Re: talk.origins faq Hitler claim part 3

It is grating you don't respect the knowledge about creation at all.
Harry Mullisch, some Dutch writer / intellectual (agnostic about God if
I remember correctly) does have some respect for knowledge about
creation. As a writer, he says, he is still dumbfounded about the
origin of the images that come to his mind in writing a story. Of
course Mullisch is clever enough to think about biochemical process in
the brain and whatnot, that's not it. The question is why this picture
comes to mind, and not another, the creation of the image as a matter
of decision. So can you please respect knowledge about creation.
Knowledge which is common, broad, and essential to the way people
understand things, for most atheists and agnostics as well.

It is impossible to know which way a decision will turn out, at the
point of decision. Like Mulisch says he is dumbfounded. So creationism
is not looking for knowledge there, but something like the location of
a decision is still possible to know IMO. And besides the location we
can guestimate the change in likelihood of the appearance of a thing,
at the decision. That is the basic princple, trace back the likelihood
of the appearance of something, to the decisions at which the
likelihood of it appearing was determined.

Apparently you go into fits when I use the word decision for events in
nature as opposed to events in the brains of people, events where the
likelihood of the appearance of something changes. Eventhough of
course, as you have admitted, you use the synonym "choice" incorrectly
yourself! In the context of natural selection you use the word choice
for cases where there are no several possible outcomes, where there is
no freedom, which you agreed was not the "true" meaning of choice. So
weird huh, you object to my usage of the word, eventhough you
acknowledge it is basically more correct as your usage in acknowledging
decisions as free.

The main difference between creation in nature, and creation by a
writer like Mulisch is I think imagination. Mulisch first creates an
image in his imagination, and then he writes this down in a story. At
this point common knowledge can get confusing about creation. Is
creating the act of bringing the image in Mulisch' imagination to
paper, or is creation the act of making the image appear in the
imagination in the first place? It must be that both are acts of
creation, because in writing down the story from his imagination
Mulisch is still making lots of decisions. So this is what you object
to I think, Creationism making believe that there is a brain out there
in nature with an imagination, which brain carries an image of for
instance, a kind of organism, and then this creator makes an effort to
put this mind-image into material form. But there is no such
requirement for a brain with imagination in creationism, because
creation is considered "EX-NIHILO", from nothing, and not from a brain,
or an image. Creationism does not require an image of a kind of
organism this way, but creationism may posit the likelihood of the
appearance of a kind of organism. This likelihood of a kind of organism
has aspects of an objective existence. We may find more information for
instance, so that we can better characterize the likelihood at a point.


etc. etc. I'm tired already. I offer the compromise that I will not
pursue those Darwinists who support creationism this way. Because I
believe that knowledge about creation, about choices as free etc.
knowledge about the proper use of purpose, would already check the link
of Darwinism to social darwinism. This is a fair offer, you get to keep
evolution theory, you get to keep Darwinism even with it's value-laden
language, but you switch sides in the creation vs evolution debate,
acknowledging that Darwinists have been guilty of stepping on the turf
of religion, and support Creationism as a basicly scientific
proposition.

Of course the question of identity issues about who or what owns the
event where a likelihood changes, if it is an act of God, or otherwise,
is not part of what you have to accept as science.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The "Transformation" of Mankind
    ... `>> that uses the power of the large brain to do its thing. ... `>> modern man to reach its full creative potential. ... `>> capable of creative imagination. ... ` natural evolution or was it a revolutionary creation? ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Texas: Board Set to Vote on Challenge to Evolution
    ... who believes the universe has a creator, no matter how old anybody thinks ... That is my rebuttal to your idea that imagination ... Nobody has proven creation wrong. ... But since all this evidence is here of all ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: talk.origins faq Hitler claim part 3
    ... > It is grating you don't respect the knowledge about creation at all. ... and materialistic processes for the evolution of organisms in the same ... imagination comes up with one idea rather than another. ... a conscious choice by an intelligent agent. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Did God create the Universe in a Big Orgasm?
    ... Creation, so the combination of the two is ... climax, they often say, "Oh, my God!" ... One with a brain. ... complain hundreds in Hong Kong ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Towards a theory of the semiotic mind-body link
    ... TD-Gammon used is far more like how the brain works ... typical game program" and I would dispute that. ... act of creation out of nothing, ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
Loading