OT: Evolution vs intelligent design

[YMC]

Hi Scott,

To echo TaiChi Bob, nicely crafted!

Actually, if I'm not mischaracterizing you, can I summarize your basic points that you are not necessarily arguing against the likelyhood of evolution, "I am not attempting to punch holes in the theory of evolution. I am attempting to identify errors of reasoning; this is where my interests lay. I do not disagree necessarily with evolutionary theory only irrational methods of supporting it. The same could be said for a Godlike Deity. " but rather whether or not 1) people who support it are using poor logic, and 2) whether or not "natural" laws as we understand them implies the existence of a creator or vice versa, and 3) whether or not lack of belief in a creator is less rational than belief in one; whatever form that creator/mind Logos et al., may take? Ultimately, science can't prove one way or another whether there is a higher being or creator, but as I'll argue, neither can you reason, based on the line of reasoning that you outline, that your position is necessarily anymore rational.

You raise some interesting questions concerning the seeming laws of physics. We must not assume the Laws of Physics “we accept” to be necessarily absolute as they are presently defined.

Yet, you use your understanding of the third law to reach your conclusions, which means that both of our conclusions are equally shakey.

Herein lays a flaw amongst many scientists. They state as certainty facts that are only based upon the latest evidence. They repeatedly fail to qualify their statements of fact.

Yes, I think that much of this is true. (I can speak form first hand anecdotal observation.) (Also as a side point, I have never heard of anyone use the phrase Fact of Evolution; except in a knee-jerk emotional response to attack.) However, because we work in a realm of testable empirical evidence, scientists can revise our weltenshung as needed. Even the most staunch proponent of a theory that he or she may argue as "fact" must change his/her understanding in light of new evidence. How does one do this with philosophical or theological reasoning? As you say, all reasoning may lay on unprovable assumptions, but in one method, you can test outcomes to augment the reasoning. Wherein lies anything testable in your philosophical "proof" of ID? I don't want to get into a point of talking across each other because I understand (I think anyway ) your line of reasoning; which I agree is compelling. Yet, I'm not convinced that it takes anymore faith to believe to argue random chance versus ID; one method is arrived at through inductive reasoning based on the preponderance of the evidence that is testable... which leads me to

As to questioning evolutionary biologists: all arguments follow the principles of reason. All one requires is the evidence and the reasoned argument one is using to defend the conclusion.

Ah, but do you have all the evidence or nuances of the data? Herein lies the problem; we as layman are given general simplified information. For example, going back to physics, if I understand it correctly, are there not arguments that the universe at the point of the big bang actually was at the point of maximal enthropy; thus not the much more highly "ordered" state of energy as your line of reasoning assumes. (Please somebody out there correct me if I'm bonkers). Heck there are even people who argue that there is no such thing as maximal entropy, or people who argue that entropy in the universe is constant (via background radiation in an expanding or contracting universe) which argues against your line of reasoning...

Since the system is moving towards disorder, a priori, the system was at one time more ordered than it is now.

Thus, arguements between scientists based on new evolving evidence either support or discount a view. This is the difference between philosophy or theology and science even if they use the same reasoning processes.

Since we know intelligence exists and we know that intelligence creates order out of seemingly chaotic elements,

A minor meaningless point, but order used in the context above is not the order meant by entropy.

If energy had not been imposed upon the closed system of the experiment than an amino acid would not have resulted, so how would the argument fall apart?

The Earth had already been created and energy was already begining released via the sun, lightening, geothermal; no creator had to articially impose energy, you still would have to go back to the original big bang to argue the outside creator imposing energy into the system; and as I noted above, I'm not all that certain that your line of reasoning can be proven unassailable.

Some scientists posit that dreams are merely the interaction of chemicals within the brain, but the chemical interactions are not the dream they are physical responses. Further did the dream cause the chemical interactions or did the chemical interactions cause the dream. We don’t truly know! Just because we may stimulate a portion of the brain and access a feeling or a memory does not mean the memory or feelings is limited to that region. Also, what is it that experiences that memory or the feelings, it is the mind. Is the mind the brain? There is some research that indicates the mind is not dependent upon the physical brain.

First, may I ask you to point me to the research indicating that the mind is not dependent on the physical brain? This is not a challange; just interested. I'm a grad-student in the field of neuroscience (electrophsyiology of neurons in the brain) and it would be of general interest for me to see it.

Just because we may stimulate a portion of the brain and access a feeling or a memory does not mean the memory or feelings is limited to that region.

True, given the complex heterogeneous shared connections from various parts of the brain to others, although physiological, lesion, and functional studies have shown that there is compartmentalization and even lateralization of many functions to specific parts of the brain. Lesions to specific areas of the orbital frontal lobe and areas of the thalamus that project to it result in retrograde amnesia; damge to the frontal lobe results in dramatic changes in personality and even (with the orbital frontal again) sociopathic behavior. Now, if a person's soul or spirit, i.e. who that person is resides outside the brain, why does damage to it change his personality and morality? But this isn't the question that science is trying to answer! We can't infer with evidence or a preponderance of the evidence whether there is something beyond the collection of electical impulses.

But this is off topic to the point, which is that any conclusion arrived by philosophy or theology is only as good as the original set of assumptions you start with. Scientific theory, however, mayhaps start with similar set of untestable assumptions, must have testable outcomes as a line of investigation. Thus, I disagree that faith in ID is necessarily more rationale than other lines of thought.

By the way, if all things that move must have a mover, who created mover?

[YMC]

Merryprankster,

Oops, it looks like I pretty much echoed what you said with less clarity.

[Christopher M]

Scott,
You've made some good observations, but I think you are mistaken on some very central points, and this confusion undermines your argument.
Firstly, you've frequently drawn the distinction between something of which we're absolutely certain and something for which we can only be relatively certain. You're absolutely right that this is an important distinction, but you're mistaken when you apply it to science in an attempt to minimize the importance of the scientific evidence for evolution. All scientific arguments deal with only relative certainty. The fact that we are only relatively certain of evolution doesn't diminish its weight -- it places it in exactly the same category as every other scientific statement. Moreover, the philosophical arguments that fall under the label of 'classical skepticism' have demonstrated that relative certainty is basically all we have for any statement whatsoever, other than analytic statements (like "all bachelors are unmarried"). So observing that we're only relatively certain of evolution is entirely trivial.
Secondly, you've misapplied the second law of thermodynamics, which does not furnish the argument against evolution you suggest. This law does not indicate that decreases of entropy are impossible. If this were the case, then, for example, chemical synthesis would be impossible. To the contrary, if you take any given unit, like an organism or a chemical compound, a species or a chemical reaction, and so on, you will quite often observe decreases in entropy. Of course, more complex products are produced all the time, even in purely inorganic reactions -- there is nothing spooky about this whatsoever which might imply the outside intervention of a Creator. So the fact that evolution suggests an increase in complexity in no way violates the second law of thermodynamics, and hence in no way suggests that we need to posit such a Creator's intervention.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Merryprankster,

A very comprehensive rant!

I agree ID does not presently belong in science class. Philosophy or Sociology would be more appropriate. God is not measurable and measurable things are the purview of science. God is found in the realm of direct experience!

Hi mantis108,

Thank you for the kind words!! [Respectful Bow!]

I agree with you, there is a seeming problem with linear time as opposed to the concept of an “eternal present”. If we think of our physical system of existence as a game, then linear “cause and effect” is merely one of the rules of the game as are the rules of physics. It is no different than when we follow the arbitrary rules of the board game monopoly while playing that game.

A prime mover only has meaning within the context of this linear game.

Also, I try to do the best I can to communicate with others according to their belief system and not my own. If I am speaking to a Christian then I try to communicate using concepts they are familiar with. When speaking with the scientific and philosophically minded I try to use logical discourse. With students of Tao, using terms and concepts they are familiar with, etc. I try to respect each person’s individual belief system. If they find value and meaning in it then that is good for them. I don’t try to change someone’s belief system, but I may attempt to offer a different slant. I will try to expand what may be perceived as limiting concepts and I will try to do this from within their own worldview.

Hi YMC and ChristopherM,

I will try to respond to your posts. I don't presently have a lot of time and I must rob peter to pay paul in order to find the time to give your posts the time they deserve. I must post around other repsonsibilities and i can see responses will take quite some time. thank you for your thoughts!

[Sifu Darkfist]

This is a subject i have fought with for the past 15 years as well. My deep engrossment into the Torah unseated many originally held catholic beliefs. it finally led to me giving up for a period on all of the study do to the many contradictions in all religious literature, until...

Until i did the same deep genetic research through my universities holdings on the subject and found the key to ensure my personal belief in Inteligent Design. In fact it ensured my belief in god (although it never answered who he was or what his or her address might be or even how to worship).

The evidence was simple, for me to understand and was the last thing I would ever look for it was in the genetic code itself.
There is a piece in the code that moves about the code randomly at close intervals, almost identical to the concept of the enigma machine from germany in the 30's-40's. It was the cause to the difficulty in deciphering the human genome because it changed so randomly.

Let us reflect for a moment, why would evolution encode the code to such a high level of encryption. furthermore how COULD it encode at this level.

My personal answer it could not and it did not. For no where else in nature is there an accidental occurance of an Enigma Machine not in the sea, not on land, and not in the mountains, only in our heads. Much like the head of an incredible artisitic creator who goes by an unproven name and reigns from only he or she knows where.

[Mortal1]

It's simple. liberals are anti-God and want it eliminated from our society. That way when they have abortions on demand they don't have to worry about spending eternity in hell. There is no direct link that proves evolution either. Thusly it is NOT scientific fact but theory the same as intelligent design because either way none of us no for sure. But the libs only want one side of the argument taught. I see no reason why they both shouldn't be taught. For the record I am a republican atheist.

[Christopher M]

Mortal -- As I noted to Scott, it's a fiction to think that because we're not absolutely certain of something it somehow counts less as a scientific fact. We're not absolutely sure about anything. Evolution is no different than any other scientific premise in this sense.

Scott and others -- I think another clarification would be useful. There seems to have been, in this thread, an equation of 'science' with quanitative measures, whereas in reality science also includes qualitative measures; similarly, an equation of 'science' with physics, whereas science also includes biology, psychology, and so on. With this in mind, in fact 'the mind' and other examples which have been given can be measured scientifically. The fact that they can't be measured by the standards of physics doesn't change this. The domain of science is any lawful, observable event. So long as something -- the mind, the proposed effects of a Creator -- are lawful and observable, science can investigate them.

[Mortal1]

Exactly so why shouldn't it be taught along with evolution? The liberal freedom of speech party only wants their side taught.

[Christopher M]

Why shouldn't what be taught alongside evolution? Psychology? Qualitative methods? They are.

[Mortal1]

Intelligent design and evolution. When intelligent people talk about one the other comes up automatically. Wouldn't you agree?

[Christopher M]

That's rather simple: ID isn't taught as a science, alongside evolution or any other science, because it's not a science. (Ie. for the same reason basket-weaving or haiku aren't taught alongside evolution.)

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi YMC,

I will not list your post point for point as I did previously due to time constraints. If I do not answer you completely I would not be offended if you asked again. I don’t have a lot of time as I have previously stated so I am trying to find the most efficient manner of responding within the time limitations I have, but as such I may not answer each of your queries adequately. Please to do not take the event of no answer or incomplete answer as an intent to NOT answer. I will attempt to respond to ChristopherM within this text as well. This is not my complete response. There is more to come. If you feel it necessary to post more questions it is unlikely I will be able to finish answering your present one, LOL!! Do as you wish I am just warning you.

…if I'm not mischaracterizing you, can I summarize your basic points….whether or not 1) people who support it are using poor logic, and 2) whether or not "natural" laws as we understand them implies the existence of a creator or vice versa, and 3) whether or not lack of belief in a creator is less rational than belief in one; whatever form that creator/mind Logos et al., may take?
This could be a reasonable operating premise for now; however I would say it should be qualified as “for my present purpose”. I have many purposes. One additional purpose is, I see it as an academic exercise, but this is still not the limit of my purpose.

I do not consider, at this time, (my qualifier) a logical proof adequate to demonstrate the existence of an ID to a certainty. To my present view an ID may only be “indicated” or alluded to using reason, not proven! However an ID may be proven through direct experience and I will try to demonstrate why I believe this presently. Proof is in the direct experience, as in the proof of the taste of an orange. The measurement of a phenomena is not the thing itself only a description. In matters concerning an ID, the direct experience IS the proof!!!
__________________________________________________ ___________________

In the realm of reason we may only indicate an ID using inductive reasoning and may not demonstrate it with certainty using the scientific method, at this time (Qualifier). As such the inductive argument will by necessity be filled with logical holes that may be exploited. This is because the conclusion is determined by the un-provable assumptions we begin with and relies upon no tangible measurement. This flaw applies to the random chance argument as well however! Random chance is merely an assumption and relies upon no measurable criterion. It reasons that because there is no measurable data indicating an ID, there must be nothing there. This is flawed reasoning. 2,000 years ago there was no tool available to measure infra-red light, yet it still exists whether we are able to measure it or not. We were merely unable to PROVE its existence using measurement. Scientists presently think there is another planet or large body beyond Pluto. We cannot see it, but we infer its presence due to its indications, its effects on Pluto. We may infer an ID based upon the indications or effects we perceive around us. One of the reasons it is difficult for the ID’ers and “random chancers” to reach a common ground is because they begin with different basic assumptions. They each perceive the world based upon these different un-provable assumptions. Since they start from different places they will end up at different places as well.

Of course to me, I can conclude ID is a more rational conclusion than random chance!  This is because of the assumptions I begin with. Since I recognize them as un-provable assumptions I have a bit more flexibility when playing the reasoning game.

To me is it more reasonable to believe that because if something actually exists “now” it is likely it existed “then” rather than not at all! Another way to put it would be, it is easier for me to conceive of something coming from something, than something coming from nothing! Why?? Because everywhere I look I see something coming from something. No where do I see something coming from nothing!

ID exists now!! As I have previously mentioned: I KNOW intelligence exists, I have it! I KNOW creativity and intention exist, I intend and I create! I KNOW that my intent and creativity may utilize seemingly chaotic materials and create a new something, I do it! If I exist and I intend then it is more reasonable to infer an ID (a something) exists rather than “random chance” (a nothing).

One may posit then, using my reasoning, if a horse exists now why has it not always existed. I could answer a number of ways. First, the IDEA (Plato’s Ideal Form) of a horse very possibly always existed if we are considering an ID. Secondly, if my first proposition has not occurred then I would say, a horse is a tangible object which may be measured. Idea, purpose and motive are qualities of a mind which may not be directly measured. They may only be known by the consequences of their action. If I see a painting (the consequence) I may infer a painter and that his purpose was to paint the painting! Why? Not because of anything I may tangibly measure, but because I possess those qualities myself. I have DIRECT experience of purpose, intent and motivation creating a consequence! Therefore, I recognize it when I see it manifested else where!

Random chance is not a certainty. It is merely one way of viewing phenomena beginning from one of many possible un-provable premises. This premise is arrived at by starting with a result and then reasoning back to a “considered” cause using inductive reasoning. But really we have begun with the conclusion first and used rationalization in an attempt to validate it. With random chance we infer purpose occurred AFTER the fact of spontaneous unmotivated creation. But we know from observing human behavior that in ALL cases purpose precedes action. Reason would indicate to me that if everywhere in the actions of man I see pre-conceived motive and these motives produce consequent phenomena, it is not unreasonable to conceive an ID with a pre-conceived purpose and intent to create and motivate the universe. Purpose and intent precede action now, why not always and for eternity?? If scientists presume the laws of physics rule everywhere in the universe, cannot also the laws of purpose and intent apply at all times as well? Even if we assert that these principles did not hold sway because there was no mind to have purpose, I would respond, this is merely a guess with no basis in measurement and not a certainty. I have already demonstrated that some phenomena cannot be directly measured. Therefore, it is more reasonable to assert purpose and intent did hold sway and we know that purpose and intent are qualities of mind. Therefore, in all likelihood a mind exists and utilizing purpose, intent and motive it created the universe.

With random chance the premise is that for no reason, reason occurred, for no reason intelligence occurred, for no reason phenomena occurs, and at the same time life multiplies itself for the only purpose of continuing itself and no other purpose. To me this appears inherently illogical. Out of nothing comes something for no real reason? Well then why should anything occur at all if there is no reason or purpose for it other than because it did? So what we are saying is that the universe is ruled by “cause and effect”, that is reason, in everyway EXCEPT for its reason for being created in the first place. To me this is exceeding illogical. Out of nothing comes reason and purpose, but there is no reason or purpose for its creation. This seems like the greater leap of faith to me than a pre-existing ID!

Remember the scientific method is only able to verify facts through measurement and not direct experience such as the taste of an orange or the experience of a dream. These may only be measured scientifically by examining their constituent parts or effects, but the parts and effects are NOT the experience. To know ID we must experience it first hand. This is not just my assertion. It is the assertion of those who have sought first hand knowledge, those inclined to mystic research. Their attestations are for the most part consistent with one and other.


Here is a metaphorical story to illustrate the point. We will return to the orange:

I am a traveler who enters a city. I meet a man and I talk to him about a fruit I have tasted in a far off land. It is an orange, the most delectable taste I have ever experienced.

The man says to me, “I don’t believe you. You have tasted no such thing!”
I repeat, “Yes!! I have! And it is as I say!”
The man challenges me, “Then let me see one and taste one.”
I reply, “I cannot bring one here, but I can tell you how to get to where they are found.”
The man says, “If you cannot bring one to me it doesn’t exist!”
I reply, “You don’t understand, it is impossible to bring one to you. You must go to where they are found!”
The man says, “Then you take me to where these oranges are found!”
I respond, “No! Each man must go alone. I can tell you how to get there, and once you get there, where to look, but you must go alone.”
The man replies, “That is ridiculous! There is no such thing as an orange and you can't prove it to me either!”
I say to the man, “If you do not look for you it you will not find it! You are the one who refuses to go! Your disbelief does not demonstrate it to not exist. I know it exists because I have eaten one many times. You have not!”

Each of us walks our own way thinking how sad and foolish the other man is. But who is the greater fool? The one with the direct experience? Or the one who refuses to look where the orange may be found?

[Scott R. Brown]

I used the laws of physics (the 3rd law of thermodynamics) to demonstrate a point according to principles I inferred you would accept as true. I don’t need to accept them to make my point. It is only necessary that you accept them. I accept them or not according to the point I am attempting to make and the belief system of the person to whom I am talking. That is not to say I don’t accept them either, only that it is not imperative to my argument that I accept them. It is an “IF/THEN” argument. In an “IF/THEN” argument we may accept a premise as a provisionary truth for the purpose of the argument. The argument must only follow the provisions of a syllogism to be a valid argument. The premises must be true facts in order for the conclusion to be true. So it the premises are true the conclusions are truth as well.

Concerning my comments that scientists rarely qualify their assumed facts as provisionary: I have rarely heard them do this to the point that I cannot ever recall hearing one give a qualification. It may be fairly asserted that it is implied. But I don’t believe the general public understands this to be implied. In this circumstance I was specifically motivated by the article of Dawkins I read wherein he stated emphatically evolution was fact. Also, I have never heard a scientist state the speed of light in a vacuum being constant was anything other than fact until it was recently discovered to be possibly untrue. But we could go on and on about this one, so propose we let it lay where it is.

In reference to evolutionary biologists having all the facts and us ignorant commoners don’t, therefore we must trust their judgment smacks an awful lot like blind following. This is not dissimilar to the criticisms religious individuals get for following their religious leaders. Religion and science each has their accepted authorities. One may argue that at least scientists found their assertions of measurable facts and they are self correcting by the design of the scientific method. A religious person would assert that they find their truth through direct experience. Their experience and meaning and cannot be demonstrated to be false just because a scientist is unable to measure them. As I have previously and repeatedly stated, “please prove to me what an orange tastes like!!”


I think it is fair to assert that there was no “apparent” ordered state prior to the Big Bang. It is also fair I think to assert that through observation it appears that life has progressed from simple to more complex organisms. This appears to be divergent from my thesis and the laws of entropy. However, if entropy occurs as the 3rd law states, how can existence go from “apparent” disorder to order back to disorder? Well, we must decide if we will accept the 3rd law. The third law according to British scientist and
Author C.P. Snow states: “You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state, because there is always an increase in disorder; entropy always increases).” I assert, “I did not say it!” It is stated in the law. Therefore, it is not incumbent on me to explain it away in order for my thesis to be true. If you choose not to accept the law as stated, I would merely use one of my other arguments and discard the 3rd law argument as inadequate according to your belief system!

However, for the fun of it I will entertain the idea!

My thesis only falls apart if there were no ID. In a random chance universe one must ponder the solution to your question. In an ID universe I of course attribute it to the ID. The physical mechanism should of course be measurable, however. I would postulate that what we have is energy that motivates substrate substance to accrete into matter and other complex substances. As this energy dissipates matter tends toward entropy. This is after all what the 3rd law states. So scientists see the energy of the universe slowing down from the initial BANG even while enough energy still exists to continue accretions.

An expanding and contracting universe does not negate my premise. In fact, it is the assertion of the Cycle of Brahman in Hinduism. In simple form Brahman (God) dreams existence and then existence collapses and he begins a new dream. If the cycle were to continue the intensity and gravity of the collapse merely powers the next Big Bang!

__________________________________________________ _________________

You may assert limited attitudes to “some” theologists when confronted with new evidence, but I would not ascribe the same condition to a philosopher.
__________________________________________________ __________________

The illustration of man’s inherent intelligence implying an ID is not dependent upon the 3rd law and the 3rd law as extended by me does not rely on the illustration. They are two independent arguments laid along side each other. The purpose for this is because there is no real means to directly demonstrate ID using logical argument as I have frequently admitted. Therefore, I must illustrate it using numerous metaphorical allusions.


Entropy is the increase in the state of disorder; this is most evident on the macro level even if we don’t perceive it on the local level.


The fact of earth already being created and energy being released does not argue for random chance since it can also be attributed to the overall plan of an ID. I agree the energy came from somewhere. The question then is, where did the energy originate? I have given numerous arguments already demonstrating why I think ID is the more reasonable conclusion.

[Scott R. Brown]

There is ample research that suggests a mind independent of the physical brain. I would start with looking into the research on death and near death experiences. Also I would recommend reading some of the research by Dr. Brian Weiss, a graduate of Columbia University and Yale Medical School, Chairman Emeritus of Psychiatry at the Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami. (http://www.brianweiss.com/) He has done extensive research into life after death experiences. There are many more researchers as well. I would also refer you to the Harvard Egg experiment. This uses random number generators on computers all over the world to monitor the global brain. These computers have consistently anticipated most or all of the major world events such as the Asian tsunami and 9-11. I have not been to the website in a long time and I am not sure of the link. I will try to find it though. There is ample evidence that the mind influences random number generators. This particular study may not directly demonstrate a mind separate from brain function, but it may as well. I don’t really remember, but I thought it would interest you.

I am aware many scientists assert that death experiences are merely random brain activity as it is going through the dying process, however this is only speculation. They cannot know for sure. They have a preconceived notion concerning the phenomena that colors their interpretation of the data. As far as I know they have no population of data recording EEG at the time of death. If I am wrong I would appreciate a link to the evidence. Following are a few arguments against the certainty of their assertion:

Once again, their assertion is premised on a purely mechanistic view of personhood dependent upon the chemical reactions in the brain. They assert as previously, mentioned by me, that brain functions such as memory and dream like experiences can be physically and chemically induced. Therefore, the brain is merely the mechanism of our personhood and that personhood dissolves with the loss of brain function. If the brain ceases to function properly as in dementia and psychosis, then personhood is diminished as well.

I can best illustrate the flaw in this view using a story metaphor. Remember we must presume a mind, and in this case we may also refer to it as a soul. I feel it appropriate to assume a soul since the scientist may presume a mechanistic view.

Let us say I have a robot. I motivate this robot through wireless remote control and use it to explore Mars. While exploring Mars, through the wear and tear exposure to the environment, the robot begins to malfunction. The sensors function erratically sending me inaccurate and distorted information. The commands I send are misunderstood, mis-processed and sometimes do not get through at all. So I send a repair robot out. We will call him Doctor. Doctor performs analysis on Robot, diagnoses the problems and implements procedures designed to improve Robot’s functioning. Soon Robot is functioning and information is being sent and received properly. Eventually, Robot wears out and no longer functions at all. Robot is beyond repair. I get another Robot and proceed with my Mars research the process continues over and over again.

I admit this process only has meaning with an enduring soul or mind. However as I have already stated there is amble research to suggest the likelihood it may actually occur.

Under this thesis the human body is a vehicle for the mind or soul. When a human has a functional disruption in their brain the mechanism for perceiving and interacting with the world system is disrupted. When the dysfunction is repaired, normal operating procedure occurs. If I am a psychotic, by providing the missing chemicals my brain lacks I may function adequately.

The second illustration involves the Will. If my mind is based upon only the chemical reactions of the brain then this mechanistic process relieves me of all responsibility for my actions. I am genetically predisposed to the actions I perform and thus I am not responsible for any of them. Except!!!! I may work against my chemical predispositions through an act of Will. I may train the chemical reactions within my brain to fire in alternate manners. If something makes me angry today I can train my brain to not fire the anger centers through force of will or other operant conditioning means, which involves the Will, tomorrow. We call this learning.

There is certainly some genetic predispositions this cannot be denied and these predispositions limit our experience in one way or another. However, there is a phenomenon called Will that affects the chemical reactions of the brain and indeed of the body as well. What is the source of this Will? If we posit it as merely a chemical reaction of the brain we are stating that a chemical reaction has the ability to alter other chemical reactions with specific motive? Are we to suppose that chemical reactions have motive? If they do from where does the motive originate chemically?

Will also has other attributes that suggest it is not chemically dependent. Will is the quality of the mind that intends a phenomenon to occur. This phenomenon may be a simple action, such as walking, or a creative act such as painting. If we posit Will as merely chemical reactions, we have chemical reactions controlling other chemical reactions for the purpose of providing enjoyment for other chemical reactions’. Are we to suppose the chemical reactions enjoy the interplay of other chemical reactions? For what purpose? If we assert this than we are also asserting that chemical reactions enjoy experiences. But what is doing the enjoying? How about a Mind!! It is more likely that Will occurs in a Mind separate from the body and induces the proper chemical interactions within the body to produce its intent, than Will is a spontaneously production of chemical reactions for the purpose of entertaining other chemical reactions.

This is all I have time for at the moment….. I am getting tired and I feel the arguments are getting a bit weak towards the end here. This should be attributed to fatigue and time constraints. I will try to respond to the rest of your post ASAP!

Good Job to anyone who has actually read all this, LOL!!!

[SPJ]

Evolution is a process. as pointed out earlier, there are small and big, micro or macro. It is not intended to explain it all about life. It is a general assumption that things come about at the present state due to selections of traits over time.

10 bugs with different colors, only the one with green to blend into the leaves will survive without being eating etc.

ID has several assumptions. recognition of higher being than people, everything was designed as shown in the genetic codes. thus there is a higher purpose of life. there is order in the seeming chaos. etc

If you say everything is due to random chance, then there is no other purpose for life other than a temp state out of many possibilities. there is no meaning of existence but a point in the great chaos.

other then again would say that it is a miracle to have life.

---

just some thoughts.