Jerry Coyne/Robert Ingersoll on Evolution, Animal Pain, and "Waste"

Jerry Coyne quotes Robert Ingersoll on the challenge that evolution is supposed to present to the belief that God is good. The idea is that a good God would create by fiat, just as recorded in Genesis, instead of using evolution, which depends upon animal carnivorousness to develop new species.

Now I agree with Ingersoll and Coyne that there is something wrong with animal carnivorousness (yes, it is tough on those fishes). But then, we have animals eating animals now, regardless of whether evolution happened. So the present existence of animal carnivorousness is a problem for those who believe there is something wrong with it, but also believe in a good God. Does evolution compound the problem? It means that carnivorousness has been around a lot longer than human beings, so that attributing its existence to a human "fall" isn't easy to do (though William Dembski tries it in his book, The End of Christianity). With C.S. Lewis, I prefer to blame Satan for the problem. I don't think Coyne will think much of that answer. But it works for me.

But Coyne implies that there is an additional problem that he calls "waste." Somehow it was a waste for God to use the process of evolution to develop new species. But it is only a waste if the animals involved in the process had no special value to God. Do we know that to be the case? Hardly. Jesus told us that God cares about each sparrow that falls to the ground. It seems very likely that God also cared about the individuals of each past species that ever lived on this planet, and that they were of value to God in and of themselves -- not just because they were also the means to future species. To God, all things, all animals, all people are ends in themselves, not just means to other ends.

So yes, the problem of human pain and suffering, along with the problem of animal pain and suffering remains, and there is no easy answer. But I think we can dispense with the notion that there is an additional problem of "waste."

David Ray Griffin: 9/11 and Nationalist Faith

Hoffman's Scarecrow Jesus

Back in August R.Joseph Hoffmann presented what I thought was an excellent portrayal of the "scarecrows" of Jesus offered to us by secular New Testament historians, and their shadowy counterparts offered by Mythicists. It doesn't surprise me that Hoffmann, being a secular New Testament historian would offer his own scarecrow Jesus. As all the other scarecrow Jesuses out there, it replaces the kingly yet humble Messiah of the the New Testament with some fake, wannabe leader that most people wouldn't pay attention to for two seconds. Congratulations, Dr. Hoffman, on doing no better than your peers, whom you so accurately criticized. At least the shadows that the Mythicists offer are more interesting personalities than your scarecrows.

Dawkins on Junk DNA: "Heads I win, Tails ID Loses"

Thanks to Scootie Royale's recent video, I googled and found Rabbi Klinghoffer's recent post about a debate between Richard Dawkins and Britain's chief rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks. Apparently Dawkins was willing to accept the ENCODE project's conclusion that most of our DNA is not junk, and responded that this is exactly what a Darwinist would expect. Yet, as Klinghoffer pointed out, this is exactly the opposite of Dawkins' position as recently as 2009, when he stated that the existence of junk DNA is exactly what Darwinism would predict and Intelligent Design could not explain.

Thanks to professor Larry Moran's vehement challenge to the conclusions of the ENCODE project I remain an agnostic regarding those conclusions and the question of how much of our DNA is junk and how much isn't.   But if it turns out that most of our DNA is in fact not junk, but plays an integral role in our lives, then I think it is more of a challenge to the non-design hypothesis, since there is that much more that needs explaining.

If junk DNA counts against ID, then the absence of junk DNA must count for it.  Dawkins can't have it both ways.

An Aristotelian Argument for Intelligent Design

Over at Uncommon Descent Vincent Torley has posted a number of very thoughtful, very thorough, and very long posts on the topic of Intelligent Design and Aristotelian-Thomist (A-T) Philosophy, largely in answer to A-T philosopher Edward Feser's frequent criticisms of Intelligent Design. In a couple of comments at his latest post, I worked out what I would call an Aristotelian argument for Intelligent Design. I thought I would just recopy my comments here:

Let’s compare the causes of a wooden tablre with the causes of a human being:

Material cause of table: wood

Material cause of human being: “dust”

Efficient cause of table: carpenter

Efficient cause of human being: ?

Formal cause of table: flat surface supported by four legs

Formal cause of human being: rational animal

Final cause of table: a place to eat meals.

Final cause of human being: to be in communion with God.

It looks to me as if the open question is the efficient cause of human beings.

So let’s say that God is the efficient cause of a human being, just as a carpenter is the efficient cause of a table. It seems that God is either the efficient cause directly, in which case God directly manipulates the dust and forms it into a human being. Or God is the efficient cause indirectly, and empowers someone or something else to form the dust into a human being.

Now it seems to be at least logically possible that God has empowered the dust — given it self-organizing powers — to form a human being. And it seems to me that the only way to know whether God has indeed empowered dust in this manner is to investigate the matter empirically. So far, it appears that dust does not have this kind of self-organizing power. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that either God has directly organized dust into a human being, or that God has empowered some other agent to do so. Either way, it appears that something that we would call intelligent design is the best explanation of how human beings came into existence.

Evolution News and Views Backs Liberalism

I'm glad to see that Evolution News and Views, the voice of the conservative Discovery Institute, has decided to back liberalism for a change:

To be a good liberal is to back academic freedom, not just at the university level, at which point it is often too late, but also if not particularly at the critical early stages of citizen formation: the public school.

Quite right.  No doubt ENV will be promoting the public discussion of the evidence presented by the 9/11 Truth movement, next.  

Z and my Noetic Web

Randal Rauser recently posted what was supposed to be a discussion of Justin Schieber's disproof of God. In the ensuing combox discussion he wrote:

 "Consider an analogy. Imagine that you hear a lecture by a fellow who argues that 9/11 was caused by the US Government. And he provides a powerful case for the conclusion which you are unable to refute. Would it be rational to conclude that the government in fact caused 9/11 based on that single lecture? It might. But for most people such a conspiracy theory would involve revising so many other beliefs, e.g. by adopting multiple levels of corruption and conspiracy in the government, that it would take much more than a single lecture to win one over."

 Randal already knew I was a 9/11 Truther and probably half-expected that I would take advantage of the opportunity to divert the discussion and bring up that issue, which I did. Part of his reply to me was

 "Life is short, and I can't research every case of disagerement among experts. So what I do, what seems reasonable to do, is side with the position that requires the least revisions in my noetic web as well as the position that is represented by the most experts in the relevant fields. In this case both factors are found on the non-conspiracy side."

I think Randal's position is rational (though I think he is mistaken regarding which side the "experts" are on) and probably explains why most people do not take the 9/11 Truth movement seriously. So this led me to ponder yet again my own "noetic web" and why it was so easy for me to accept 9/11 Truth. I think one of the early influences in my own life that made accepting the idea that government (or military) conspiracies happened was seeing the movie Z way back in 1969:

" The film presents a thinly fictionalized account of the events surrounding the assassination of democratic Greek politician Grigoris Lambrakis in 1963. With its satirical view of Greek politics, its dark sense of humor, and its downbeat ending, the film captures the outrage about the military dictatorship that ruled Greece at the time of its making.[2] Z stars Jean-Louis Trintignant as the investigating magistrate (an analogue of Christos Sartzetakis, who 22 years later was appointed President of Greece by democratically elected parliamentarians)."

Watching the film as a 15 year old made crystal clear to me that government conspiracies, especially those backed by military leaders, do in fact occur. And that when they do, it is very difficult to expose them. The film doesn't have a happy ending:

"An epilogue provides a synopsis of the subsequent turns of events. Instead of the expected positive outcome, the prosecutor is mysteriously removed from the case, key witnesses die under suspicious circumstances, the assassins receive (relatively) short sentences, the officers receive only administrative reprimands, the Deputy's close associates die or are deported, and the photojournalist is sent to prison for disclosing official documents.
As the closing credits roll, before listing the cast and crew, the filmmakers first list the things banned by the junta. They include: peace movements, strikes, labor unions, long hair on men, The Beatles, other modern and popular music ("la musique populaire"), Sophocles, Leo Tolstoy, Aeschylus, writing that Socrates was homosexual, Eugène Ionesco, Jean-Paul Sartre, Anton Chekhov, Harold Pinter, Edward Albee, Mark Twain, Samuel Beckett, Trotsky, the bar association, sociology, international encyclopedias, free press, and new math. Also banned is the letter Z, which was used as a symbolic reminder that Grigoris Lambrakis and by extension the spirit of resistance lives (zi = "he (Lambrakis) lives")."

If ever there were an actual independent investigation into 9/11, I don't think the end would be any better than in the movie.