Kalaam Cosmological Argument (philosophy of evolution)

[Lanakila]

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.

 

[chickenman]

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.

 

[Jerry Smith]

You see, those who push the evolutionary theory are beginning their argument with a fallous "a posteriori" argument that life is good and desirable.

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.

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.

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.

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?

"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.

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?

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.

 

[Lanakila]

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.

 

[chickenman]

"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.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by Lanakila
You see, those who push the evolutionary theory are beginning their argument with a fallous "a posteriori" argument that life is good and desirable.

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.

 

[Lanakila]

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.

 

[Jerry Smith]

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.

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?

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Lanakila
This principle is used in cosmology to disprove the evolutionary concept of spontaneous generation:

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.

 

[chickenman]

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.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by Lanakila
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!

The reference to Hume and Aristotle had nothing to do with their "ideologies." It had to do with theories of knowledge and your blatantly uninformed use of the term a posteriori. It's quite easy to characterize arguments as fallacious (or "fallous," in your case) when you have such an obviously poor grasp of basic philosophical terms.

Hume was solipsistic skeptic not even believing in his own existence

Who knows how you define existence. But in the meantime, that is ridiculous.

and Aristotle's Unmoved Mover is almost exactly who we are arguing for--Yes we've read them.

I thought you were a Christian. Aristotle's prime mover was hardly almost exactly Christ, or Yahweh for that matter.

The slow to speak advice applies here, too.

Especially to the author of this and the original post.

And by the way, is that author Lanakila or Lanakila's "hubby"?

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by chickenman
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.

Yes, apparently "Lanakila" has abandoned the rest of "her" unsupported assertions in the other threads related to genetic "information" and is off on yet another absurd tangent.

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Lanakila
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.

Why are you using an "irreduceable complexity" argument now? Disappointed that your imaginary version of the Kalaam argument didn't work?

Lemme break some news to you. Michael Behe believes in evolution. Did you catch that?

BEHE IS AN EVOLUTIONIST

He just gives credit to God for the first life from abiogenesis. Wow, you're doing a great job.

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. [/B]

And, of course, this is the real beauty. Your "Guy Cramer" proof is all wrong. In fact, it's so wrong that it indicates that he and you really don't understand what evolution is. This disproof would require that the E Coli bacterium somehow completely evolve in one pass, with no successive modifications. That's not evolution; Cramer is displaying his ignorance by disproving a non-existant theory.

Here is Guy Cramer's explanation of this "logic":
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/crutches.html

Look for his mark of ignorance, the phrase "So, the probability of creating it at random..."

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Lanakila has obviously never seen Kenneth Miller's "holding bar" tie clip.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Lanakila,

Your post is full of errors. I hope you will be productive and attempt to correct them.

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

First Fallacy
There is no "evolutionary concept of spontaneous generation." I beg you to find a single reference in biological literature that mentions one.

Second Fallacy
Cosmology has absolutely nothing to do with the evolution of life. I beg you to find a single reference in either astronomy or biology that mentions a scientific connection.

Hypothetically speaking, to regress chronologically through all the cause and effect transactions we would work our way to the big bang.

Third Fallacy
This assumes that every effect has a cause, which is not true.

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?

Fourth Fallacy
No "desire" is involved in condensation. By your argument, gravity is just the ground "desiring" to touch our feet. Condensation is just a physical property.

You see, those who push the evolutionary theory are beginning their argument with a fallous "a posteriori" argument that life is good and desirable.

Fifth Fallacy
Evolutionary theory only assumes that life exists, and it is an imperfect replicator. I beg you to find any scientific statement of evolutionary theory that argues 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.

Sixth Fallacy
Evolutionary theory does not try to prove that life exists. If you need proof that life exists, look in the mirror.

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?

Seventh Fallacy
The argument is not that philosophically evolution "has" to occur. The argument is that it did and does occur.

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?

Eighth Fallacy
That question is not relevant to evolution. Hint: rocks et. al. desire nothing.

For sake of argument, lets assume that this occurred. The next question must be "WHY"? Why survive! What difference does it make?

Ninth Fallacy
This assumes that those forms of life had free will to choose whether they survived or not. That is not the case, since such survival was simply a result of the environment and physical attributes.

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

Tenth Fallacy
Existence has no purpose except the one we give it.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by D. Scarlatti


Yes, apparently "Lanakila" has abandoned the rest of "her" unsupported assertions in the other threads related to genetic "information" and is off on yet another absurd tangent.

I wonder if she will ever get back to that thread. Considering that her husband is attempting to write a paper on it, I hope he fixes the errors we've pointed out. But then again, Gitt didn't before he published.

We're also still waiting for that evidence for YEC that she claims to know about.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Lanakila
To properly understand the evolutionary argument, one must look beyond the data to the philosophy behind such.

So your argument is that the data isn't wrong, but the philosophy is. Sorry, but the accuracy of science can't be determined by religion, emotion, politics, or philosophy.

In this case the classic evolutionary argument assumes inappropriately that in the proverbial "primordial soup" life was necessary to be desired, pursued, and experienced.

Nope. Only a creationist straw-man version says such. I challenge you to find any scientific source to support your contention.

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..

Another straw-man. I challenge you to find any scientific rendition of abiogenesis that sounds even remotely familiar to that. If it truly is common, it shouldn't be hard.

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.

Yeah. So what? "Desire" is not necessary for physical and natural process to occur. Thus your entire argument is based on a fallacious assumption that nature requires desire.

 

[seebs]

I just want to say that the original argument is, frankly, one of the most laughably, painfully, stupid arguments I can think of.

If I drop something, does it fall because it *wants* to fall, or because *THAT IS HOW PHYSICS WORKS*?

If I ignite hydrogen, in an atmosphere with oxygen, does it form water because of "desire", or because *that is how chemistry works*?

You don't need to "desire" a result; that result needs to be a natural property of the physical systems, and that's enough.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by chickenman
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.

So therefore you have to figure out how the first replicating life occurred, and how it survived its environment long enough to establish itself and proceed to evolve. Of course, even evolutionists are beginning to realize that the chance of this happening is basically nil, so many of them have divorced themselves from the problem. They call that abiogenesis, and simply pretend it's a problem they don't have to deal with. All they care about is whether they can cook up in their imagination ways life could have evolved after that impossible event.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Please, Nick, provide us with a single scientific source which shows that evolution and abiogenesis were at one time the same subject. Failing to produce one, can only mean that your post is nothing but bluster.