Kalaam Cosmological Argument (philosophy of evolution)

This principle is used in cosmology to disprove the evolutionary concept of spontaneous generation:

Hypothetically speaking, to regress chronologically through all the cause and effect transactions we would work our way to the big bang. Given that, for the sake of argument, that matter has pre-existed within the dimension of our universe, "rock" (planets, moons--ect) would have been all that existed.

Now it is counter-intuitive to presume that rocks somehow "desired" to have water and gas condense for "life" to emerge. "Why" is life necessary in this universe after the big bang? Why not, assuming no divine intelligence exists, just have rocks floating around in space?

You see, those who push the evolutionary theory are beginning their argument with a fallous "a posteriori" argument that life is good and desirable. However, this is a classic example of "begging the question." That is, the existence of life is exactly what we are trying to prove in the first place. Furthermore, the "Modus-Operatum" of evolution is purely "mystical"--it doesen't and cannot, exist! For instance, why must we ask, does upward evolution have to occur? It most certainly is just as plausible, hypothetically speaking again, for downward and no evolution at all to occur. Since no one is around to care anyway, what's the difference one way or the other?

Now what we must determine is-- "Do rocks desire to become frogs, horses, and even humans?" That is, did the elements in the "primordial soup" somehow spontaneously generate desires to chemically synthesize and begin to process elements from its environment for survival? For sake of argument, lets assume that this occurred. The next question must be "WHY"? Why survive! What difference does it make?

You see existence must have a purpose--there is no such thing as a non-directive existence.

this is quite possibly the worst argument against evolution i've ever heard. Evolution doesn't require the ridiculous notion of desire - it is a natural consequence of replicating life.

__________________
'Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.'
(Aldous Huxley)

There have been some who take a teleological approach to the interpretation of evolution, but it is not inherent in the (wide spread) of scientific theories that you trace through to reach the Big Bang.

There is no teleological assumption in science.

We cannot prove (and no serious scientist attempting to prove) the existence of life. We experience the existence of life & we observe the existence of life. We do not have tools capable of proving beyond any doubt that life exists.

"Upward" is a teleological notion. The only directionality to biological evolution is toward reproductive success. If, in an environment with ape-like organisms, organisms that have less intelligence (than the existing ape-like organisms) will have greater reproductive success, then their arrival by genetic mutation may well bring about the replacement of the ape-like organisms with less intelligent ones.

If "downard" evolution brings about greater reproductive success under the existing environmental conditions, then it will, in fact, be MORE likely than "upward."

The actual product of evolution is diversity.

__________________
Man should no more get tired of using his brain--if he is using it properly--than a fish should get tired of water.

- Colin Wilson

this is quite possibly the worst argument against evolution i've ever heard. Evolution doesn't require the ridiculous notion of desire - it is a natural consequence of replicating life.

You may do well to investigate before you speak so quickly. C.S Lewis and many others have spent an enormous amount of intellectual energy trying to prove just that; "desire" is the ontological necessity of any cosmological theory. To be sure, functional design requires conceptual thought, and conceptual thought likewise requires desire from a sentient being. You would be "wise" to be quick to listen, slow to speak, and ever mindful of your thoughts.

"To be sure, functional design requires conceptual thought"

- how do you logically prove this huge assumption - why does it have to be like this? i'm waiting.

__________________
'Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.'
(Aldous Huxley)

What?

An a posteriori argument is simply one that relies on sensory experience, as opposed to a priori arguments, which proceed from abstract general premises.

What is "good" and what is "desirable" are subjective assessments. What is "good" or "desirable" to you may be "bad" or "undesirable" for me, so any such statements on your part are hardly a posteriori.

Where do you people come up with this stuff? You'd do well to read a bit of Aristotle or David Hume before you make these crazy pronouncements.

To properly understand the evolutionary argument, one must look beyond the data to the philosophy behind such. In this case the classic evolutionary argument assumes inappropriately that in the proverbial "primordial soup" life was necessary to be desired, pursued, and experienced.

Thus, common renditions of abiogenesis usually portray an original single celled organism developing without any intelligent guidance, replicating ad infinitim, into dogs, horses, pigs, sheep ect.. Now, the falacy here--if you are inquisitive and honest enough to perceive it--is that in this primordial scenerio no such desire exists at all.

And by the way, to speak of Hume and Aristotle in the same sentence without qualifying their distinct and contrasting ideologies is not only incorrect its downright dangerous! Hume was solipsistic skeptic not even believing in his own existence, and Aristotle's Unmoved Mover is almost exactly who we are arguing for--Yes we've read them.

The slow to speak advice applies here, too.


Chickenman,

A very good question; they're rare on this board. Just think, something that has a functional design--for example a mousetrap--has several constituent parts that are both interdependent and systemically necessary. This comprises, what has been lately termed "irreducible complexity"; the system itself cannot function at all without each and every constituent part. (see Michael Behe's--associate professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University--book, Darwin's Black Box) Interestingly Darwin himself said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Origin of Species 6th ed.[1988], p. 154).

An interesting example of just such irreducible complexity in nature is that of bacteria that propel themselves using flagella which are distinctly analogous to a rotary motor. As a mousetrap cannot function without its constituent parts (platform, holding bar, mainspring, hammer,and catch), so also a flagella cannot function without its constituent parts.

Take for instance E Coli bacterium which has a DNA molecule of approximately 4 million nucleotides. The statistical probability of constructing all of these in perfect sequence has been estimated by Guy Cramer (whyfiles #114) as 10 to the 2,300,000 power. This has been estimated by several mathmeticians to be synonomous with impossibility.

Don't be caught up in the convoluted--not to mention counterintuitive--diatribe of popular evolutionary theorists; such is mythology not science.

That's not a fallacy, that's a half-truth. The half that is truth is that no desire exists in nature for any particular result. The other half - the untruth, is that evolution postulates such a "desire."

This is a reiteration of my previous post. Do you understand?

__________________
Man should no more get tired of using his brain--if he is using it properly--than a fish should get tired of water.

- Colin Wilson

WHAT are you talking about?

The Kalaam Cosmological argument has nothing to do with disproving evolution. Nothing at all.

It is an attempt to prove the existance of God by demonstrating that the universe cannot have existed for an infinite time -- because it is impossible to regress backwards across an infinite series of causes.

It was first devised by Al Ghazali, an Islamic scholar, as an attempt to prove Allah. So are you are Muslim now?

Regardless, the Kalaam argument was formally and finally placed in history's dustbin when Einstein demonstrated that time was fundamentally bound to space. With no absolute time, then the Kalaam argument falls apart.

you still haven't demonstrated that functional design requires conceptual thought, the evolution of new functional enzyme systems in bacteria seems to throw that argument out of the window.

__________________
'Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.'
(Aldous Huxley)