Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 11:25:08 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> Cc: Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net>, dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <3D7CE784.BAD01B19@mindspring.com> References: <20020909092446.O9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > You haven't justified the usage of the term "selection". There can be > no selection at all unless you appeal to a theistic worldview. Selection > implies intentionality, which is strictly "not allowed" by naturalistic > presuppositions. See other posting. > > > > 2) Of the theories, which is simpler? > > > > > > Define "simpler." Self-creation sounds like a pretty hairy thesis > > > to me. Please explain. > > > > It has one less premise. > > Yes, but the "simpler" explanation is a logical contradiction. I fail to see how you reach this conclusion. > So basically what you are saying is that an absurdity is preferrable > to supernatural creation. I fail to see the absurdity. Further, I fail to see how any creation precludes supernatural involvement. Further, you are effectively claiming that the existance of creation is physical evidence of God, and we know the Bible specifically claims that God does not offer physical evidence, since if He did, faith would not be necessary. Further, physical evidence of God is a cotradiction of the doctorine of Free Will. > This doesn't prove anything except that there are evolutionists who > believe that sex is a result of evolution, and that you know how to > type three words into a search engine. So what? Can you direct me > to a specific link that addresses the problems I outlined earlier? > Barring that, you can explain in your own words how sexual organs > could have evolved, surmounting such tremendous odds. Randomly, and kept as a result of being advantageous to the survival of the genes. > > The same reason they would want to post to technical mailing lists > > about creationism? > > -chat is a "technical" mailing list? Well, "-chat", wherever that's hosted, probably isn't, but "FreeBSD-chat" is arguably FreeBSD related, at least in extremis. 8-). > > > By the way, since you deleted it, I'll mention it again. The model > > > the Constitution was based on was existing state constitutions, which > > > were in turn based on the model of presbyterian church government. > > > > I didn't think that it was relevent, and didn't want to argue > > the Magna Carta, or the fact that the state constitutions of the > > first thirteen colonies were negotiated as part of the process of > > balancing Federal vs. States rights. > > Of course you didn't think it relevent. How convenient. It's not a matter of convenience, it's a matter of keeping to a single stream of argument in a single message thread. If you want to start a seperate thread, feel free to make a seperate posting. Be aware that I will probably just cite the Federalist Papers, read one response, and then, if that response is not cogent, ignore the rest of the thread. > > > > If you try to teach the creationist story in a secular school, I > > > > expect you will likely be fired, because from a scientific > > > > perspective, the creationist theory fails the both the simplicity > > > > and predictive tests, when compared to the evolutionist theory. > > > > > > Oh really? Please explain. Just because you say so doesn't make > > > it so. > > > > It requires an additional premise, therefore it is less simple > > than the "evolution" theory, and it is less predictive than the > > "evolution" theory. > > The additional premise is required in order to avoid absurdity. According to you. Look, I can personally make your theological arguments better than you can, and I can do it in a context of the validity of the right of secular science to come up with theories which contradict religious doctorine, particularly when the results are to be taught in secular schools sponsored by a secular state. I don't understand what you are arguing, apart from trying to weasel people down to the teaching of religious doctorinal theory as some sort of equivalence to a theory derived from the same principles, and meeting the same strict tests, as the theiry it claims equivalence to. How about we start by you stating that you think creationism is a theory, and that you are willing to replace that theory, should a more rigorous one come along? > > > Anytime you introduce randomness into a system, it doesn't > > > *increase* predictability, it decreases it. > > > > This is incorrect; it goes against what we know of large number > > theory. It's like the multiplication of two random values which > > occurs in /dev/random, which sucks, because large number theory > > tells us that the result will be less random, not more random. > > Please explain how randomness gives rise to order. This is a > contradiction. No, it's not, but I hardly have time to educate you to the level of a PhD in mathematics, with a field emphasis on chaos and large number thory, particularly if you are going to approach it as an adversarial process. > As you've noted, /dev/random is not a good analogy, since it > isn't truly random. This is why no computer could ever be used > to "prove" the existence of chance. It's pseudo random. Just like "chance". I just have a particular problem with the application of large number theory in /dev/random. 8-). > > > And since the primary mechanism of evolution is chance, evolution > > > cannot be said to be predictable at all. How does evolution overcome > > > this problem? Please explain. > > > > By not being defined the way you appear to think it is. 8-). > > The primary mechanism of evolution is selection, not chance. > > So what you are saying is that chance has nothing to do with > evolution. Selection suggests intentionality that is strictly > off-limits on a naturalistic explanation. Let me disabuse you of that interpretation. Selection does not imply someone to select. It doesn't preclude it, but from our understanding, it is the physical laws which govern selection. "God is the sum total of all physical laws" -- Albert Einstein > The problem with this is the so-called "random" inputs. Unless > you can show that they are truly random, such an algorithm proves > nothing at all. So it turns out that your "random" input is not > input at all, but output. Oh, and by the way, what are those > selection criteria? If your selection criteria is intelligently > designed into the experiment, it would seem to undermine the > whole thing by begging the question. THERE IS NO SELECTION > CRITERIA IN NATURE, unless you want to say that it was designed > into the system, which forces you into a theistic worldview. Let's go back to a random mutation that results in an organsim capable of breating Chlorine, but incapable of breathing Oxygen. The selection criteria in nature -- which you claim doesn't exist -- is the ability to breathe Oxygen in a 21%/78%/1% mix with Nitrogen and other trace gasses. Such a mutation is selected against by the organism dying. By insisting that selection has a "first mover", you Deify nature. I don't have a problem with you being a Deist, but you probably ought to examine your own nature before you try to examine that of others, and find them wanting in your eyes. > > > What exactly do you mean by "secular"? You mean "non-religious"? > > > > 1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> > > b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c : not > > ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners> > > > > -- not the same thing as non-religious. > > Of course, this definition begs the question, doesn't it, since the > whole question is as to the ultimate source of the worldly or temporal > concerns. Evolution is an attempt to give an account of that, and as > such has crossed over into the realm of religion and philosophy. Why > is it so hard to admit that? Because evolution ignores the need for God. Which is what really annoys you about it. It doesn't take a position on whether or not there is a God or there isn't a God. It's not an athiestic world view, nor is it a theistic world view. It's orthogonal to the consideration of the issue of whether or not there is God. Evolution does not comment on God, at all. I'll fully admit that it is in the realm of philosophy -- all science is in the realm of philosophy. "PhD" means "Doctor of Philosophy" (when translated to English). That doesn't make it a part of the realm of religion, unless you happen to cleave to a *particular* philosophy that has as one of its tenets that it is required to do so. The "and" in "religion and philosophy" was implied by your own prejudices. > > > Why do the schools force naturalism down people's throats then? > > > > Because it is able to successfully manipulate the material world > > in useful ways. > > And this is your justification for indoctrinating children with > naturalism? Why not play on a level playing field? Are you > afraid they might actually think for themselves? No, we are afraid that they will be about as useful to species survival as the people who teach "new math" or "outcome based education", where it's more important to respect the individual's opinions than it is to maintain a working society. 8-). There's nothing that actually forces this so-called "indoctrination" which you find offensive. Because the state recognizes you freedom of religion -- your freedom to turn the "and" in "religion and philosphy" into an equivalence relationship -- the state permits you to teach your children whatever you want to teach them, in private schools. > > If you want a creation theory taught in secular schools, come up > > with a version of the theory that is either simpler or more > > predictive than "evolution" theory. > > Many have, but the evolutionary dogmatists won't even look at it. > They are so entrenched in trying for force their evolutionary > dogmatism down people's throats that they refuse to even look into > the telescope, to use an apt analogy. 8-) That's simply not true. The failure to displace evolutionary theory is based solely on the inability of creationist dogmatists to produce a theory that better fits the fitness function than evolutionary theory. In fact, evolutionary theory has changed a number of times. It will change again in the future. Your putative blind defenders of the status quo would act against those changes, in the same way that they would act against a sufficiently explanatory creationist theory. Yet the changes have occurred anyway. This places the blame not on defenders of the status quo, but on your theorists, who failed to be as convincing as those who succeeded in the same putative environment of intellectual inetia. > > So many religions are based on what are in fact scientific ideas > > which have been falsified. You'd think that at least one religion > > would be willing to concede that it doesn't know God's mind well > > enough to say that He might be the selector in the process of > > natural selection, or that He is capable of working His will > > through His choice of natural laws. > > At last! We have an admission that evolution is unworkable without > moving into a theistic worldview. No. Merely that it is representable in a theistic intellectual space, by someone who insists that everything exist within a theistic intellectual space at all times. > But then, what is necessary when people start talking about God? To let them talk? > Is it permissable for everybody to just start wildly speculating > about God? Apparently so... 8-). > Or must we rely on God to tell us what he is like and how he has > created the universe? Not unless we want to contradict the doctorine of Free Will, which many religions hold to be sacrosanct. It's safer to not get involved in theistic arguments, except as necessary to point out that, by making a scientific argument, one is not necessarily making a theistic argument. I'm sorry that evolutionary theory challenges your religious doctrine. At one time, your religion accepted the Earth-centric Ptolemeyic model of the universe as true, and incorporated the idea into the religious doctorine of a human-centric special creation. Now it no longer clings to that idea. In my opinion, it is best if religion stays out of the adoption of scientific theory as doctorine. Scientific theories are, inevitably, replaced with new theories, and they are unsuitable subjects for doctorine. If a religion demands that the universe was created by God, let it do so without attempting to tell God how He did it, and allow people the intellectual freedom to speculate on the topic. It may be the reason the people are there in the first place. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D7CE784.BAD01B19>