Re: "Evolution is smarter than you"

On 15 Aug 2005 17:51:26 -0700, "wade" <wade.hines@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>r norman wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:19:18 -0500, Charles Wilkins
>> >r norman wrote:
>> >> On 30 Jul 2005 11:39:11 -0700, "goozlefotz" <granteer@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >>>Phil Osopher wrote:
>
>> >>>>If you had a button where you could turn off the consciousness of all
>> >>>>living beings, evolution would stop immediately.
>
>> >No, evolution is driven by survival and reproduction, NOT any form of
>> >consciousness.
>
>> >> It must be true. We all know that biological evolution began with the
>> >> origin of life.
>> >
>> >Close ... evolution began immediately AFTER the origin of life.
>> >
>> >> And we all know that consciousness preceded life and
>> >> was a necessary precondition.
>> >
>> >Errrrrrmmmmm ... no.
>> >
>> >> Hence without consciousness there is no
>> >> life and no consciousness.
>> >
>> >Errrrrrmmmmm ... no.
>> >
>> >> Anyway, that is what that logic demands.
>> >
>> >Logic, at least Occam's Razor, requires that one not multiply entities
>> >unnecessarily. All of the diversity of life can be explained
>> >scientifically using ONLY the principles of the Theory of Evolution.
>> >Therefore, no "conscious" or "intelligent" entity is necessary to the
>> >truth of the theory.
>> >
>> >> In other words, intelligent design. It is not our consciousness that
>> >> is required, it is that of the designer.
>> >
>> >Why don't you just get honest enough to say "I WANT to believe ID. I
>> >have no logical support for it, I have no objective evidence for it, but
>> >it is what I WANT to believe." That will get you a lot more respect
>> >around here than trying to convince people you have some superior
>> >understanding of a speculation (I refuse to call it a "theory" because
>> >it is not one) that was created to "defeat scientific materialism" and
>> >"replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that
>> >nature and human beings are created by God", see,
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy.
>> >
>> >There is nothing wrong with a scientist saying, "I don't know" in
>> >response to a question about evolution. Science has a long and
>> >distinguished history of saying, "I don't know," and, in fact, no
>> >scientific progress is possible until someone is willing to say "I don't
>> >know, but I want to find out." By presupposing the answer ("Goddidit"),
>> > ID will destroy not only evolutionary biology, but ALL of science.
>>
>> I certainly don't need to convince people of my superior understanding
>> -- that should be self-evident. And I certainly don't need to
>> persuade people of belief in ID. Perhaps, if you (and Googlefotz,
>> too) were to read what PhilOsopher wrote and then to read what I wrote
>> you would see that all I was doing was carrying PhilOsopher's thoughts
>> to their logical conclusion. You (and Googlefotz) express
>> astonishment and amazement at that result. So do I. And that is
>> exactly why I did it. If you don't like that logical conclusion, then
>> take it up with PhilOsopher!
>
>There are those who think that those Leslie Nielsen movies
>like Airplane represent subtle comedy.

I saw that one and never could understand why the audience seemed to
be laughing uproariously at a modernist refilming of "The High and the
Mighty".



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Activist judge declares that Intelligent Design is not science
    ... Phillip Johnson is known as the father of intelligent design. ... The idea in its current form appeared in the 1980s, and Johnson adopted and developed it after Darwinian evolution came up short, in his view, in explaining how all organisms, including humans, came into being. ... In this interview, hear why he feels that such evidence is "somewhere between weak and nonexistent," why he feels intelligent design is a testable science, and why he thought the Dover trial was a train wreck waiting to happen. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Five major misconceptions for evolution
    ... >> actually using science for once. ... >> Science students are taught the basic law of science that without ... >> philosophy of evolution in direct opposition to science. ... >> Chemical evolution is clearly excluded by the evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Aforementioned paper: Evolution and Creationism.
    ... The conflict between science and creationism in this country is not ... adults were open to the idea of creationism and evolution being taught ... of science, and so thoroughly supported by the evidence, attacks on it ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
    ... I have heard Michael Ruse speak, have read some of his papers and knew he ... teach Creation "Science" as science was struck down due to his testimony. ... While Robert introduced me as a philosopher of science, ... "ALL mutation is random according to evolution theory" {"Oh, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: I recommend this analysis of Dembskis "No Free Lunch"
    ... So the rest of the ID community is, in fact, still religious? ... science has had a preconceived belief structure centered ... for Evolution to even have a shot at working. ... various forms of creationism have done is prohibit the teaching of ID ...
    (talk.origins)