RSS
Mind, Brain, Monism, Dualism
or From DNA to a Designer
or The Existence of God
Richard Dawkins on Simulacra said...
The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), p. 316.
We cannot disprove beliefs like these, especially if it is assumed that
God took care that his interventions always closely mimicked what would
be expected from evolution by natural selection. All that we can say
about such beliefs is, firstly, that they are superfluous and,
secondly, that they assume the existence of the main thing we want to
explain, namely organized complexity. The one thing that makes
evolution such a neat theory is that it explains how organized
complexity can arise out of primeval simplicity.
The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), p. 316.
Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the
Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one
particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special
status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the
world was created from the excrement of ants. All these myths have in
common that they depend upon the deliberate intentions of some kind of supernatural being.
The View from Nowehere (Oxford University Press: 1986), 51.
What is needed is something we do not have: a theory of conscious organisms as physical systems composed of chemical elements and occupying space, which also have an individual perspective on the world, and in some cases a capacity for self-awareness as well. In some way that we do not now understand, our minds as well as our bodies come into being when these materials are suitably combined and organized. The strange truth seems to be that certain complex, biologically generated physical systems, of which each of us is an example, have rich nonphysical properties. An integrated theory of reality must account for this, and I believe that if and when it arrives, probably not for centuries, it will alter our conception of the universe as radically as anything has to date.
Henry M. Morris on Creation said...
Scientific Creationism (General edition, second edition, El Cajon, CA: Master, 1985), p. 210.
Another point important to recognize is that the creation was 'mature'
from its birth. It did not have to grow or develop from simple
beginnings. God formed it full-grown in every respect, including even
Adam and Eve as mature individuals when they were first formed. The
whole universe had an 'appearance of age' right from the start. It
could not have been otherwise for true creation to have taken place.
'Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of
them'. (Genesis 2:1).
Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting (MIT Press: 1984), p. 77.
Whatever else we are, we are information-processing systems, and all information-processing systems rely on amplifiers of a sort. Relatively small causes are made to yield relatively large effects. ... Vast amounts of information arrive on the coattails of negligible amounts of energy, and then, thanks to the amplification powers of systems of switches, the information begins to do some work — evoking other information that was stored long ago, for instance transmuting it for the present occasion in a million small ways, and leading eventually to an action whose pedigree of efficient (or triggering) causation is so hopelessly inscrutable as to be invisible. We see the dramatic effects leaving; we don't see the causes entering; we are tempted by the hypothesis that there are no causes.
Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (New York: New Research Publications, Inc.), p. 81
To propose and argue that mutations even in tandem with 'natural
selection' are the root-causes for 6,000,000 viable, enormously complex
species, is to mock logic, deny the weight of evidence, and reject the
fundamentals of mathematical probability.
Growing Up (Congdon & Weed: New York, 1982), p. 61.
For the first time I thought seriously about God. Between sobs I told Bessie that if God could do things like this to people, then God was hateful and I had no more use for Him. ¶ Bessie told me about the peace of Heaven and the joy of being among the angels and the happiness of my father who was already there. The argument failed to quiet my rage. ¶ "God loves us all just like His own children," Bessie said. ¶ "If God loves me, why did He make my father die?" ¶ Bessie said that I would understand someday, but she was only partly right. That afternoon, though I couldn't have phrased it this way then, I decided that God was a lot less interested in people than anybody in Morrisonville was willing to admit. That day I decided that God was not entirely to be trusted. ¶ After that I never cried again with any real conviction, nor expected much of anyone's God except indifference, nor loved deeply without fear that it would cost me dearly in pain. At the age of five I had become a skeptic . . .
Strength to Love (Fortress Press: 1982), p. 153.
More than ever before I am convinced of the reality of a personal God. True, I have always believed in the personality of God. But in the past the idea of a personal God was little more than a metaphysical category that I found theologically and philosophically satisfying. Now it is a living reality that has been validated in the experiences of everyday life. God has been profoundly real to me in recent years. In the midst of outer dangers I have felt an inner calm. In the midst of lonely days and dreary nights I have heard an inner voice saying, "Lo, I will be with you." When the chains of fear and the manacles of frustration have all but stymied my efforts, I have felt the power of God transforming the fatigue of despair into the buoyancy of hope. I am convinced that the universe is under the control of a loving purpose, and that in the struggle for righteousness man has cosmic companionship. Behind the harsh appearances of the world there is a benign power.
E.M. McDonald on God and Nature said...
Design Argument Fallacies, An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism (ed. Gordon Stein, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1980), p. 90.
If such a God did exist, he could not be a beneficent God, such as the Christians posit. What effrontery is it that talks about the mercy and goodness of a nature in which all animals devour animals, in which every mouth is a slaughter-house and every stomach a tomb!
Leibniz on Perceiving Machines said...
Philosophical Papers and Letters (Springer: 1976), p. 644.
It must be confessed, moreover, that perception, and that which depends on it are inexplicable by mechanical causes, that is, by figures and motions. And, supposing there were a machine so constructed as to think, feel and have perception, we could conceive of it as enlarged and yet preserving the same proportions, so that we ight enter it as a mill. And this granted, we should only find on visiting it, pieces which push one against another, but never anything by which to explain a perception. This must be sought for, therefore, in the simple substance and not in the composite or in the machine.
