Evolution vs ID vs Descartes: Part 3: SUM
If you haven't read part 1 and 2 here is what you need to know:
If there is a designer then evolution was part of the design. Therefore "ID" vs "Evolution" is a red-herring.
/endofstorysofar
Of course, the debate is one of those "science vs faith" issues. Please do not construe the above as statements about faith, or religion, they are not. The following toughts are though.
Personally, I think it is the wrong debate, the wrong issue. I find one can wonder at "the creation" without having to pick a fight with Science. In my case, I am in awe of the creation. Period. Thank you.
What bothers me is when people flaunt their religion in your face. By all means, practice if it makes you happy and you have decided to devote a part of your life to regligion. If that is your thing, then good for you! Keep it private.
I think faith and logic should operate in orthogonal and NON-EXCLUSIVE worlds. Therefore religion and science should as well. Science doesn't want to explain "God", it can't and doesn't concern itself with faith. That much has been admitted for a long time. Many scientists believe in "something" many are downright religious people. Science doesn't mean atheism. Science and religion should co-exist in separate dimensions, because their driving feelings, faith and logic, are separate and non-exclusive emotions.
In the case of "evolution", I think the fight is downright ignorant and misguided. One can observe evolution as fact and still marvel at the "creation" every day. I dont' need to agree with the creationists on WHO did it and HOW it was done. I don't care. I just care that it IS done. I don't need a codified religion to feel that kind of "faith".
When I was young, I thought Descartes had proven "existence". I didn't need to believe, it was proven. You probably know Descartes, he is famous for his "cogito ergo sum". "I think, therefore I am". He is also famous for being famous in the same town as my father, Tours France, but less so.
However, I think that the "I think" in the cogito, is a STATEMENT, A STATED and OBSERVED FACT, it is not a proof: in a word, it is a POSTULATE (admitted truth in your system). If you admit that "I think" then the "therefore" part of "therefore I am" becomes redundant. They are one and the same thing.
As soon as you state that something about YOU IS, your thought in the case of Rene Descartes, then you have essentially postulated yourself into existence. "Therefore I am" is a "slight of thought", a tautology really, no information is added.
It took me 20 years to come to grips with that statement though :) I thought it was proof of existence. It isn't, I was tricked by the therefore/ergo which made it sound like a proof. It is a postulate. The cogito is a postulate followed by a tautology.
But to me it can capture "faith".
The "SUM!", not as a following to "ergo sum" but as a standalone exclamation: SUM! is both a more intellectually honest version of the cogito and to me at least is a fact to wonder at. I can't get past it intellectually or even near it in abstraction. I postulate it, admit it and move on. That is my faith. I wonder at Creation. I don't need a religion, I don't need bombs or ceremonies. I just wonder that IT IS. The creation is here, it is here, isn't that cause enough for wonder? Aren't we lucky enough? Why pick a fight over it?
Radical creationists would be better advised to go about the business of worshiping their gods in PRIVATE and leave the minds of our boys and girls out of it. There is a place for worship and a place for learning, and then there are many places for making fools of yourselves.
If your teachings clash with facts, deal with your teachings not the other around. Revise your texts.
It is the wrong fight, one that characterizes its proponents as "ignorant bullies". They are transparent in their designs. If their "faith" was any real they would realize that "faith" is a universal feeling, shared and understood by many. A feeling that transcends any particular religion or codified expression.
Remember I love you,
marcf
Comments
Complexity in the observed end result is easily interpreted as complex governing rules which by itself would, according to some, require intelligence. Yet there are various examples where it can be shown that a complex behavior emerges out of simple rules (cf. emergence). I find the chess analogy Richard Feynman uses in his book "The pleasure of finding things out" illustrating this very well.
When it comes to removing complexity from evolution (and therefore, the need for external intelligence), I've found the selfish gene theory adding a healthy dose of simplicity (of which I am a fan of ;-) to the governing rules, yet still maintaining consistency of the process of evolution at larger scale. A book that takes this idea even further with fascinating examples is Matt Ridley's "The origins of virtue" which builds on the theory of evolution of cooperation by Robert Axelrod which itself is an application of the iterated prisoner's dilemma (and here's where Nash pops up once again ;-).
Something to consider for your reading list, I hope :-)
I just remember you and Adrian, almost passed out and me rambling on about my gripes with the "cogito". I think it was you who called bullshit at some point :)
marcf
I remember nodding off on the bench at the port waiting for sunrise, can't say I recall much Descartes there but I'm sure it was a deep, insightful discussion... I remember waking up and crawling across the street for the breakfast buffet :-D
Right! it was you that called bullshit and said "let's go for some bacon and eggs", now THAT was deep and insightful, the rest of drunken rambling :P
marcf