Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution is a myth? Please explain:

In the first place, stop using the strawman ":creationist". David Berlinski is an agnostic at best. Thomas Nagel is an atheist. Each of them doubts that Darwinism is true and each agrees that Neo-Darwinists have treated intellectual critics of Neo-Darwinism very shabbily. Evidence and arguments to the contrary of neo-Darwinism by intellectuals like Berlinksi, Meyer, Nagel, Tour and hundreds of others are real and they are the ones ignored, dismissed or misrepresented as yu have done repeatedly in this discussion (by your constant, insistent use of logical fallacies). What is ignored. misrepresented and caricatured are the arguments of intellectual doubters of Neo-Darwinism whose arguments Neo-Darwinists cannot effectively counter, as witnessed by their heavy reliance on fallacious arguments and caricatures.

Wow. "Those of us who believe in evolution do so only because of our prejudices which disallow us to consider any alternative." Is that pretty much it?

Have you no concept of irony?

Many of us who now are convinced of the validity of evolution, were trained from birth in the religious tenets which demand creationism. And some of us, myself included, as we learned the truth of science, came to understand those tenets as mythology. Because (in my case anyway) I looked at both, the science and the religion, with an open mind.

But you see, if tomorrow, we discovered real evidence that something did plant on Earth each of the billions of species which we know have inhabited the Earth over the last dozen million years, I would have no problem accepting the alternate explanation.

The reality of my existence, my hope for an eternal afterlife of bliss and pleasure is not at risk. I have no investment in my belief in evolution. As opposed to the creationist?????????

I wasn't talking about any particular individual. I am talking about creationism as opposed natural evolution. Anyone who argues against natural evolution in favour of creation is arguing for creation over evolution.

Of course they may not be genuine. They may be arguing to gain notoriety, amusement or whatever else....however, it remains that they are arguing for creation over evolution, and that is what is being addressed.

So, which side puts beans in their chili?

I hope that someday, God grants you the ability to prove the theory of evolution.

????????????????????

Hastings,

As I've said before, not all Theist are equal. There's a huge gap between the median American Christian and the 9/11 thugs.

There's a lot of Christian who are what I call "practical atheist". Sure, they believe in the tenants of one of the main stream forms of Christianity, but day to day, there's no real difference between how they live their lives compared to skeptical non-believers. These folks are not cut from the same cloth as the Young Earth Creationist who deny science and don't want it taught to our kids.

I'm sorry. I mean no offense, but are you really that stupid? Any criticism of Neo-Darwinism is not, ipso facto, "creationism". Thomas Nagel is an atheist. He doubts that evolution can account for the instantiation of or increase in information necessary to either originate life or alter morphology. His doubts and criticisms do not mean he is a 6 day biblical literalist or that he thinks the only viable alternate theory is intelligent design. It is entirely possible that some modification of the theory of random mutation and natural selection might suffice to endow some form or evolutionary theory with the power to create the necessary information. If such a theory were ever developed and if it was fully naturalistic, it would not involve recourse to a supreme intelligence and therefore would not rely on "creation" broadly speaking. Secondarily, if the inference from the best explanation (which is the logical construct Darwin used) now shows that the information necessary to instantiate life and transform morphology could only have come from a designing mind (an intelligence). It would certainly imply the existence of a creator (Francis Crick hypothecates aliens/panspermia. That is "intelligence" but is certainly not God. (In his book the Selfish Gene Richard Dawkins effectively argues for intelligent creation [though he's too stupid to understand that such is the logical implication of his gene fitness theory] but surely he is not a "creationist"). Neither Crick or Dawkins's theories necessarily imply the existence of God even though they are broadly "creationist". In any event, if the inference to the best explanation tends to show the Universe and all life was the product of a pre-existing intelligence who might reasonably be called God, what is wrong with that? If that is where the evidence leads should we not embrace that truth, if in fact it is. You can caricature it as "creationism" if you want, which it broadly is (though not 6-day biblical literalism) but if that is where the truth leads, what is wrong with that? If you are going to argue effectively you need to start using language with a little precision.

Finally, your statement "anyone who argues against natural evolution in favor of creation is arguing for creation over evolution" is simply a tautology. It is an utterly meaningless statement. And again, the appropriate response is "so what"? If that's where the evidence leads why not go there?

Yes, of course. But you know the answer to the questions in your last paragraph. This entire thread shows the answer.

Yet your IQ isn't even high enough to understand that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. You're also the guy who rather stupidly thinks a Google search algorithm produces unbiased information.

Neo-Darwinism is premised on a philosophy called materialism which dictates that something akin to Neo-Darwinism (as an explanation for life on this planet) is true as a matter of logical necessity. Its pejorative to call it a prejudice, something I did not do, but which you did to try to caricature what I said in a way that misleads. The point simply is that the philosophy which dictates the putative truth of the theory is a metaphysical commitment, not an empirical construct and if the metaphysical premise is false, the theory is unlikely to be true no matter how badly we want to believe it to be true.

Absolutely.....IF that is where the evidence leads and IF there were any better alternative theories for the changes in plant and animal life over time which are so easily observed as we dig through the sedimentary layers.

I think we've beat this topic to death. I'm moving along. Thanks for the discussion. Its been fun. Hopefully all were edified in one way or another.

That is the very prejudice to which I refer.

Unless I misunderstand your writing, You seem to be claiming that I must believe in evolution because to not believe would be to admit to a sprituality.

And I am trying to explain to you that these are two separate domains. One does not demand the other.

I have no problem with the idea that some race of beings might be driving around the universe dropping off seeds and critters every hundred thousand years or so. But so far, the evidence does not support that.

The fact that I have determined religious doctrine to be mythology does not demand that I accept evolution as an origin for today's species. But it does leave my mind open to the possibilty.

Gosh, I'm glad that you are not trying to be offensive! Maybe you should look in a mirror before posting?





That is an example of the very thing you mention, stupidity, assuming something that was neither intended or related to the issue that is being discussed. We are not talking about rational criticism of evolution. The issue here has been the claim that evolution is not proven, has no evidence, that it is a faith, that life was created, hence the issue here is evolution versus creationism.





Referring to or quoting the ideas of unqualified individuals is not a refutation of evolution;

Where Thomas Nagel, a philosopher, Went Wrong.


Among Nagel’s claims are that evolution is wrong because:

We don’t understand the origin of life
We don’t understand the evolution of consciousness (is this list starting to sound familiar?)
There are objective factors about morality, and evolution can’t explain them (Nagel is what philosophers call a “moral realist”)
A reductionist and materialist program won’t suffice to understand evolution, ergo
There is a missing factor, and that factor is teleology. That is, evolution is directed toward certain goals (e.g., consciousness) by a process we don’t understand

Now Nagel is not religious—he’s an atheist—so his teleology can’t involve a god. Instead, he apparently posits an unknown force that drives organisms onward and upward.

To a biologist (Orr is a Drosophila geneticist like me),the response is obvious: there is no direction in evolution, for when organisms evolve parasitism, or move into darkness, they often lose complex features like eyes and wings. And of course there are those dumb plants:

Nagel’s teleological biology is heavily human-centric or at least animal-centric. Organisms, it seems, are in the business of secreting sentience, reason, and values. Real biology looks little like this and, from the outset, must face the staggering facts of organismal


Among Nagel’s claims are that evolution is wrong because:

We don’t understand the origin of life
We don’t understand the evolution of consciousness (is this list starting to sound familiar?)
There are objective factors about morality, and evolution can’t explain them (Nagel is what philosophers call a “moral realist”)
A reductionist and materialist program won’t suffice to understand evolution, ergo
There is a missing factor, and that factor is teleology. That is, evolution is directed toward certain goals (e.g., consciousness) by a process we don’t understand

Now Nagel is not religious—he’s an atheist—so his teleology can’t involve a god. Instead, he apparently posits an unknown force that drives organisms onward and upward.

To a biologist (Orr is a Drosophila geneticist like me),the response is obvious: there is no direction in evolution, for when organisms evolve parasitism, or move into darkness, they often lose complex features like eyes and wings. And of course there are those dumb plants:

Nagel’s teleological biology is heavily human-centric or at least animal-centric. Organisms, it seems, are in the business of secreting sentience, reason, and values. Real biology looks little like this and, from the outset, must face the staggering facts of organismal diversity. There are millions of species of fungi and bacteria and nearly 300,000 species of flowering plants. None of these groups is sentient and each is spectacularly successful. Indeed mindless species outnumber we sentient ones by any sensible measure (biomass, number of individuals, or number of species; there are only about 5,500 species of mammals). More fundamentally, each of these species is every bit as much the end product of evolution as we are. The point is that, if nature has goals, it certainly seems to have many and consciousness would appear to be fairly far down on the list.

In fact, bacteria are still with us after billions of years, and they show no sign of a brain yet!''

That is not what I am saying. I'm simply pointing out that the premise that the Universe is a permanently closed system of material cause and effect is a metaphysical assumption, not an empirical one. If one thinks that the Universe is comprised solely of material causes and effects then any theory or origin of life that does not patronize that assumption will be rejected out of hand, regardless of evidentiary problems because the philosophy comes first and the only "science" permitted is that which confirms the philosophy.

There is also the additional problem of thinking, sentient beings. The very idea of scientific truth implies that the mind is free from material causes because it only makes sense to speak of scientific truth if the mind is free to distinguish truth from error. But materialism is self-refuting because if all there is are material causes and effects, then truth is impossible, including the truth of materialism. Here is how George Gilder puts it: "Materialism generally and Darwinian reductionism, specifically, comprise thoughts that deny thought, and contradict themselves. As British biologist J. B. S. Haldane wrote in 1927, “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” Nobel-laureate biologist Max Delbrück (who was trained as a physicist) described the contradiction in an amusing epigram when he said that the neuroscientist’s effort to explain the brain as mere meat or matter “reminds me of nothing so much as Baron Munchausen’s attempt to extract himself from a swamp by pulling on his own hair.” Analogous to such canonical self-denying sayings as The Cretan says all Cretans are liars, the paradox of the self-denying mind tends to stultify every field of knowledge and art that it touches and threatens to diminish this golden age of technology into a dark age of scientiftic reductionism and, following in its trail, artistic and philosophical nihilism."

I have linked Gilder's entire article. He's a wonderful thinker and writer.


https://www.discovery.org/a/3631/

Never mind the Universe, the planet earth is not a closed system.....

Materialism emphatically says otherwise. I read the
reviews on Nagel's book you cited. They conveniently fail to confront his actual arguments, which is typical. They hardly address Nagel's criticisms of evolution, choosing instead to go ad hominem and employ caricature. Much like you---the hallmark of dialectic impotence! Nagel is formidable, has a first rate mind and impeccable academic credentials. If you can't provide a genuinely substantive critique of his criticism of Darwinism, don't waste our time.

I read these paragraphs and I read them again and again, and I find more circles than a Hoola-hoop factory.

If you believe in evolution, you must be a realist. If you are a realist you have to believe in evolution. If you are a realist then you can have no mind. If you have a mind, you can not be a realist. If you are not a realist you can not believe in evolution.

Head shake......and shake again
Zealot much?

But I observe facts which refute your belief. Therefor your belief is of no consequence to me. After 800 postings in this thread, there is little chance I shall enlighten you.

I got through about six pages of that drivel. Holy crap!

Sexual liberation, sexual suicide, "puriently probed the animality of human beings", "Darwinism banishes ideals and inspirations', Darwinism could be used to inspire Naziism or the feminist crusades of planned parenthood......WTF

The idiot attempts to tie computer science, and telecommunications into what is actually a study of paleontology, botony, and zoology. He conflates economics, psychology, and sociology into the mix where they have no bearing.

It is no wonder that no one can refute his thoughts. There is no logic in any of what I read. My mind could not take the errant rambling to read anymore.

I guess, on the plus side, he uses lots of big words in a confusing manner which could well impress the illinformed.