Spontaneous order, distributed systems, God, etc. (Signifying Nothing: how does saying nothing at all become so loud?)

Tuesday, 30 November 2004

Spontaneous order, distributed systems, God, etc.

Amazing how the blogosphere works. I started reading an interesting post on evolution at OTB and ended with a defense of comparative advantage by Paul Krugman that incorporates a prominent mention of natural selection. And I got there via a picture of Jane Galt (via Tyler Cowen), though it’s desperately unrevealing (it’s from behind, perverts).

The OTB post begins with a description of how “intelligent design” advocates are pushing that as an alternative to evolution. There’s no evidence for it—except for our lack of knowledge, or complete knowledge, on the universe’s origin—and it seems ridiculous to me when pushed as science. My own views are theistic, though there’s no evidence to support it other than our existence. It tells me nothing on how we got here. Evolution does.

Perhaps someone could explain why some people find evolution—and natural selection—so threatening? I don’t get it. Jesus taught us with parables; are opponents of evolution saying God couldn’t master allegory? Being a creator of the universe and all, I think He would have a handle on it, and His audience. Isn't it possible that God did know His audience and was explaining the origins of the universe in a way they could understand? It would have been more convenient if He had provided a seminar in physics and evolutionary biology, but I doubt His audience would have grasped it, lacking calculus and all. Evolution doesn’t preclude a creator, it only explains what we can observe. I’ll say it again: I don’t get it, there’s no threat here. I’ll leave it to Brock to argue with y’all over infinity.

As for Jane’s link to Krugman, it’s quite alarming, really. I’m so used to his hyperventilating over everything from Iraq to healthcare that I’m stunned when he seems reasonable. It’s a great article and worthy of a thorough read, which I’ll give it when exams are done.

3 comments:

Any views expressed in these comments are solely those of their authors; they do not reflect the views of the authors of Signifying Nothing, unless attributed to one of us.

1. Steve wrote @ Tue, 30 Nov 2004, 8:39 pm CST:

Robert,

Great to see you back in the blogosphere!

I myself go with the theistic view. The idea that God had to do it just like the bible says puts tremendous constraints on him. Seems rather…arrogant. Also, this notion that God’s hand is detectable. I thought the idea was that God was omniscient and worked in mysterious ways. But thanks to ID we can now see God’s fingerprint. What an incomptent.

I just can’t help but shake the belief that those who oppose Darwinism/The Theory of Evolution are not as strong in their faith as they like to think they are. Sure that is presumptious on my part, but I just can’t think of any other explanation.

2. Robert Prather wrote @ Tue, 30 Nov 2004, 8:57 pm CST:

Steve,

Great to be back. It seems odd to me too; I would certainly have preferred to know all of the story rather than a few sketchy details like a snake in a garden, and so forth. In any case, I’m not prepared to let the things I don’t know dictate the things I do know. Until a new theory comes forward, that actually has evidence, I’m sticking with what’s known.

3. Jack wrote @ Wed, 1 Dec 2004, 4:14 pm CST:

The transormation of Paul Krugman from reasonable and, indeed, smart economist to raving partisan lunatic has been troubling. I have three possible explanations.

First, he may just write might better when he has unlimited space. Articles and books give him the room to explain his arguments step by step, but a newspaper column may force him into reductionism that he is not capable of handling.

Second, he may not have enough “small ideas” to support a bi-weekly column. I just do not think he can come up with enough new and interesting stuff to write about to avoid sounding like “one-note Paul.”

Third, he has a very thin skin—this is obvious from his belligerent reaction to his “outing” as a former Enron consultant three years ago. He probably was used to the deference shown professors, and was not prepared for the regular and instantaneous hammering he got when he started writing for the New York Times.

Comments are now closed on this post.