Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity

# http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/

Message [Page 1 of 1]

Atheism-analyzed

http://web.archive.org/web/20090328064130/http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/

## The First Principles

The bedrock of Logic and Rational thought
Since Rational thought requires valid logical propositions, and logic is based on the presupposition of universal truth in the form of the First Principles, it is necessary to fully understand what these principles entail and their impact.  This section will list and then discuss the basic principles that make Rational thought possible and intelligible.

The First Principles can be categorized as follows:

1. The Intuitive Principles.
These principles, while not provable, are known to be valid intuitively.

a. Identity. If it is true, then it is true; if it exists, then it exists.

b. Non-Contradiction. If it is true, then it cannot be false; if it exists, it cannot NOT exist.

c. Excluded Middle. A (singular, unity) concept cannot be somewhat true and somewhat false; a (singular, unity) thing cannot somewhat exist and somewhat not exist.

d. Cause and effect. Every effect has a cause that is both necessary and sufficient.

e. Cogito (Descartes). Because I doubt my own doubt, it is true that I think; because I think (truth), I must exist (fact).

2. The Probabilistic Principles.
These Principles seem to encompass both truth and existence.

a. The Immutability of math throughout the universe.

b. The Immutability of physical law throughout the universe.

c. The mutability of all levels of verifiability (Godel's laws).

3. The Presuppositional Principles.
These principles are declared either as empirical constraints, or  as part of a worldview.

a. No form of reality exists that cannot be either observed and measured directly or by the use of instrumentation.

b. No Singularities (temporary violations) exist in the physical laws of the universe.

4. The Principle of Rational Thought; Skepticism; and Rational Deniability
These two principles demonstrate the philosophical tension between the Rational Empiricists and the Anti-Rationalists.

a. No premise should be accepted without evidence.
( This is the Principle of Rational Thought, and the basis for “skepticism”: Hume, Russell, Ayer)

b. Existence of evidence via intuition is denied.
(This is the basis for Anti-Rationalism: Nietzsche)(Notice that deniability is declared true as a rational premise, which premise requires the intuition of its truth; so intuition is denied via the use of intuition, which is a paradoxical process to Rationalists – but not to Anti-Rationalists who deny that paradox exists).

5. The Principles of Evidence
Evidence is demanded by Rationalists and Skeptics.  Anti-Rationalists deny all basis for evidence, except (paradoxically) Darwinism; Anti-Rationalists also deny paradox, having denied the First Principles due to their intuitive basis. So the following principles are Rational principles only, and are not necessarily accepted by the Anti-Rationalists.

a. All evidence ultimately devolves to the First Principles and is therefore intuitively based.

b. “Universals” can be assumed valid without proof.  These include Mathematics, Logic, and Language (a syllogistic form of logic deriving from the First Principle of Cause and Effect). (Notice that this is an intuited principle).

c. Empirical evidence:
1. Physical; Sensate only: Therefore, measurable.

2. Local (inductive)

3. Repeatable (deductive)

4. Universality cannot be proven so must be assumed (intuited, based upon probability, which can be increased by numerous replications of tests)

5. Validity is probabilistic only (intuited, based upon statistical probability, which can be increased by numerous replications of tests)

6. Assumes the validity of the Presuppositional Principles, # 3 above.

7. Valid Empirical evidence can be falsified, but has not been. (Popper).

Second Level Effects of the First Principles
a. If the First Principles are true, it follows that truth exists.

b. If truth exists, then falseness also exists.

c. If falseness exists, then skepticism is justified.

d. However, if the First Principles are true, then intuition of truth is assumed a valid technique; therefore, skepticism is neither absolute nor is it immune to argument.

e. If the First Principles are NOT true, then any and every argument is not based on rational precepts, and skepticism becomes (1) absolute, and (2) Anti-Rational.

f. If Principle 4a, above, is valid, then ethical considerations can be intuited as First Principles.  This is because Principle 4a  expresses an “ought” imperative, which is an ethical statement, and which is considered to be valid for the foundation of Naturalism, and thus is considered to be a universal truth. It is intuited, and cannot be proven by itself, by empiricism, by Naturalism, or by Materialism.  Thus the basis for Naturalism and Materialism (worldviews) as well as empiricism (a discipline) are based upon an intuited ethical value.

g. Because Naturalism, Materialism and empiricism are all based upon an intuited ethical value, then intuited ethical values exist, and can be valid (true).

h. Because intuited ethical values are seen to exist, then intuition exists, ethics exists, and values exist – outside and beyond the constraints and limits of Naturalism, Materialism and Empiricism; also transcendence is proven to be a valid source of both information and ethical value statements. I.e., Transcendence exists and can be valid.

Empiricism, Naturalism and Materialism
Because the “ought imperative” of Principle 4a is the necessary and sufficient principle upon which Naturalism and Materialism are based, it is easily shown that the transcendent nature of the underlying foundation of these concepts produces a contradiction that violates the anti-transcendent  worldviews themselves.

In other words, Naturalism and Materialism declare that intuition and other transcendences cannot exist, yet the basis for Naturalism and Materialism is itself necessarily intuitive and transcendent.

So Naturalism and Materialism deny their own foundational validity, and thus are paradoxical (violate the Principle of Non-Contradiction), and so are neither coherent nor valid.

This paradox is fatal, rationally speaking, for Naturalism and Materialism, but not for Empiricism, because Empiricism has voluntarily chosen to limit its range of investigation, and, in theory any way, does not say anything at all about transcendences or about value systems, except that they are out of the range of the testability and verification constraints placed upon Empirical processes.  (Empiricism is a process, not a worldview or value system).

In this manner Empiricism retains its validity as a process for obtaining information about physical reality.  Naturalism and Materialism are seen to be invalid, non-coherent worldviews, spun off from Empiricism, but no longer identical to it.

Atheist Talking Points

## Evidence

Atheists of all stripes call for evidence. One should not believe anything without evidence for the thing. The cry for evidence is the primary premise for Atheism. This cry is heard from Russell to Edison, from Hume to Nietzsche: "Evidence, we must have evidence!"

From an Atheist website:

"We have observed our natural world and not found any evidence for the existence of anything supernatural."[url=http://web.archive.org/web/20101118091127/http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/Atheist Talking Points Evidence.htm#_edn1][1][/url] (emphasis added).

The obvious self refutation of this statement is painful to a true rationalist, one who at least has heard of “paradox”.  One thinks of looking into the sock drawer, and not finding a sockmaker.  What a surprise…. Proving exactly what?  The atheist author of this Atheist web page is sadly lacking in exactly that which he advertises:  Rational thinking.

And this blatant reference to the atheist FAITH, implemented within a worldview:

"The disbelief in God shouldn't be considered a CONCLUSION, it should be what you start with."

To paraphrase, the starting principle is "there is no God" and the conclusion is "there is no God".  This is akin to saying "the starting premise is ‘there are no blue apples’, so we conclude from this that ‘there are no blue apples’. This is Circular Reasoning.

If this is the starting point for logic, then their conclusion is identical to their basic premise, which is tantamount to declaring it be a First Principle.

"As far as a general overview, consider this...science is the best description of our natural world. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to point to any kind of supernatural existence. Regardless of the many pseudoscience programs and movies, none of these things are REAL. They are all for entertainment value only. So, for our purposes, all evidence points in our favor. We know the truth."

They have not even defined truth.  They know exactly nothing because they have placed Naturalism as their outer limit beyond which they dare not venture, and then crow that supernatural is not found in the natural.  This is not logic, nor is it rational.  Plus they have not defined the rules for validation of their  "evidence".  However they do seem to actually expect that the supernatural should be a subset of the natural, which grossly violates logic even at the grade school level.

And then there's this piece of convoluted mind-numbness:

"We have to judge the existence of God by natural laws, by what we experience, by what we know to be true. By what we can observe. If there were a god, it would only make sense that he would have evolved himself. Of course, there is a Christian philosophy that says the Christian God has changed and is changing."

How many ways can one go wrong in only three statements?? To expect to find the intrinsically supernatural inside the natural is buffoonery. No philosopher ever has made the silly leap that the existence of a supernatural god is a subset of natural laws!  If that were the case, then the existence of a deity would be instantly confirmed, not denied.  The mere existence of coherent natural laws projects into the confirmation of supernatural intelligence.  Their argument trips them up and fells them face first into the mud.
As for God evolving, what tripe!  The Christian Philosophy calls not for a changing deity, but for an eternal unchanging deity.  One should at least research what one blusters about.

So let’s take a rational look at just what evidence actually is.

#### Evidence Against God

Understanding that evidence is empirically constricted for the Atheist, one might ask, “What is the empirical evidence against the existence of God?”.  There being no possible way to prove a negative, the Atheist is most likely to launch off into Bertrand Russell’s “orbiting teapot” Strawman, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster Strawman, or the gnomes, elves, pixies, unicorns and faeries” Strawman argument.  Interestingly enough these same arguments can be made against the existence of life elsewhere in the universe, Carl Sagan’s belief.

These Strawman Fallacy roadblocks are set up in an attempt to trivialize the actuality of an unexplained and unexplainable First Cause for the creation of the universe.  That the universe actually did begin has not set well with Atheists who are not prepared to deal with a First Cause.  Ridicule is a common tactic.  When that doesn’t work they pull out their big gun:

The problem of the First Cause (What caused the universe to pop into being?) is covered by the Atheist rejoinder, “Who made God?”.  This implies that the Atheist believes that a good dose of infinite regression will decoy the argument away from a First Cause.

First off, the question does not philosophically prevent there actually being a God, it merely deflects attention away from the original problem of there needing to be a God in order to have a universe made out of nothing.  So the question of “who made God” is a Red Herring Fallacy.

However, if we generously decide to consider the logic behind the question, we find that the antidote is right at hand.   The “Who made God” argument is smashed by reminding the Atheist that there is no space-time or mass-energy on the other side of the Big Bang: this renders the “Who made God” argument DOA, due to complete lack of cause and effect in such an environment. Cause and Effect requires that a timeframe exist, so that the cause can pre-exist the effect.  So, no time = no timeframe.  Therefore a First Cause (deity) exists outside time (and outside of space, outside of mass and outside of energy).  A First Cause (deity) exists in a place we cannot comprehend, because all of our cognition depends on the existence of space-time and mass-energy.

What is Evidence, anyway?
Now if we inquire as to the type of evidence that might be acceptable to an Atheist, we would probably be made to understand that only empirical evidence is valid.  This would mean tangible, repeatable, falsifiable, etc.

So what sort of tangible, repeatable, falsifiable evidence would one expect, that would mount up as proof against the existence of a deity?  Well of course there is none.

Along with tangible, repeatable, falsifiable, there is another requirement.  Each premise needs to be proven valid in order for the final conclusion to be valid.  So for every premise to be valid, there must be sub-premises that are valid (Godel’s theorems).  For every sub-premise to be valid, there must be sub-, sub-premises that are valid, and so on and on, indefinitely.  Here is a true infinite regression, wherein no final state of complete validation can ever be reached.

According to Godel’s theorems of infinite regression, complete validation can never be reached.  There is always another “sub” level required.

Or is There?
This is where the First Principles come into play.  At some sub-, sub-, sub-level, the supporting premise will fall into one of the categories of the First Principles.  Because the First Principles are known to be true, by inspection, or by intuition, the process of validating the evidence by validating sub premises stops, and rests on “known validity”.   This requires acknowledging that the evidence is validated, in the limit, by intuition, i.e. transcendentally.  Such principles are known to be absolute, transcendental, intuited and “incorrigibly valid”.

One Atheist bickers that “scientific data” is not evidence until it is repeated, peer reviewed and so on.  If so, evidence is promoted to being “meaning”, beyond just the raw data.  Generally speaking the “meaning” (i.e. a collection of data plus interpretation) insinuated by the data would be the “theory”, supported by the data.  Now if evidence = meaning = theory, then the evidence = theory.

(Data + Interpretation, peer review, etc.) = Meaning

Meaning = Evidence

But,
Meaning = Theory

So,
Theory = Evidence

Assuming Inductive data gathering, this says that the theory, generated via the data, is the evidence.  The theory is the evidence?  Doesn’t that sound familiar?  It is a closed form of Abductive Reasoning.  It is circular and nonsensical: the evidence for the theory is…the theory.  So the theory itself is the proof of the theory, or, “the theory proves itself”.  From this we can see that it is a phony “First Principle”, and that under such a principle any “meaning” taken from data becomes TRUTH.  Such absurdities seem to fester everywhere within Atheist apologetics.

### Evidence and Eccliasticism

Atheists do have a (dwindling) evidentiary case against humans in ecclesiastical situations, humans who betrayed the principles upon which the religion was based.  The evaporating case of the Inquisition[url=http://web.archive.org/web/20101118091127/http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/Atheist Talking Points Evidence.htm#_edn2][2][/url] is case-in-point.  Is this a case against a deity, or a case for the existence of imperfect humans?  The case against imperfect and evil Atheists is greater by far.  Neither of these, like semantic battles over theodicies, has any bearing on the actual existence of a deity.  What humans do or think neither proves or disproves the existence of a deity.

To turn the Anthony Flew[url=http://web.archive.org/web/20101118091127/http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/Atheist Talking Points Evidence.htm#_edn3][3][/url] argument back on its cheerleaders, what evidence would it take to prove the existence of a deity?

For one thing, would ordering a deity to show himself work?  A no-show on the deity’s part bears no information at all.

What if I create an agenda that I think a deity must meet?  Again, a no-show = no info.

What if I create an ethic that I happen to like, and demand that the deity obey it?  The absurdity is complete.  Yet these are the arguments made by Atheists, all the time.

Atheists are destined to have a love-hate relationship to evidence.  Some evidence is loved, especially the Just So Stories concocted to “explain” the latest fossils within the accepted bounds of Darwinism.  Some evidence is denied outright, like the intelligence content of DNA, the complexity of human organic functions and that stirring upon the brain which is the mind.  Atheists, as we have seen, are not under any compunction to subscribe to the same values of honesty and principled intellectual coherence that those with a set of absolute  values might subscribe to.

To be of value, evidence must be necessary and sufficient; not extravagantly extrapolated; it must be resolvable to the First Principles; it must be falsifiable;  and then, tangible, observable, repeatable.

## Evidence

Naturalism and Materialism are based on the premise that nothing should be considered credible without evidence to support it.  This is actually a first line defense against ecclesiasticism and claims of the existence of deity.  What then are the expectations for evidence?  What comprises valid evidence?  How is validity determined?  What are the rules of evidentiary acceptability?

As with mathematics, Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem insists that NO system of evidence can be considered valid within itself.  So there is never 100% certainty of any fact, based on any amount or type of evidence.  However, as in the system of courts, a preponderance of evidence can be assembled in favor of or against the certainty of a fact.

Now if the “truth” of a statement regarding a fact is based on how well the statement corresponds to the actual fact  (“Correspondence Theory of Truth”), then “truth” is ascertained by evidence regarding the fact.  So “truth”, determined by material evidence, cannot ever be certain, because the evidence is never certain.

Thus truth, if it is to be known to be true, completely and without reservation, must be based upon intuition of the correct degree of correspondence between the statement, and the actual fact. And once again, intuition is found to be the basis for the knowledge of truth.

“In summary, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury…”, we find that no evidence can ever be 100% validated.  And the transcendent capacity of intuition is required to be engaged in order to determine truth.  So, intuition and transcendence both exist.

Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE)
The systems of courts and justice has long operated on the basis of “rules of evidence”.  Centuries of legal proceedings have honed the concept to the point of being able to issue a document called the “Federal Rules of Evidence”.  Evidence can be categorized as follows:

1.      Testimony (Witness under oath)
2.      Documentary (paper, photos)
3.      Demonstrative (graphs, photos, simulations)
4.      Scientific (expert witnesses)
Frye Test
Daubert Test
5.      Physical Evidence
Real Evidence

Only two out of the five can be considered empirical testing.  Much of the evidence is taken from first person observations and documentation of observations.  While the point of this non-empirical evidence is still to produce a cause and effect relationship, it is mostly historical (forensic) and not empirical.

Moreover, it is plain that the expert witness evidence has many suspicions surrounding it.  It is common to observe one expert witness contradict another expert witness, with the result that the inexpert judge and jury must decide the technical details that most closely point to a correspondence with fact.  This is obviously inexact and probabilistic.

So the FRE cannot promise that the Truth will be found due to it’s evidentiary procedures.  Once again the transcendent faculty of intuition is required; transcendence exists.

http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/

Last edited by Admin on Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:16 am; edited 1 time in total

Darwinism: Science or Philosophy
Chapter 1
Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning

Phillip E. Johnson

MY STARTING POINT is a book review that Theodosius Dobzhansky published in 1975, critiquing Pierre Grasse's The Evolution of Life.{1} Grasse, an eminent French zoologist, believed in something that he called "evolution." So did Dobzhansky, but when Dobzhansky used that term he meant neo-Darwinism, evolution propelled by random mutation and guided by natural selection. Grasse used the same term to refer to something very different, a poorly understood process of transformation in which one general category (like reptiles) gave rise to another (like mammals), guided by mysterious "internal factors" that seemed to compel many individual lines of descent to converge at a new form of life. Grasse denied emphatically that mutation and selection have the power to create new complex organs or body plans, explaining that the intra-species variation that results from DNA copying errors is mere fluctuation, which never leads to any important innovation. Dobzhansky's famous work with fruitflies was a case in point. According to Grasse,
The genic differences noted between separate populations of the same species that are so often presented as evidence of ongoing evolution are, above all, a case of the adjustment of a population to its habitat and of the effects of genetic drift. The fruitfly (drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotropical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times.{2}
Grasse insisted that the defining quality of life is the intelligence encoded in its biochemical systems, an intelligence that cannot be understood solely in terms of its material embodiment The minerals that form a great cathedral do not differ essentially from the same materials in the rocks and quarries of the world; the difference is human intelligence, which adapted them for a given purpose. Similarly,
Any living being possesses an enormous amount of "intelligence," very much more than is necessary to build the most magnificent of cathedrals. Today, this "intelligence" is called information, but it is still the same thing. It is not programmed as in a computer, but rather it is condensed on a molecular scale in the chromosomal DNA or in that of every other organelle in each cell. This "intelligence" is the sine qua non of life. Where does it come from? . . . This is a problem that concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at present, science seems incapable of solving it.... If to determine the origin of information in a computer is not a false problem, why should the search for the information contained in cellular nuclei be one?{3}
Grasse argued that, due to their uncompromising commitment to materialism, the Darwinists who dominate evolutionary biology have failed to define properly the problem they were trying to solve. The real problem of evolution is to account for the origin of new genetic information, and it is not solved by providing illustrations of the acknowledged capacity of an existing genotype to vary within limits. Darwinists had imposed upon evolutionary theory the dogmatic proposition that variation and innovative evolution are the same process, and then had employed a systematic bias in the interpretation of evidence to support the dogma. Here are some representative judgments from Grasse's introductory chapter:
Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created.... Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinist theory search for results that will be in agreement with their theories.... Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that [the data] should confirm it; the premises imply the conclusions.... The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs.{4}
Dobzhansky's review succinctly summarized Grasse's central thesis:
The book of Pierre P. Grasse is a frontal attack on all kinds of "Darwinism." Its purpose is "to destroy the myth of evolution as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon," and to show that evolution is a mystery about which little is, and perhaps can be, known.
Grasse was an evolutionist, but his dissent from Darwinism could hardly have been more radical if he had been a creationist. It is not merely that he built a detailed empirical case against the neo-Darwinian picture of evolution. At the philosophical level, he challenged the crucial doctrine of uniformitarianism which holds that processes detectable by our present-day science were also responsible for the great transformations that occurred in the remote past. According to Grasse, evolving species acquire a new store of genetic information through "a phenomenon whose equivalent cannot be seen in the creatures living at the present time (either because it is not there or because we are unable to see it)."{5} Grasse acknowledged that such speculation "arouses the suspicions of many biologists . . . [because] it conjures up visions of the ghost of vitalism or of some mystical power which guides the destiny of living things...." He defended himself from these charges by arguing that the evidence of genetics, zoology, and paleontology refutes the Darwinian theory that random mutation and natural selection were important sources of evolutionary innovation. Given the state of the empirical evidence, to acknowledge the existence of some as yet undiscovered orienting force that guided evolution was merely to face the facts. Grasse even turned the charges of mysticism against his opponents, commenting sarcastically that nothing could be more mystical than the Darwinian view that "nature acts blindly, unintelligently, but by an infinitely benevolent good fortune builds mechanisms so intricate that we have not even finished with analysis of their structure and have not the slightest insight of the physical principles and functioning of some of them."{6}
Dobzhansky disagreed with Grasse fundamentally, but he acknowledged at the outset that his French counterpart knew as much about the scientific evidence regarding animal evolution as anyone in the world. As he put it,
Now one can disagree with Grasse but not ignore him. He is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of Traite de Zoologie, author of numerous original investigations, and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic.
In short, Grasse had not gone wrong due to ignorance. Then where had he gone wrong? According to Dobzhansky, the problem was that the most distinguished of French zoologists did not understand the rules of scientific reasoning. As Dobzhansky summed up the situation:
The mutation-selection theory attempts, more or less successfully, to make the causes of evolution accessible to reason. The postulate that the evolution is "oriented" by some unknown force explains nothing. This is not to say that the synthetic . . theory has explained everything. Far from this, this theory opens to view a great field which needs investigation. Nothing is easier than to point out that this or that problem is unsolved and puzzling. But to reject what is known, and to appeal to some wonderful future discovery which may explain it all, is contrary to sound scientific method. The sentence with which Grasse ends his book is disturbing: "It is possible that in this domain biology, impotent, yields the floor to metaphysics."
I have begun with the Dobzhansky/Grasse exchange to make the point that whether one believes or disbelieves in Darwinism does not necessarily depend upon how much one knows about the facts of biology. Belief that the various types of plants and animals were created by an extension of the kind of changes Dobzhansky's experiments brought about in fruitflies, is at bottom a question of metaphysics. By metaphysics, I mean nothing more pretentious than the assumptions we all make about just which possibilities are worth considering seriously. For example, Pierre Grasse was willing to consider, and eventually to endorse, the possibility that the so-called "evolution in action" which the neo-Darwinists were observing is merely a variation or fluctuation that is not a source of evolutionary innovation. To put the point in the language used by some contemporary biologists, Grasse proposed to "decouple macroevolution from microevolution." Such proposals have generally floundered on the inability to establish sufficiently credible distinctive macroevolutionary mechanisms. (For example, the widely publicized "new theory" of punctuated equilibrium turned out to be just a gloss upon Ernst Mayr's thoroughly Darwinian theory of peripatric speciation.) What was different about Grasse was that he was willing to give unprejudiced consideration to the possibility that science does not know, and may never know, how new quantities of genetic infommation have come into the world.
From Dobzhansky's viewpoint, prejudice against such a possibility is a virtue, because to accept that kind of limitation would be to give up on science. As he saw it, we already know a lot about how plants and animal populations vary in the everyday world of ecological time. Dog breeders have given us St. Bernards and dachshunds, laboratory experiments have produced monstrous fruitflies, mainland species have differentiated after migrating to offshore islands, and the ratio of dark to light peppered moths in a population changed when the background trees were dark due to industrial air pollution. To be sure, none of these examples demonstrated the kind of innovation that Grasse had in mind. In the absence of a better theory, however, Darwinists consider it reasonable to assume that these variations illustrate the working in ecological time of a grand process that over geological ages created fruitflies and peppered moths and scientific observers in the first place. By making that extrapolation Darwinists create a scientific paradigm that can be fleshed out with further research, and improved. For a critic to suggest the possible existence of some factor outside the paradigm is helpful only if he or she can also propose a research strategy for investigating it. To Dobzhansky, therefore, Grasse's insistence that the sources of new genetic information might not be "accessible to reason" was pointless and harmful to the cause of science.
There is a political and religious dimension to the issues Grasse and Dobzhansky were debating, which must also be considered. To say as Grasse did that, in the domain of creation, "biology, impotent, yields the floor to metaphysics" is to imply something important about the relative cultural authority of biologists and metaphysicians. Whatever that might mean in France, in the United States the scientific establishment has been in conflict over evolution for generations with the advocates of creationism. Although the scientists have won all the legal battles, there are still a lot of creationists around who are very much unconvinced by what the Darwinists are telling them. How many there are depends upon how "creationism" is defined. The most visible creationists are the biblical fundamentalists who believe in a young earth and a creation in six, twenty-four hour days; Darwinists like to give the impression that opposition to what they call "evolution" is confined to this group. In a broader sense, however, a creationist is any person who believes that there is a Creator who brought about the existence of humans for a purpose. In this broad sense, the vast majority of Americans are creationists. According to a 1991 Gallup poll, 47 percent of a national sample agreed with the following statement: "God created mankind in pretty much our present form sometime within the last 10,000 years." Another 40 percent think that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation." Only 9 percent of the sample said that they believed in biological evolution as a purposeless process not guided by God.
The evolutionary theory endorsed by the American scientific and educational establishment is of course the creed of the 9 percent, not the God-guided gradual creation of the 40 percent. Persons who endorse a God-guided process of evolution may think that they have reconciled religion and science, but this is an illusion produced by vague terminology. A representative Darwinist statement of "the meaning of evolution" may be found in George Gaylord Simpson's book bearing that title. In the words of Simpson:
Although many details remain to be worked out, it is already evident that all the objective phenomena of the history of life can be explained by purely naturalistic or, in a proper sense of the sometimes abused word, materialistic factors. They are readily explicable on the basis of differential reproduction in populations (the main factor in the modern conception of natural selection) and of the mainly random interplay of the known processes of heredity.... Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.{7}
The prestige of the scientific establishment, and of the intellectual class in general, is heavily committed to the proposition that evolution- as George Gaylord Simpson used the term-is either a fact, or a theory so well supported by evidence that only ignorant or thoroughly unreasonable people refuse to believe it. If the scientists ever had to retreat on this issue, the cultural consequences could be significant. Persons who now have prestigious status as cultural authorities would be discredited, and the political and moral positions they have advocated might be discredited with them. That is the fear of Michael Ruse, author of Darwinism Defended. Ruse proclaims proudly that Darwinism reflects "a strong ideology," and "one to be proud of." According to Ruse, contemporary Darwinians "show a strong liberal commitment" in both their politics and their sexual morality.{8} Advocates of creation, on the other hand, want to restore a "morality based on narrow Biblical lines" with respect to marriage and sexual behavior. Upholding Darwinism is therefore an important way of protecting political liberalism, feminism, and the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Ruse concludes his book with these stirring lines "Darwinism has a great past. Let us work to see that it has an even greater future."{9} Such statements are equivalent to the claims of creation-science advocates that to doubt the Genesis account is to open the floodgates for all kinds of immorality. I think that Michael Ruse and Henry Morris are both right to insist that cultural acceptance of Darwinism has important consequences for politics and morality. Recognition of this factor, however, also has important implications for how we should regard Darwinism's rules of reasoning. Are those rules designed to protect a charter of liberty from scientific criticism-criticism that might, wittingly or unwittingly, give aid and comfort to persons who want to deprive the Darwinist establishment of its cultural authority? If physicists were to start to proclaim that the Big Bang has had a wonderful past, and we must all work to see that it has a wonderful future, I am sure we would all lose confidence in their ability to assess objectively the arguments of Big Bang critics.
Darwinism's rules of reasoning not only protect the cultural authority of Darwinists. They also permit Darwinist writers to take the mutation/selection paradigm for granted even when they are describing evidence that directly contradicts it. This feat of intellectual contortionism is strikingly illustrated by Stephen Jay Gould's book, Wonderful Life. Gould's best seller adds a great deal to our knowledge of the "Cambrian explosion," meaning the sudden appearance of the invertebrate animal phyla, without visible ancestors, in the 600 million-year-old rocks of the Cambrian era. Unicellular life had existed for a long time, and some multicellular groups appear in the immediately Precambrian rocks, but nothing can be established as ancestral to the Cambrian animals. As Richard Dawkins described the situation, "It is as though [the Cambrian phyla] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."{10}
In recent years the mystery has deepened, because it appears that the Cambrian animal groups were far more varied than had been imagined. The more distinct groups that there were in the Cambrian, the more chains of ancestors there ought to have been in the Precambrian. Some remarkable Cambrian fossils found in a Canadian formation known as the Burgess Shale were originally classified in familiar groups. Gould explains that the discoverer of the Burgess Shale fossils, Charles Walcott, tried to "shoehorn" the odd creatures into familiar taxonomic categories because of his predisposition to avoid multiplying the difficulties of what is called the "artifact theory" of the Precambrian fossil record. As Gould explains the problem:
Two different kinds of explanations for the absence of Precambrian ancestors have been debated for more than a century: the artifact theory (they did exist, but the fossil record hasn't preserved them), and the fast-transition theory (they really didn't exist, at least as complex invertebrates easily linked to their descendants, and the evolution of modern anatomical plans occurred with a rapidity that threatens our usual ideas about the stately pace of evolutionary change).
Reclassification of the Burgess Shale fossils has now established some fifteen or twenty species that cannot be related to any known group and therefore constitute distinct and previously unknown phyla. There are also many other species that can fit within an existing phylum but are still remarkably distinct from anything known to exist earlier or later. The general history of animal life is thus a burst of general body plans followed by extinction. Many species exist today which are absent from the rocks of the remote past, but they fit within general taxonomic categories present from the very beginning. Darwinian theory predicts a "cone of increasing diversity," as the first living organism, or first animal species, gradually and continually diversified to create the higher levels of the taxonomic order. The animal fossil record more resembles such a cone turned upside down, with the phyla present at the start and thereafter decreasing. In short, the more we learn about the Cambrian fossils, the more difficult it becomes to see them as the product of Darwinian evolution.
Gould describes the reclassification of the Burgess fossils as the "death knell of the artifact theory'" because it adds so many new groups that appear without Precambrian ancestors.
If evolution could produce ten new Cambrian phyla and then wipe them out just as quickly, then what about the surviving Cambrian groups? Why should they have had a long and honorable Precambrian pedigree? Why should they not have originated just before the Cambrian. as the fossil record, read literally, seems to indicate, and as the fast-transition theory proposes?{11}
A mysterious process that produces dozens of complex animal groups directly from single-celled predecessors, with only some words like "fast-transition" in between, may be called "evolution"-but the term is being used more in the sense of Grasse's heresy than of Dobzhansky's Darwinian orthodoxy. Each of those Cambrian animals contained a variety of immensely complicated organ systems. How can such innovations appear except by the gradual accumulation of micromutations, unless there was some supernatural intervention? It is not only that the Darwinian theory requires a very gradual line of descent from each Cambrian animal group back to its hypothetical single-celled ancestor. Because Darwinian evolution is a purposeless, chance-driven process, which would not proceed directly from a starting point to a destination, there should also be thick bushes of side branches in each line. As Darwin himself put it, if Darwinism is true the Precambrian world must have "swarmed with living creatures" many of which were ancestral to the Cambrian animals. If he really rejects the artifact theory of the Precambrian fossil record, Gould also rejects the Darwinian theory of evolution.{12}
Readers familiar with Gould's writings know that he has at times expressed great skepticism concerning the neo-Darwinian theory that Dobzhansky proclaimed so confidently. In a paper published in Paleobiology in 1980, Gould wrote that, although he had been "beguiled" by the unifying power of neo-Darwinism when he studied it as a graduate student in the 1960s, the weight of the evidence has since driven him to the reluctant conclusion that neo-Darwinism "as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy."{13} In place of the dead orthodoxy Gould predicted the emergence of a new macroevolutionary theory based on the views of geneticist Richard Goldschmidt, another heretic whose views were every bit as obnoxious to Darwinists as those of Grasse. The new theory did not arrive as predicted, however, and Gould subsequently seems to have heeded Dobzhansky's admonition: if you can't improve on the mutation/selection mechanism, don't trash it in public.
For whatever reason, Gould did not point out to his readers that the utterly un-Darwinian Cambrian fossil record provides no support whatever for claims about the role of mutation and selection in the creation of complex animal life, or for metaphysical speculations about the purposelessness of the process that created humans. Instead, he indulged freely in just such speculation himself rightly judging that his audience of intellectuals would accept uncritically his casual assumption of metaphysical naturalism. In the concluding chapter he commented on a Burgess Shale fossil calledPikaia. Walcott classified Pikaia as a worm, but a more recent study concludes that the creature was a member of the phylum Chordata, which includes the subphylum Vertebrata, which includes us. That for Gould means that Pikaia might be our ancestor, which implies that, unlike many other Burgess Shale creatures, it left descendants. If Pikaia had not survived the mass extinctions that killed off so many other Cambrian fossil creatures, we would never have evolved. The existence of humans is therefore not a predictable consequence of evolution, but a never-to-be-repeated accident. Gould concluded this reflection, and the book, with the following sentence:
We are the offspring of history, and must establish our own paths in this most diverse and interesting of conceivable universes-one indifferent to our suffering, and therefore offering us maximum freedom to thrive, or to fail, in our own chosen way.
Of course absolutely nothing in the Burgess Shale fossils supports Gould's speculation that the universe is indifferent to our sufferings, or discredits the belief that we are responsible to a divine Creator who actively intervened in nature to bring about our existence. On the contrary, the genuine scientific portion of Wonderful Life provides ample grounds for doubting the expansive notions of metaphysical naturalists like Theodosius Dobzhansky and George Gaylord Simpson. But because of Darwinism's rules of reasoning, even anti-Darwinian evidence supports Darwinism.
The statement defining the agenda for this symposium asserts that an a priori commitment to metaphysical naturalism is necessary to support Darwinism. Methodological naturalism- the principle that science can study only the things that are accessible to its instruments and techniques-is not in question. Of course science can study only what science can study. Methodological naturalism becomes metaphysical naturalism only when the limitations of science are taken to be limitations upon reality. If the history of life can involve only those natural and material processes that our science can observe, then either Darwinism or something very much like it simply must be true as a matter of philosophical deduction, regardless of how scanty the evidence may be. Add to this the requirement that critics of a paradigm must propose an alternative-and we have the metaphysical rules of Dobzhansky.
I do not doubt that Darwinian evolution will continue as the reigning paradigm as long as Dobzhansky's metaphysical rules are enforced. To say this is merely to say that the neo-Darwinian synthesis is the most plausible naturalistic and materialistic theory for the development of complex life that is now available. That proposition in turn is virtually a tautology, because the synthesis is a vague and flexible conglomeration that readily incorporates any seemingly non-Darwinian elements-such as the molecular clock or punctuated equilibrium-that appear from time to time.{14} If Dobzhansky makes the rules, Darwinism wins; but what happens if we evaluate the theory by Pierre Grasse's rules? I have argued my position on the evidence at book length in Darwin on Trial,and I will not go over that ground again now. My concern on this occasion is merely to speak about how we can conduct a fair and illuminating discussion of this subject.
I propose that we avoid using the word evolution altogether, or at least that we carefully specify what meaning we have in mind when we do use the term. The problem is that "evolution" has many meanings, some of which are controversial and some of which are not. Nobody, including the creation-scientists, denies that selection by human intelligence can cause a degree of variation, of the kind seen in the breeding of domestic animals or fruitfiles. Nobody denies that mutation and selection have caused variation in nature, as with the varieties of shapes and colors in the famous finches of the Galapagos islands or the shifting ratios of dark and light peppered moths in the midlands of England. As we have seen, Pierre Grasse denied that these observations illustrate "evolution," because they merely bring out the capacity for variation in an existing genotype and do not involve the introduction of new genetic information.
If we are going to discuss this argument, it can only confuse matters to make statements like "The evidence of biogeography provides ample evidence of evolution." Of course it does, but does it illustrate the kind of evolution that nobody disputes or the kind that many of us, including eminent biologists, do dispute? Biogeography does tell us that certain marsupial mammals exist only in Australia, for example. What else does it tell us about the process that created them?
I have found it helpful when discussing Darwinism to speak not of "evolution" but rather of the "blind watchmaker thesis," after the title of the famous book by Richard Dawkins. This book is the outstanding contemporary defense of the part of Darwinism that is really interesting: the claim that natural selection can accomplish wonders of creation, and not merely a degree of diversification. According to Dawkins, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. "{15} This is essentially what Pierre Grasse had in mind when he compared living organisms to things like cathedrals and computer programs that are designed by human intelligence for a purpose. Of course, Dawkins argues that this appearance is misleading, because the features that appear to have been designed were in fact produced by the purposeless, unintelligent processes of mutation and selection.
Whether this argument is supported by evidence when it is considered without prejudice is the fundamental point at issue. Prejudice enters the discussion if, for example, we define "science" as requiring an a priori assumption of metaphysical naturalism. In that case, the blind watchmaker thesis simply has to be true as a matter of philosophical deduction, and the scientific evidence is relevant only to illustrate a doctrine that we know to be true in advance.
My first proposal is that we should define terms carefully and use them consistently, trying at all times to illuminate points of disagreement rather than to dismiss them with semantic devices, such as the use of argumentative definitions of "evolution" or science.' My second point is that we should give careful consideration to the appropriate role of theological arguments in scientific discussions of Darwinism. I am referring here not to those creationists who invoke the Bible, but to the important role that a theological argument -"God wouldn't have done it this way"-plays in Darwinist apologetics. For example, Stephen Jay Gould's famous argument in The Panda's Thumb takes this form: A proper Creator would not have made the Panda's thumb from a wristbone, or used homologous components in orchids. To quote Gould:
Orchids manufacture their intricate devices from the common components of ordinary flowers, parts usually fitted for very different functions. If God had designed a beautiful machine to reflect his wisdom and power, surely he would not have used a collection of parts generally fashioned for other purposes. Orchids were not made by an ideal engineer; they are jury-rigged from a limited set of available components. Thus, they must have evolved from ordinary flowers.{16}
And of course "evolution" implies the blind watchmaker thesis, which implies that we live in a purposeless cosmos that cares nothing for our sufferings. David Hull makes a similar argument in his review for Nature of Darwin on Trial. On the time-honored theory that the best defense is a good offense, Hull defends the blind watchmaker thesis by attacking the divine creation alternative. The world is full of waste and cruelty: therefore God didn't create it and therefore the blind watchmaker presumably did. I could leave the matter there, but I enjoyed Hull's chamber of horrors so much that I will quote the relevant passage:
What kind of God can one infer from the sort of phenomena epitomized by the species on Darwin's Galapagos islands? The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror. Millions of sperm and ova are produced that never unite to form a zygote. Of the millions of zygotes that are produced, only a few ever reach maturity. On current estimates, 95 per cent of the DNA that an organism contains has no function. Certain organic systems are marvels of engineering; others are little more than contraptions. When the eggs that cuckoos lay in the nests of other birds hatch, the cuckoo chick proceeds to push the eggs of its foster parents out of the nest. The queens of a particular species of parasitic ant have only one remarkable adaptation, a serrated appendage which they use to saw off the head of the host queen.... Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who cares about His productions. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job. The God of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.
Simpson tells us that the world is purposeless because Darwinian evolution did all the creating. Gould and Hull tell us that Darwinian evolution must have done the creating because the characteristics of organisms imply a world devoid of purpose. A wise and benevolent creator would not employ homologous parts; would not waste millions of sperm and ova when one pair would suffice; would not countenance the deplorable ethics of the cuckoo; and would not even allow the variations in finches and turtles that Darwin observed in the Galapagos. These particular examples don't seem persuasive to me, but lurking behind them is the well-known argument from evil and undeserved suffering that forms the background to some of the world's greatest literature, from the book of Job to Paradise Lost to The Brothers Karamazov. Yes, the world is full of waste and suffering, and also nobility and beauty. If that is all that is necessary to establish Darwinian evolution, then Darwinian evolution is established. But do we call this kind of reasoning science?
I am not going to address the philosophical arguments against theism on this occasion, because my position is that speculation about what God would or would not have done should play no part in scientific discussion. If others want to bring theology into the picture, that is fine with me, but I want them to recognize that the will of God is not a subject over which biologists have professional jurisdiction. If we are going to debate theology the theologians are going to have a place at the table, and that includes creationist theologians. If Darwinists want to avoid the situation predicted by Grasse, where biology yields to metaphysics, I suggest that they agree to put Theological speculations aside.
Leaving theology out of the discussion doesn't mean that scientists should assume contently that God does not exist and go on to build philosophical theories on that foundation. What it does mean is that scientists should try to find out as much as they can about how the world works through empirical investigation, recognizing that an appropriately humble science may be unable to come to confident conclusions about matters that are difficult to observe. Science should be more than just a weapon that metaphysical naturalists wield in their arguments with theists. It should be a self-critical search for as much of the truth as it's methods of investigation can ascertain, which may or may not include the truth about how new quantities of genetic information have come into the world.
NOTES

{1} Pierre P. Grasse L'Evolution du Vivant (1973), published in English translation as The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) (hereafter Grasse). The review of the original French edition by Dobzhansky, titled "Darwinian or 'Oriented' Evolution?" appeared in Evolution, vol. 29 (June 1975). pp. 376-378.
{2} Grasse, p. 130.
{3} Grasse. p. 2.
{4} Grasse, pp. 7-8.
{5} Grasse, p, 208. See also p. 71: "We are certain that it [evolution] does not operate today as it did in the remote past. Something has changed. . . . The structural plans no longer undergo complete reorganization; novelties are no longer plentiful. Evolution, after its last enormous effort to form the mammalian orders and man, seems to be out of breath and drowsing off."
{6} Grasse, p 168.
{7} George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution (rev. ed, 1967), pp. 344-345.
{8} Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended (Addison-Wesley, 1982), p.280.
{9} Ruse, pp. 328-329.
{10} Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (Longman, UK, 1986), p. 229.
{11} Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life (1989), pp. 271-273.
{12} Careful readers will note that the non-existence of the Cambrian ancestors is vaguely qualified by the phrase "at least as complex invertebrates easily linked to their descendants." I have learned to be alert to this sort of qualification in Gould's writing, because it signals a possible line of retreat. I have reason to believe that Gould would repopulate the Precambrian world with invisible ancestors, and thus re embrace the artifact theory, if he were accused of abandoning the mutation/selection mechanism and thus leaving unexplained the evolution of complexity.
{13} Stephen Jay Gould, "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?" Paleobiology, vol. 6 (1980), pp. 119-130. Reprinted in the collection Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin(Maynard Smith, ed., 1982).
{14} Stephen Jay Gould has complained that vagueness in the definition of the neo-Darwinian synthesis "imposes a great frustration upon anyone who would characterize the modern synthesis in order to criticize it." Gould, "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?" pp. 130-131, in the collection Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin (Maynard Smith, ed., 1982).
{15} Dawkins, p. 1,
{16} Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb, p.20.

The philosophy of Comte became the religion of Humanism.  Comte denied that any divinity or absoluteness from God could be found in man’s soul.  Yet he declared that man, or mankind, was essentially divine.  To deny divinity and then declare it in the same entity is in fact a paradox.

But the further paradox in Comte’s Humanism derives from the profession of love while simultaneously declaring the tyranny of the elite, including the use of all necessary means to establish the power of the elite; it’s a conflict of love of mankind vs. the necessary power of the elite: a paradox.

Locke argued against the innateness of ideas, and therefore principles.  Yet he argued for rights of individuals, which, if not innate, do not exist.  It is a paradox.

The concept of cause and effect drives Hume’s empirical philosophy:  every effect must have a cause, natural, observable, and proportional.  So he denies that there ever has been an effect with no natural, observable, and proportional cause;  it is a purposeful denial of miracles and non-proportional deities.   But by saying that unobservable causes have not been observed, he is merely stating the obvious, a tautology.  And by declaring that effects with no observable cause do not exist because they have to be mistakes due the fact that they cannot exist,  he engages in circular reasoning.  And by demanding evidence without giving evidence for the validity of his demand is a contradiction, a paradox.

Perhaps Hume is better known for declaring that it is not possible to connect an  effect to a specific cause with any degree of certainty.  This is because no matter how many observations we have made that do connect the effect to the cause without fail, it still does not follow that any or all future effects will, with certainty, be connected to that specific cause.  This places Hume’s skepticism directly in conflict with his Empiricism.  In other words, Hume created his own paradox.

But most of all, his biggest paradox is his claim not to be an Atheist (while seeking employment as a professor), while having blatantly denied all the structural basis for the existence of metaphysics, much less God.

Kant turned philosophy sunny side up with his transcendental idealism, wherein he declared an internal object of knowledge that exists without our having implementing it, or even knowing about it’s implementation.  This is a paradox only to Natural Materialists, who cannot deny the logic but cannot comprehend anything transcendental.  So the paradox is really the Natural Materialist Paradox, wherein transcendental effects are both proven and denied.

His two major premises had come to him as lightning flashes, visions, revelations during his manic periods.  They played together in Nietzche’s mind as pillars of his influence in the world.  They required each other.  His Ubermench, the “overman” to which the human race would evolve and then disappear in the shadows of, and the eternal return cycle that all the universe is embedded within, to relive time and again, a universal, eternal “becoming”.  Although he had relieved himself of the necessity of non-contradiction by his famous denial of the first principles, he was nonetheless caught in his contradiction.  The human race would occur over and over again, while waiting to evolve into the ubermench.  The cycle was an exercise in futility, a contradiction, a devastating paradox

Nietzsche received ridicule for his theoretical paradox, in spite of his “proof”  that paradox doesn’t exist because truth doesn’t exist.  This situation was devastating, a rational lock down on an antirational theory.  Nietzsche was unable to release either of the conflicting positions; the conflict took its toll. Shortly, Nietzsche the rabid antirationalist became Nietzsche the chronically irrational;  he became insane and remained  so until his death, eleven years later.

Marvin Minsky writes: “ The physical world provides no room for freedom of will.  (yet) that concept is essential to our models of the mental realm.  Too much of our psychology is based on it for us ever to give it up.  We’re virtually forced to maintain that belief, even though we know it is false.”

We know it is false because? If we are Naturalists only, then it is false by definition.  We have intuited its falseness, even though we have no empirical justification.  We need it to be false, or naturalism is false.  We want it to be false.  It is our will that there is no free will; a fine paradox.

“If all ideas are products of evolution, and not really true but only useful, then evolution itself is not true either.”   This idea of Darwin’s causes “evolution” as a theory to refute itself, a hard-edgedparadox.

Darwinian theory drives everything including human nature.  Yet we should follow our intellectual capacity to “transcend”  the “conventional Darwinian constraints”, and pursue altruism and ethics as fostered by society.

If everything is Darwinian-random and accidental, undirected and without purpose, how does one “transcend”?  It’s a paradox.  See also “Darwin’s Horrid Doubt Paradox”.

Decision implies free will;  without free will all actions would be deterministic and decisions would be impossible. That Dawkins made one implies non-Darwinism for starters.  If cause must be proportional to effect, then random undirected Darwinism would cause random undirected mental processes, or at best, focused, unrestrained breeding and preservation activity.

His decision to remain monogamous, going strictly against Darwinian forces, is an admission that Darwinism does not drive human decision making.  Thus his decision is an Un-Darwinianparadox.

Nothing is true.  Well, OK, Darwinism is true, absolutely true, and it proves that nothing is true.  A paradox.

Consciousness is defined as having irreducible intentionality.  So we have:
1.                  The brain: material; non-intentional.
2.                  The mind: non-material; intentional.

These two features define a “dualist” vision of the brain / mind conundrum. The two existences do not overlap, they are totally separate.  However, dualism is “untenable” by definition (Searle’s). Therefore, the mind “must” be material if a monistic vision is to be justified.

So, if the mind is material, it must be of a material that is not known, a material that is not empirically detectable, an unknown substance without out mass, weight and other measurable qualities. And one that leaves no artifact when death occurs.

This unknown substance is deduced, not empirically detected.  It is, in fact, intuited: it “must“ be there if dualism is to be avoided.  It is declared to be beyond our knowledge, transcending all our ability to know within the constraints of empiricism.

So, a transcendent  assumption is used to avoid the necessary transcendent conclusion of dual, separate existences of the brain and the mind.  Using transcendence to invalidate transcendence is clearly a paradox.  It is also “science of the gaps” and a jump-to-conclusion fallacy.

“Naïve Realism [‘the doctrine that things are what they seem’] leads to physics, and physics, if true, shows that naïve realism is false.  Therefore naïve realism, if true, is false; therefore it is false [paradoxical].”
Bertrand Russell, “An inquiry into Meaning and Truth”. Quoted by Einstein in “Ideas and Opinions”. (first paren from previous text; second paren added).

Russell’s “naïve realism” (things are what they seem) is the idea that our sensory perceptions of color, shape, hardness, etc. drive our concept of reality, and produced the pursuit of reality: Physics. Yet they are not the things of physics, which goes deeper than the cosmetics of the object being observed, and shows that things are not “what they seem”.  So the origin of physics is (paradoxically) falsified by it’s own spawn, physics.  Then doesn’t physics itself sit upon a base of paradox?  (Nice one Bert!).

Zeno “asserts the non-existence of motion on the ground that that which is in locomotion must arrive at the half-way stage before it arrives at the goal.”  Because there are always more halfway points to be crossed, the goal can never be reached.  Therefore, motion does not exist.

Monism states that the brain and the mind are the same thing.  The mind does not exist outside or beyond the brain.  So the mind is a product of evolution just as is the brain.

Now if the mind is just an evolutionary feature of the body, then the functions of the mind are predetermined by evolution, just as are the functions of the body.  So concepts are predetermined and Monism would be a predetermined evolutionary effect.  As a predetermined evolutionary effect, any theory would not be based on current reality, but on previous survival tactics.  So there would be no truth value attached to it, merely a functionality value (it worked or didn’t work as a tactic for survival).

With no truth value, the theory would never be true.  Therefore it contradicts itself, and is a paradox.

Darwin wrote: “With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value at all or trustworthy.”
Charles Darwin, “Life and Letters of Charles Darwin”, 1898; Francis Darwin, ed; From “Total Truth”, Nancy Pearcy.

If the mind is derivative, it’s worthless babblings would make the entire theory false.  Darwin realized that the human mind was much more than a random assembly of evolved microstructures glued together in the cranium.  And if that is so, his entire theory is contradictory to fact..  It’s a nasty, “horrid” little paradox.

“If my mental processes are determined wholly by motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true – and hence I have no reason for believing that my brain is composed of atoms.” {a dubious paradox form a dubious worldview. css]
J. B. S. Haldane, British Evolutionist.

“Once I come to doubt the reliability of my cognitive faculties, I can’t properly try to allay that doubt by producing an argument; for in so doing I rely on the very faculties I am doubting. The conjunction of evolution and naturalism gives its adherents a reason for doubting that our beliefs are mostly true; perhaps they are mostly wildly mistaken. But then it won’t help to argue that they can’t be wildly mistaken; for the very reason for mistrusting our cognitive faculties generally will be a reason for mistrusting the faculties generating the beliefs involved in the argument.”
Alvin Plantinga

By their own admission, evolutionists must admit either that their beliefs are not reliable, or their minds are not material, nor evolved randomly.

1.      The Bible is declared spiritually FALSE although it is geographically, historically, genealogically true, and is used by archaeologists and historians alike.
2.      However Atheism declares that spirituality doesn’t exist, that intellect is supreme, the only source of truth.  So folks that are non-spiritual, ethically relativist, with no spiritual content or experience, are making judgments with respect to spirituality.
3.       A party that doesn’t recognize the possibility of “truth” of a proposition cannot make a declaration of true/false.  (Principle of Non-Contradiction).

1.      The Scientific Naturalist claims complete faith in the empirical process, despite the limitations of the process, and the primitive current state of knowledge (lack of existing evidence).
2.      Yet the S.N. decries religion due the use of faith in the process, despite the rational logic and forensic evidence that currently exists in support for that faith.
3.      It is a non-contradiction paradox caused by the atheist worldview, not to mention a lack of understanding of the concept of “faith”.

### The Paradox of the Non-Contingent Effect, #1

1.      By definition, a non-contingent effect causes itself.  These effects are not observed, but if such a phenomenon did exist, how would it self-limit?  It could not.  So it would be popping itself into existence everywhere, all the time.
2.      Yet Atheism holds that the Big Bang is a non-contingent effect, which had no cause other than itself.
3.      But the Big Bang occurred only once, not everywhere, all the time.
4.      This is a paradox, manufactured out of a confused worldview.

The Paradox of the Non-Contingent Effect, #2

### The Paradox of the Contingent Effect

1.      If the Big Bang is a contingent effect, then the necessary cause exists outside, beyond, and is bigger, more complex than the contingent effect (First Principle: Cause and Effect).
2.      Yet the Atheist denies the existence of the necessary cause, in the face of the obvious contingent effect.
3.      In Atheism, a paradox, bordering on hoax.  Self-delusion, out of a cherished worldview.

1.      The atheist mind recognizes only “Natural” and Material” effects, rejecting everything that cannot be proven empirically or forensically.  So the Atheist mind must also reject the existence of a mind, since such an intangible cannot be proven to exist empirically or forensically.  The Atheist mind thus rejects itself, a paradox(Einstein’s Rebuff).

2.      If the mind is just an assortment of accidentally connected neurons, firing randomly, how can it be considered the source of all truth?  If its function is Darwinian survival, the mind should only think of conquest, and never, ever sleep.  And it should especially not dawdle in abstract thoughts… such as “does the mind exist”!

3.      So the Darwinian mind cannot think Darwinian thoughts…a paradox.

Premise:  Materialism is the only source of truth.  Question: Is Materialism material?  No, it is a concept, not provable by Scientific Materialism.  If Materialism is the only truth, then reason itself is impossible, because reason is not material.  So if the premise is true, it denies itself, which is a paradox.

Premise:  All truth can be revealed by empiricism.

Is this statement provable using empiricism?  No.  The premise is self-contradictory, and therefore it is a paradox: false.  Yet Atheists such as Dawkins and Hawking will claim it to be true.  So they either believe that a false statement is true, or they have deep, deep faith that it will turn from false to true some time..

Either way, it is a violation of the Principle of Non-Contradiction.