Re: OT: Atheism. (Was Re: Alter a string in multiple files?)

In message <e2f28e2c4f.alan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dr Alan Leighton <alan.leighton2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <4f2c818b05invalid-email-address@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

In article <b4d4792c4f.jess@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Jess <phantasm_39@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I don't think he was using the term energy in the literal
scientific meaning.

Indeed. I was just posing a question to the religious fanatics
about how the explain *what* is God? If you start going down the
God is an energy, in the terms of spirit or consciousness etc.,
then you start entering the philosophy of man creating God, rather
than the other way around.

[SNIP]

A second, more common meaning of "evolution" involves the
relationships of species. Here, it has to do with the development of
current forms of life from earlier forms, including common ancestry
relationships. Examples would include the evolution of modern dogs
and wolves from a common ancestor,

Bad example. The molecular evidence is very clear - dogs evolved from
wolves. Not a wolf ancestral species, but wolves themselves. After all,
there's only been a few thousand years for it to happen.

A third meaning is in specific reference to Darwin's theory of
evolution. Since this theory is often misunderstood, it is worth
explaining briefly. In particular, it must be recognized that
Darwinian evolution is not a matter of things developing "just by
random chance." Darwinian evolution has two fundamental pieces.

One is the genetic variation of offspring (which is the "chance" part
and is due both to the normal genetic variations within a species and
to mutations). But the other is "natural selection" (which is not
random), in which the fittest offspring (best suited to their
environment) survive, producing more offspring who pass on their
genes. Over time, this combination of genetic variation and natural
selection produces new species.

[SNIP]

A fourth meaning of "evolution" is the hypothesis that Darwinian
mechanisms explain the development of all life on Earth.

I'm not sure how you differentiate this from meaning 3. A logical
consequence of meaning 3 is there is no need to posit a factor other
than natural selection (was all due deference to neutralism, punctuated
equilibrium, etc), and that invoking one falls foul of Occam's Razor.

Here, things are more speculative. While evolutionary theories
provide a viable explanation (and the best scientific explanation we
have so far), they are not 100% established by any means. These
theories have great explanatory power, and agree well with most
evidence. But the evidence is sparse enough to leave room for doubt,
and there are some things which current evolutionary theory has a
hard time explaining. Much has been made recently of so-called
"irreducibly complex" systems, such as Michael Behe discusses in his
controversial book Darwin's Black Box.

Unfortunately, all of the irreducably complex systems that Behe claims
could not have come into existance are either factually wrong, or can
be shown to be the result of a perfectly explicable sequence of
evolutionary steps.

In the first camp: He claims that the 12(?)-stage process on
blood-clotting in mammals is irreducably complex, an any stage missing
would mean that any mammal would bleed to death. Unfortunately for this
argument, bony fish have a simpler clotting process, consisting of
(IIRC) 4 stages, so either fish blood can't possibly clot (observably
wrong), or it is possible for (say) the mammal-like reptiles to have
started with a simple clotting process, and improved its efficiency (by
adding additional stages) over time.

In the second camp: The bacterial flagellum. This is the one he made
the big thing of in the trial at Dover. The other side then called a
biology professor who totally destroyed the argument, demonstrating
that each of the features thet Behe claimed are unique to the flagellum
are already present in other bacteria, albeit used for a different
purpose. Under re-examination, Behe claimed to find this explanation
"unconvincing". So unconvincing, in fact, that he was later forced to
admit that he had not in fact read it.

The fundamental problem about irreducable complexity (which is
perfectly respectable biological concept) is that Behe quite
unjustifiably makes the assumption that IC implies design. I'm fairly
sure that we have all seen rock formations, consisting of multiple
individual rocks, that form (for example) arches. This is irreducably
complex - remove any single rock, and the whole thing will come
tumbling down. But at the same time, it wasn't artificially built - a
number of rocks were deposited on top of, and around, another (softer)
rock formation. This is quite straightforward, and not irreducably
complex. The actions of wind and water on the softer rock led to it
being weathered away, and voila - an irreducably complex rock arch. No
need to invoke a designer.

I think sometimes scientists, for fear of encouraging abominations
like the "creation science" movement, are reluctant to admit that
there are still unanswered questions with regard to evolution.

Far from it. Any decent scientist will be completely open about the
fact that there is a lot we don't know - abiogenesis is one of the hot
topics in the "don't know" area.

Ultimately, we will be better off if everybody is honest about both
the strengths and weaknesses of this and any other scientific theory.

A fifth meaning of "evolution" is sometimes called "chemical
evolution" or "abiogenesis."

Most scientists in this field would reject the term "evolution" for
abiogenesis.

A sixth way in which "evolution" is sometimes used is to refer to a
metaphysical position in which atheistic philosophy is grafted onto
the science in the mistaken belief that finding a natural explanation
for something puts God out of the picture. An example is Carl Sagan's
line, "The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be."

This isn't a different use of the word evolution - it's using the
pretty standard meaning (common descent with modification, leading to
the variety of life we observe) to come to the conclusion that god is
superfluous.

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Natural selection is a false term - says Darwin in Origin Species
    ... language had any meaning at all. ... Chomsky says that natural selection can't explain where ... Language came from God who have existed since ... evolution for example are used so inter-changeably that nobody even ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: religion
    ... > at the time - but perhaps there just isn't infinity to this process. ... scientists are only just coming to deal with them. ... > I searched PBS thinking Evolution might give me a lead to what I had been ... Does evolution prove there is no God? ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Fundies worry about their own kids. Oh, the horror!
    ... humanistic setting and it is only God who will communicate that to His ... Tell me what is this science you keep refering to because it sounds ... We have observed evolution through mutation and natural selection ... scientists and propagandists with only a political or power agenda. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (long)
    ... you can't believe God until you feel him ... Of course - as long as they don't include the belief that your beliefs ... All the world's scientists have been ... of survival instinct behind evolution? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Well Well Well.... Lookie at what we have here.
    ... Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human ... man "closer to God". ... evolution" argument attempting to con believers into accepting ... serving scientists square with that? ...
    (talk.origins)