Dawkins violates “Clear-Thinking Rule #8,” “begging the question” and it’s close sibling, “circular reasoning.” In honest debate, you’re not allowed to speak of a topic under review in terms suggesting that it's already been verified; you cannot “begin with the conclusion,” an unsubstantiated one, and use it as basis for what you’re trying to prove. Religionists are often accused of this kind of sloppy reasoning. For example, if one were to enter into debate about the infallibility of the Bible, comments such as "holy" scripture would be inadmissible as the term "holy" assumes that which is being contested. Editor's note: But let’s keep in mind here, as discussed in an earlier article, that modern materialistic biology should be viewed as a “rival religion.” It’s not a real science, it has no solid underpinnings, as does physics, for example, Newton’s laws of motion. Little wonder then, in their arguments, when push-comes-to-shove, proponents of Darwinism tend to fall back on dishonest debating tactics. It’s all they have. Dawkins responds to the theistic position, “You are absurd for thinking that something with a one in a googol chance of happening could explain life,” by asserting, “We exist, so we are an existence of the googol possibilities that have likely occurred in the vastness of possible existence in which the question will be asked. It doesn’t matter that our existence is infinitely improbable, if we hadn’t come to be there would be no one to notice how improbable our existence is.” Simplified, Dawkins’s argument reduces to, “We’re here aren’t we? That’s means I’m right. This means ‘pigs can fly’ if given enough time.” But it doesn’t work that way. Here’s why: Creationists and Darwinists are debating, “How did we get here? How did life come to be on planet Earth?” That’s the big question, that's what we're trying to get at. And so you can’t get up on your high-horse and infallibly claim, “The fact that we’re here proves I’m right.” Wow, I guess that settle that. You can’t use what you’re trying to prove as basis for your claim! This is really lame. It’s actually funny. We should put this next to Doug Adams’ mud-puddle joke.
Clear-Thinking Rule #1 And here’s a subtle breach of honest discussion, an under-the-radar poisoning of the well. Did you notice (see the full quote in "Part I") that the claim, “We’re here, we exist,” is not just from a “scientist” -- as if a theist couldn't be a scientist -- but a “wise scientist,” offered in hopeful expectation that you will bow before the man in a white lab-coat, because he really knows, and the only one allowed to have an opinion. The scientist's "wisdom" itself is a matter of adjudication here, yet to be determined as by-product of the debate at hand, and not by a self-serving pronouncement of the debaters. In this little ploy, we’re witnessing a breaking a “Clear-Thinking Rule #1,” the use of emotionally-charged words, an effort to sway the opinions of the unwary. Editor’s note: This subtle use of labels can be a glorying or an attack. When Dr. Rupert Sheldrake is introduced at speaking engagements, I’ve noticed, time and again, the emcee presents him pejoratively as a “controversial” biologist. Controversial to whom? Of course, a materialist-biologist couldn't be controversial, only those who accept the evidence for the afterlife. ("You wouldn't be one of those controversial biologists, now would you?")
Clarence Darrow But let’s move on to the master prosecuting attorney, Clarence Darrow, call him to the stand, and carefully review his testimony. Darrow has it that the Earth could not have been made for Mankind because we’re outnumbered. There’re more insects and fishes than humans, and sheer majority-vote means something in his view of the universe’s pecking-order. And, considering all of the deserts, mountains, vast stretches of ocean, the many wastelands, so very little of it making for a perfect paradise for Mankind, surely this means, Darrow suggests, that the Earth was not created with us in mind.
trouble in paradise?
By logical extension, Darrow would need to conclude that, on a South Sea island, with "perfect" envirnoment, we will find the most advanced humans ever brought forth upon the planet. Well, with no disrespect to our friends on South Sea islands, are we prepared to flat-out agree with Darrow's unspoken premise? He is correct to say that if the planets moved in triangular orbits, many would call this “order and design.” In fact, anything we observe to occur with some degree of regularity might be labeled “order and design.” We could answer, who's to say it wouldn't be "order and design," but this is a small issue, and Darrow employs it by-the-by to imply, “Look how narrow and unthinking these Creationists are.” I think Darrow’s problem is that he’s still fighting the last war. He has not moved on from eviscerating the easy-target, the bible-thumping William Jennings Bryan, and seems to think that all non-materialists are rather stupid and shallow. one spectacular presumption after another His arguments could be categorized under violations of “Clear-Thinking Rule #5,” diversion to another question, to a side issue, or by irrelevant objection; “Clear-Thinking Rule #4,” evading sound refutation of one's argument by use of dishonest claim; and “Clear-Thinking Rule #3,” proof by carefully-selected instances while ignoring the whole. As we might discern, his objections become one spectacular presumption after another. Darrow attacks with dishonest claim, an implied one, that might be summarized: “I know what the purpose of Mankind on Earth is -- it's to live in futility. And I know what the Earth and its animal populations should look like if it had been designed by Universal Intelligence; and I know what is the best habitation for Mankind in terms evolvement and development, if there were such a thing.” Clarence Darrow is one more materialistic secular-religionist, haughtily preaching a gospel of meaninglessness to the savage unbelievers. He is like the nihilistic existential writers, so sure of themselves in their studied ennui, so selective in their research, so willfully blind to that which might easily be known concerning the reality of the Spirit World. The information concerning post-mortem survival was not produced in a hidden corner but readily available during the last 100 years, offered by the world's most noted scientists, including Nobel laureates. This is fact, not an emotional appeal. And the question we must ask is, why does Darrow speak so one-dimensionally, as if materialism were the only game in town? William Jennings Bryan was a strawman to defeat -- a good and sincere man but hopelessly mired in ideas with soft-underbelly -- but how will you respond to a Nobel laureate in physics who has accepted the scientific evidence for the afterlife? or even one of your mathematician colleagues? Mathematician I.L Cohen: "At that moment, when the [complexity of the] DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt...the implications of the DNA/RNA were obvious and clear....Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that [Darwinian] Evolution [was] the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today." Editor’s note: And so, why didn’t the debate – or the courtroom interrogation -- “come to a screeching halt” when mathematicians determined there is “no possibility” that Darwinian Evolution might account for the life we see around us? It didn’t come to a screeching halt because, to the cultish mind, the facts don’t matter. Information is sifted and selectively accepted or rejected. We’re committed to a conclusion from the start of a debate and select "evidence" to buttress the conclusion: we shoot the arrow and paint a bulls-eye around it.
And now, in this religious fervor of secular-materialism, we’ve stepped over the line into a dark world of the cultish mindset. You cannot talk someone out of their religion; words alone, information alone, will not persuade a true-believer. We discussed this in the “Levels Of Consciousness” article. Those who live on the lower rungs of awareness really believe in what they say, no matter how errant. It’s what they see, and it’s all they see. It doesn’t matter if he or she is a PhD or a high school dropout, we’ll get the same closed-minded response. Help for them will not come by way of better arguments or more facts. They could have that right now if they really wanted it because the research is available to everyone. What is needed is a ratcheting up to a higher level of consciousness. See the article for more discussion.
But here's the really big issue concerning the Anthropic Principle. The wrong question is being asked. The most fundamental question is not, why did life evolve this way or that, but – why is there such a thing as life at all?
Why isn’t the universe filled with ice-cold rocks, floating in pitch darkness? Even rocks are "miracles," if you think about it. But, presuming their existence, how do you get from stone-cold rocks, all the way up the food-chain, to sentient, self-aware beings? Given enough time, rocks can fly, write you a letter, and sing you a song? But, you see, there are those who do insist on believing and preaching this infallible doctrine of "upward causation" -- and that's why modern Darwinistic biology is not a real science but a faith-mission outreach.
materialists speak cavalierly as if the advent of life were a given, as if it had to be This is behind Dawkins’ brash and circular-reasoned statement, “We’re here, aren’t we?" by which he means to say, "The fact that we’re here proves that I'm right, that a virtual zero-chance to create life from stone-cold rocks is what happened.” But this is wrong. The coming of life to the Earth was not a given; the mathematics of probability demonstrates that it was not inevitable. See the earlier article, "Not Enough Time." There is not enough time in the entire history of the universe for randomness and chance to account for life on Earth! -- or 10 universes, or 100 universes, or 1000 universes!
"Do you know what this means, Marty?!"
Yes, “do you know what this means, Marty?" If there’s not enough time in a 1000 universes for chance to produce life, if randomness cannot save our theories, then we must reasonably look to non-randomness as the way forward. And this is how Intelligent Design makes its big comeback. Further, if randomness could not have produced life on Earth, and if Intelligent Design fills the void, then -- in some form or fashion, to one degree or another, despite purported flaws, like it or not -- what we see around us is the product of Purposefulness, Planning, Foresight, and Mindfulness. It means, Marty, that the Anthropic Principle is true. That's really heavy, Doc.
|
||
|
|
