Friday, January 06, 2006

Specified Complexity

An ironic example:
We can be very sure there really is a single concestor of all surviving life forms on this planet. The evidence is that all that have ever been examined share (exactly in most cases, almost exactly in the rest) the same genetic code; and the genetic code is too detailed, in arbitrary aspects of its complexity, to have been invented twice. Although not every species has been examined, we already have enough coverage to be pretty certain that no surprises — alas — await us.
(The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution
By Richard Dawkins :7) (Emphasis added)

I just began reading this book. It seems that it will be amusing. For if all that man is or ever will be is an organism, then Darwinism is its excrement. And excrement always gives us a sense of our own humors, another benefit is that it can keep us humble as long as we do not totally forget our distinctions and how humans are not just humus, even if we are brought forth from it. If we seek a lack of judgment about such things and call that humility we will degenerate into crud even as we live, a crudity which is no laughing matter. [Edit: Yes, I know that wasn't written that well. I just don't feel like fixing it.] Yet for now I can laugh at what is shaping up to be an amusing book (written by a Leftist mind, it would seem) and perhaps plow some of its humus up with an iron plow. As it is ironic, given that this little fellow will eventually have to deny "arbitrary aspects of complexity" as evidence that we can be "very sure" of, to be sure! It seems the only reason he does not engage in trying to deny that calling a spade a spade is typically correct in this case is because here he feels it suits the urge to merge that is shaping everything he writes.

Yet does the evidence actually support Darwinism? No. E.g., given that the sorts of narratives that those with the urge to merge write are hardly specified in any absolute way there is absolutely no way that his narratives would not have been fit to more than one puddle as the ultimate "concestors" of all Life, if that had been the evidence found to date. And in that explanatory accomodation he would probably have also explained, "So there is no way that Life could be imprinted with a common design by a Creator who says that they are One because see, there is no unifying principle common to all Life. Instead the evidence is just how we expected to find things based on Darwinism, yet again! Amazing the overwhelming evidence, isn't it? Besides, why would one designer make things that appear to lack a unifying principle? Well it is settled then, Mommy Nature selected everything. Nature is selecting what I'm saying right now too, which is why it's just like gravity or somethin'. Say, how can you deny gravity?!"

A side note, doing away with the philosophical failings of these little fellows who refuse to heed the advice of Plato and Christ with respect to all that is essential when coming on out of the womb of Mommy Nature for a moment, it's interesting to think about what the best design to communicate a message within some parameters derived from the nature of things and persons would be. E.g., perhaps instead of the genetic code being written so that even those who do not have the eyes to see find themselves seeing some of the nature of things by design, I would write on the moon, "Made by Yawheh." This and many other solutions seem simple and workable, even if it is in God's nature to divide himself from sin so that a great divide between God and sinful man comes about, it would seem simple to get the message through. For people would just look at the moon and remember, would they not? Only they would not because they will not. It's the little matter of the will. So instead they would begin to say that Yaweh was an alien as well as this, that and the other things. Once the memory was no longer fresh enough and the message on the moon had degraded, its language forgotten and the one who supposedly wrote it all invisible and just like Santa, people could also begin to say that the message was an illusion created by meteors striking the moon. Given the science of things, all it would take was enough meteors and enough time. They had accumulated more knowledge by that time than people had before them, so the witness of all those who were closer in time to witnessing the events must be all wrong, mere superstitions. They might go on to say, "Besides, anyone looking back to try to find knowledge wants to take us back to the earlier times that they look back at. So if you like toilet paper and other miracles of science you'd best stop looking back for knowledge about such things!"

No comments: