While the battle over ID and evolution rages on in a more public manner, the concept of consciousness is possibly the biggest threat to the theory of Darwinism according to JP Moreland.
The theologian and philosopher argues:
If we limit our options to theism and naturalism, it is hard to see how finite consciousness could result from the rearrangement of brute matter; it is easier to see how a Conscious Being could produce finite consciousness since, according to theism, the Basic Being is Himself conscious. Thus, the theist has no need to explain how consciousness can come from materials bereft of it. Consciousness is there from the beginning. To put the point differently, in the beginning there were either particles or the Logos. If you start with particles and just rearrange them according to physical law, you won’t get mind. If you start with Logos, you already have mind.
You can put all the right chemicals in all the right proportions in a controlled environment, but that does not equal “life.” There is a required otherness known as consciousness that moves chemicals into life. Where does that come from if not from a previous Consciousness?
Moreland continues by pointing out that while evolution can explain the development of new and increasingly complex organism, it has no such explanation for the development of consciousness. It was never “needed” and thus would never have evolved.
As long as an organism, when receiving certain inputs, generates the correct behavioral outputs under the demands of fighting, fleeing, reproducing and feeding, the organism will survive. What goes on inside the organism is irrelevant and only becomes significant for the processes of evolution when an output is produced. Strictly speaking, it is the output, not what caused it, that bears on the struggle for reproductive advantage. Moreover, the functions organisms carry out consciously could just as well have been done unconsciously. Thus, both the sheer existence of conscious states and the precise mental content that constitutes them is outside the pale of evolutionary explanation.
The true irreducible complexity is the consciousness of the human mind. It, along with the exact origin of life, is a mystery that pure naturalism cannot answer.
What created the "Conscious Being"?
Consciousness may be just a side-effect of evolution, not its pinnacle.
Hi Louis:
I think we have to distinguish between consciousness and the brain/body behaviors we associate with consciousness. Philosophers use the notion of zombies to illustrate the issue. Zombies are beings that appear from the outside to be regular humans but have no awareness at all. Now if materialism were correct there'd be no evolutionary reason for people to be anything but zombies. On materialism, all we humans are is a complex arrangement of atoms, atoms which move the way they do based on the laws of physics. evolution could presumably wire us so that we react to physical stimuli–light waves, sound waves etc.–so that we increase the likelihood of our reproduction. But there is no evolutionary reason for us to even have experiences, much less have experiences that are more than random hallucinations.
your friend
Keith
You're basically asking, "Who created God?" The point that I have tried to make in all these discussions is that God, existing outside of time, space and all that is material, does not need a creator – by His very nature. Something outside creation is Creator, not part of the creation.
Of course, to this you rebut – if God doesn't need a creator why does the universe? That is the real question, but one that I think is simple enough. God, or in this case "Conscious Being," is by definition "super-natural." That is beyond the natural order. Naturalism and by extension Darwinism claim that only what is material is real. There is nothing beyond the natural order. There is no super-natural.
Because they do not allow for the super-natural, they have to explain through strict materialism how the world began from nothing, how life sprang from non-live and how conscious came into being, all without resorting to anything but nature. But as Moreland argues, it can't be done or at least it wouldn't be done.
If God, or the Creator or the "Conscious Being," (however you want to describe Him at this point) exists outside of nature. He is, of course, not subject to the rules of nature. All that is nature must have a cause. The First Cause by definition does not need a cause because he begins all the other causes and all the natural laws. He is not bound by the laws of the world He creates anymore than C.S. Lewis was bound by the "Deep Magic" of Narnia because He exists outside of them.
All that is natural needs a beginning and a cause. I accept and agree with that statement, but it makes no claims on that which is supernatural. God falls in that realm. I am not trying to play a shell game or simple do semantic shuffles. It is case of logic. Natural falls under natural laws. Super-natural is something different and is not required to abide by laws of nature.
So, you are trying to be logical? Then please explain how the super-natural can exist when all we know is the natural. You say the Cosmos (or nature) cannot have come from nothing, that there must be a "first cause." How do you know this? And, how do you know it came from nothing? Perhaps everything has always existed and there was no first cause? Perhaps causes go back to infinity (just as the number of universes may be infinite).
I think reality is ultimately unknowable (at least in its entirety), being infinite and infinitely stranger than we can know. Science is merely scratching the surface. To posit a Creator simply avoids the question and puts it in the realm of faith. It seems to me that both sides are being hubristic in their contention that they, alone, have the answers. I feel that it's completely valid to continue our inquiries into the mystery that is existence, but to assert, without real basis or proof, that one answer is the final truth and excludes all others is invalid in the face of the reality we confront. This, indeed, is hubris.
Then please explain how the super-natural can exist when all we know is the natural.
You are saying my contentions are "hubris," yet your first question delves right into it. You contradict your later statements of saying science has only scratched the surface, etc.
All we know is not natural, the point of this post is dealing with the consciousness which in some sense is super-natural. In that it goes beyond the explanation of the natural. There is not materialistic answer for the existence of consciousness or even for life itself. Random chemicals forming together do not equal life. The "otherness" that makes something living is unexplainable through strict naturalism.
You may be correct that this is only because science has not gotten to the point where they can explain it all away naturally, but that is simply a matter of faith as well. You have faith that one day naturalistic science will give you all the answers you need without having to posit the super-natural. You base that on logic – that science has given naturalistic answers for other questions. I have faith that the supernatural exists based on logic – as I have attempted to demonstrate here.
You say the Cosmos (or nature) cannot have come from nothing, that there must be a "first cause." How do you know this?
Science is based on the fact of casuality. If you do A, you get B. The scientific method is based on the assumption that things within nature require causes. Flies didn't emerge from rotting meat by magic. There was a cause. The universe, nature, etc. didn't just happen. There was a cause.
And, how do you know it came from nothing?
I'm not sure what you mean since you ask me about the opposite in the earlier question. I am going to assume you meant to lump this with the next question or idea – that the universe does not need a beginning. It simply has always been.
What evidence do we have for that? What piece of scientific evidence apart from pure speculation and wishful thinking exists that says this is an infinitely old universe or one in an infinite number of universes? What form of logic do you get to suggest that? It seems those have been suggested merely as a way to avoid a beginning and a cause. They have no real evidence to suggest those. Unless you know of some. All I have seen talks about the expanding universe pointing back to a point when it was all together a la the Big Bang.
I think reality is ultimately unknowable (at least in its entirety), being infinite and infinitely stranger than we can know.
We agree somewhat. I don't think science can ever find everything there is to know about the universe, because science only can tell us about naturalistic things. There is more out there in the realms of philosophy and other soft sciences that cannot be touched or duplicated in a lab.
I don't think I have all the answers. I just think that the answers I have found make the most sense. I believe them to be true, but I, by no means, have all the answers. I don't think I have ever said that here or anywhere else.
It's interesting that you completely ignore my last three sentences wherein I tie everything together and come to a conclusion which I feel includes both the rational/scientific and spiritual/religious. My point is not that science has all the answers, or will have all the answers, but that our inquiries must continue. I oppose those who think they have all the answers and that no more inquiries can or may be undertaken. Yes, sometimes scientists exhibit this unfortunate trait, but I find it much more prevalent within the religious.
I didn't ignore your last three sentences, I responded to them with my last paragraph.
Also, my entire response was in answer to your assertion that I propose anything "without real basis or proof." I'm giving you the one of the logical bases for my belief.
As you demonstrate, it is not possible to completely nail down these issues. You will not be able to reproduce these circumstances in a lab. Therefore, we use other forms of logic and reason to see which answer best suits the evidence we have.
I was proposing what best fits all the knowledge we have. I am one who is always in favor of more research and more delving into the mysteries of life. I don't think we will ever find all the answers, but I am confident that the more we dig at the truth, the closer we get to God.
I'm not sure who within "the religious" has said that we should have no more inquiries. Again, I'm certainly not one, but I know the vast majority of the scientific community falls under that as Expelled shows. You have people losing their jobs because they don't hold to the same beliefs about Darwinism or climate change. How does that promote the discovery of more scientific knowledge?
I have to say that I find it extremely difficult to communicate with religious believers. The more I try to extend an olive branch the more I am misunderstood. Whatever.
How did I misunderstand you in the context of this discussion? I understand that you feel you were extending an olive branch by saying that neither has all the answers, I accept that and agreed with you.
I simply said that I'm confident in the answers we do have and that they point to God. That's not a slap away at your offer of peace. That's being honest about my perspective.
What is so difficult about this conversation? You have brought up valid points that cause good discussions. I wanted to answer those from my viewpoint. Instead of responding in kind, you complain about a difficulty in communicating with religious believers and throw down your patented conversation ender "Whatever."
I understand that you find it difficult to communicate with me and those who think and believe as I do. I find it difficult to communicate with you. We are coming from completely different worldviews so it is understandable, but that doesn't make it impossible and it doesn't mean I am rejecting any attempt at peaceable discussions. On the contrary, I work toward having those and thought we were engaged in one now.