Robert Curry Corrects A Creationist

From: Robert Curry
To: J Hart

Say, who are you and what prompted your inane email directed to my virtual doorstep?

Just as well. I can use a little inanity to relax after the day's work. Let's see what you have to offer in that regard. As I've decided to share this with a few others, I'll take the time now to warn them that the following is ridiculously lengthy, and the humor is dry.

1. Definition of God.

Commonly, a personification or idealization that is indistinguishable from mythology, metaphor and make believe. Alternatively, it is a recursive acronym, "GOD" = "GOD Over Djinn" (ala Hofstadter).

God, is the cause of life, the priority in life, and the measure of value for life.

Exactly like Santa Claus being the cause of altruism, the priority in altruism, and the measure of value for altruism. Indeed. I see a very close correlation there. Don't you, when you think about it?

For the individual, God becomes what that individual believes God to be.

In other words, phantoms of the imagination are subject to the whims of individual imaginations. I entirely concur.

Those who have rejected the concept of a living God, will find little meaning in scientific proof that reality is created.

Those who understand the scientific method may be amused by the absurd phrase, "scientific proof." Proof is for mathematics; evidence is more properly the domain of science.

2. The individuals relationship with the universe.

The universe we experience as individuals, comes into being when we are conceived, and is destroyed when we die.

Another way of saying the whole world resolves around you; how narcissistic. No wonder people once generally believed our planet was at the center of the universe. It takes maturity as an individual, and as a society, to come to grips with the fact that neither is the case.

Everything we perceive in the external world, is filtered and shaped by subconscious processes, the images we see are internal "illusions", at best, a close match to our sensory inputs.

An approximation to isomorphism hardly qualifies as an illusion. You need to learn what the word signifies. Allow me to suggest a good primer -- an educational booklet authored by Sigmund Freud entitled, "The Future of an Illusion." I encourage you to seek it out and learn what it says. You may find it illuminating.

3. The materialistic framework.

It is commonly thought that, objects are things,

It could be worse. Who knows but that someday people might start to think that things are objects. Oh, the horror of it all.

composed of fundamental particles,

Nineteenth century physics is so charmingly naive sometimes.

and that objective behavior is caused by the arraignment and state of those fundamental particles.

I understand how confusing that might be, especially when different particles (or "objects") are arraigned for crimes in different states. For instance, a proton may pick sea oats from a California beach without penalty, but another proton, even one with the same spin, would be fined for picking sea oats here in Florida. As for the arraignment of neutrons under indictment for the mass murder of bacteria during the irradiation of poultry on the way to your local grocer, the law can become even more indecipherable and abstruse. That's when these unfortunate baryons long for the carefree life of a tachyon, to treat time like space and space like time, speeding along faster and faster with every decrease in energy. Speaking of which, I've never known a tachyon to be arraigned in any state. Have you?

Most people interpret knowledge according to this view,

DO they, now? You are getting even more reckless in your wildly groundless opinions. You'd be pulled over for a breathalyzer test if this were a sociology class.

and modern technology, demonstrates

Ahem. Why all the commas between subjects and predicates in your sentences, may I ask? It's really quite distracting and results in the feeling that I've been junk mailed by someone considerably more familiar with dogmatism than with the basic rules of grammar.

the utility of this framework, but the success of modern science does not mean that reality is a materialistic phonomena,

The singular, please, is "phenomenon."

or that life has a non conscious cause.

Of course it means no such thing. Nor does the success of modern science mean that prime power decomposition is unique for the positive integers; nonetheless, the latter remains true (and can be proved, by the way, as it happens to fall under the heading of math, and more specifically, elementary number theory).

4. The origin of paradox.

This would be better titled "The Origin of Bald Assertions," or more precisely, an example of one.

Belief in a materialistic origin leads to paradox, because existence is an information process, not something emanating from an un-caused, undefined preexistent mechanical system. A created reality would be expected to behave like an information process, but a materialistic reality would have to be the result of some sort of simple mechanical system.

Many simple mechanical systems do exhibit information processes, and vice versa. There is no paradox here, not even a contradiction. You are simply and unsurprisingly 100% wrong. Let me guess -- you're a creationist, too.

5. The state of reality.

The quantum mechanical behavior of the subatomic world, clearly shows

There you go with those misplaced commas again. The poor grammar makes a nice companion to the pseudo-intellectual hogwash that you are regurgitating, though. I feel like a spectator at some museum of modern art, where multicolored vomit is put on display.

that the state of reality is not analog, and that the mathematics behind reality are not continuous,

Mathematics _is_ not (unless you're speaking unAmerican English, in which case you've neglected the extra "u" in certain other words).

but more like a set of discrete functions, applied according to probabilities of proximity.

Quantum mechanics uses discrete math, but it is quite presumptuous to assert that it therefore "shows" that the world is discrete instead of continuous in the most fundamental sense. We still have a lot to learn about this universe we live in, and you don't appear to appreciate that very well.

6. The transformation function.

Every function has a solution of minimum complexity, and any system that behaves according to a function,

No need for such hesitation; every system behaves according to a function, or at least (in more general cases) a mapping.

can not be less complex than the minimum solution. However if the accuracy of individual iterations is allowed to vary, a much simpler solution may exist that has a high degree of accuracy, when averaged over time.

I find this above section delightfully irrelevent. What was your reason for including it?

Section 7 is omitted for space as redundantly irrelevent.

8. The fallacy of the materialistic framework.

When everything necessary for the existence of life, is attributed to a undefined preexistent "thing" that just happens to be, that "thing", deemed the cause of everything, grows to enormous complexity.

Ah, now HERE you've finally defined the creationist god-thing.

I applaud your roundabout manner for rewarding those like myself who have the fortitude to wade through the most insane ramblings of a certifiable crackpot to find a jewel that deserves to be unearthed and polished for posterity.

Thank you for that wonderful gift. I promise to use it well.

The mindless model can't really answer any of the hard questions.

Bingo! You have succeeded in deflating the creationist folly in two brief sentences. That mindless belief in some pre-existing "thing" or "god" that is only a product of human imagination never did and never will answer any of the hard questions.

9. Photons as information.

A photon, and it's accompanying electromagnetic wave

Accompanying? The photon is indeed the "electromagnetic wave." Of course these Nineteenth century terms do not do justice to the nature of these ubiquitous material things, photons, or light quanta -- or whatever one wishes to call them. I have yet to see even an out-of-date physics text describe electromagnetic waves as things that "accompany" photons, though. Do you have a citation, or am I right in suspecting the phrase is due entirely to your exceedingly limp grasp of the subject matter?

do not "travel" through space, as a wave travels in water, nor move like a bullet, through a vacuum. A photon behaves more like an information packet, than a physical object.

That's like saying a cardboard box behaves more like a rectangular prism than a wood product. (Hint: it behaves rather a great deal like both.)

10. Conclusion.

The uniformity of natural law,

I.e., "things behave the way they behave." Can't get much more uniform than a logical tautology.

and the precise balance of the fundamental constants necessary to bring forth this universe,

Well, that one came out of left field. I already went nine innings with Al B. on this one in HolySmoke, or should I say eight and a half? You're still in the bush leagues.

in all it's unfathomable complexity, is indisputable proof that reality was made, and is not the product of a mindless process.

I do not know exactly how to convey the degree to which this entire harangue utterly fails to impress anyone who has ever taken time to explore a few portions of the Mandelbrot set, which is a mathematical model of infinite complexity derived from a simple (one might say "mindless") recursive process.

Mathematical proof is less disputable and far more reliable than the ravings of any creationist lunatic: complexity can and does derive from simplicity, just as simplicity can and does arise from complexity.

If you wish to learn the truth of the matter, I would be happy to provide it in greater detail for your investigation -- but if you are only interested in maintaining obviously dogmatic beliefs, then kindly say so now and be on your way.

It's entirely up to you.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was made flesh.

McGruff in the communion line . . . "Take a bite out of Christ!"

Robert Curry
St. Petersburg, Florida

Go Back to Shy David's Creationism Page.