Evolution happened, and the job of science is to describe the physical mechanism. Whether or not it was undirected is not a question science can settle, and which you believe to be the case will depend upon your philosophical presuppositions. Francis Collins would probably disagree with Richard Dawkins about that. But they would both agree upon the physical processes involved.Well, it’s a fictional story. Somebody has to be the bad guy.
Einstein was wrong at times, of course. So are all scientists. Except, apparently when it comes to [undirected random mutations] + natural selection accounting for the complexity of life on Earth.
Actually, that wasn’t the point I was trying to make, although it appears that I did make it accidentally.
The main points I was making were more that:
- The contention that “if physics (or more generally, nature) doesn’t preclude a thing from happening, then it must happen eventually.” (and the sub-contention that “take as much time as required for it to happen eventually”) ((And there’s even another sub-contention that “if there still isn’t enough time for it to happen, then invoke as many universes as you need such that it can happen eventually.”)
- The willingness by believers to accept an outcome as undirected, no matter the improbability of it.
- The attitude of believers towards non-believers. We’re the experts, trust us.
- The unwillingness of believers to ignore the most obvious explanation for something because it doesn’t fit their pre-defined notions (even though those notions might be based on science). This is actually quite an anti-science attitude.
Well, for the record, I believe that random mutations + natural selection can account for some changes…just not all of them, and also not the complex ones.The thing about natural selection is that it explains all the evidence - and there is a lot of evidence. What’s the alternative? That God stuck his magic finger down here to nudge some species to change, or that they never changed at all? You seem to want to pull down the theory that explains it the best just because it’s not 100% proven in a lab.
“Evolution happened”? How do you know that? What gives you the certainty to make that claim?Evolution happened, and the job of science is to describe the physical mechanism. Whether or not it was undirected is not a question science can settle, and which you believe to be the case will depend upon your philosophical presuppositions. Francis Collins would probably disagree with Richard Dawkins about that. But they would both agree upon the physical processes involved.
If you describe evolution merely as “things are different now than they used to be” then we can all say that “it happened.”Evolution happened, and the job of science is to describe the physical mechanism. Whether or not it was undirected is not a question science can settle, and which you believe to be the case will depend upon your philosophical presuppositions. Francis Collins would probably disagree with Richard Dawkins about that. But they would both agree upon the physical processes involved.
nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf“Evolution happened”? How do you know that? What gives you the certainty to make that claim?
The word random is justified because there is no observable rythm or reason to the process. That is the fact. The philosophy comes in when you want to debate whether the apparent randomness is indeed completely random, or whether it just looks that way to us (but not to God).If you describe evolution merely as “things are different now than they used to be” then we can all say that “it happened.”
But the word “Evolution” to most people, including those here, IS the physical mechanism of how different life forms came to be. [Random mutations] + natural selection describes the mechanism.
Thank you for the link. According to Nature, Most Leading Scientists Still Reject God. I am convinced that their scientific work has put them in that position. Since scientific orthodoxy does not allow anyone to say anything about God or the supernatural while doing science, I find it odd that some, professing to know science, find it perfectly acceptable to criticize religion by using science.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
Admittedly they only give 15 examples, and it would need at least a book to do the subject justice. But is is probably fair to say that no amount of evidence would convince a crteationist precisely because they don’t want to be convinced. All we will ever hear from them is “It’s just a theory.”
If that fact is indeed essential to the TOE, then that is why the TOE is incorrect.The word random is justified because there is no observable rythm or reason to the process. That is the fact.
The problem as I see it is that actual randomness does not lead to advanced life. Whether it looks random or not is not the point.The philosophy comes in when you want to debate whether the apparent randomness is indeed completely random, or whether it just looks that way to us (but not to God).
“Scientific orthodoxy” precludes any mention of the super-natural because that is not its sphere of investigation. The physical sciences are there to investigate the natural world/ The super-natural belongs to theology.Since scientific orthodoxy does not allow anyone to say anything about God or the supernatural while doing science,
Atheists who try to use science to “disprove” religion are guilty of the same category error as creationists.I find it odd that some, professing to know science, find it perfectly acceptable to criticize religion by using science.
True.Science is a human enterprise
No evidence of that.and has become corrupted.
The fact that atheists try to use evolution to attack religion does not make evolution untrue.Evolution is the primary weapon of the atheist. It is the explanation for why there is no God just purely natural occurrences which, on occasion, accidently produce men.
If even Michael Behe finds it difficult to deny the evidence in favour of evolution, I would say that creationists going to have a hard job on their hands trying to rubbish it.In the constant use of slogans like evolution is more certain than gravity, all I can say is I can test gravity as often as I like by dropping something. In 100 out of 100 tries, it will fall to the ground.
If you drop a cricket ball onto a sheet of glass, the result will look pretty random because their is no discernable rhym or reason why the glass should break precisely in the way it does, or why the fragments fly apart in the way they do. That apparent randomness does not, however, entitle you to conclude that there are no causal laws operating.Things don’t “look random”, they either are random or they are not random. God cannot make a square circle, not because it is beyond his power, but because square and circle are logically mutually exclusive concepts.
Evolution has got nothing to say on that subject; even if Richard Dawkins has.Now if you want to argue that “it looks random on the surface, but is not really random when all the facts come in” then I can actually meet you part way. But keep in mind that Evolution does not say that complex life was created by “apparently random but not really random mutations, plus natural selection.”
\If that fact is indeed essential to the TOE, then that is why the TOE is incorrect.
The problem as I see it is that actual randomness does not lead to advanced life. Whether it looks random or not is not the point.
You seem to be arguing here that “we know that randomness works, because, HERE WE ARE!” which was actually one of the things I was mocking in my story…
Things don’t “look random”, they either are random or they are not random. God cannot make a square circle, not because it is beyond his power, but because square and circle are logically mutually exclusive concepts.
Now if you want to argue that “it looks random on the surface, but is not really random when all the facts come in” then I can actually meet you part way. But keep in mind that Evolution does not say that complex life was created by “apparently random but not really random mutations, plus natural selection.” It uses random in the sense of “actually random.”
Random mutation is not essential. Mutations have been observed to be random with respect to their effect on the phenotype. The Luria-Delbrück experiment is just one such experiment. Evolution would still work if mutations were directed. To date no directed mutations have been observed, except in human-produced genetically modified species.If that fact is indeed essential to the TOE, then that is why the TOE is incorrect.
Abiogenesis is not random. Abiogenesis is chemistry, and chemistry is not a random process. Nor is evolution a purely random process. Natural selection is not a random process.The problem as I see it is that actual randomness does not lead to advanced life. Whether it looks random or not is not the point.
Evolution uses “random” in the sense of “random with respect to the effect on the phenotype”. We know that mutations can have causes - radiation, some chemicals etc. In this case “random” does not mean “uncaused”, it is more in the sense of “undirected”. The apparent direction in evolution is produced by natural selection, not by random mutation.But keep in mind that Evolution does not say that complex life was created by “apparently random but not really random mutations, plus natural selection.” It uses random in the sense of “actually random.”
I recommend this article by Cardinal Schoenborn:Random mutation is not essential. Mutations have been observed to be random with respect to their effect on the phenotype. The Luria-Delbrück experiment is just one such experiment. Evolution would still work if mutations were directed. To date no directed mutations have been observed, except in human-produced genetically modified species.
Abiogenesis is not random. Abiogenesis is chemistry, and chemistry is not a random process. Nor is evolution a purely random process. Natural selection is not a random process.
Evolution uses “random” in the sense of “random with respect to the effect on the phenotype”. We know that mutations can have causes - radiation, some chemicals etc. In this case “random” does not mean “uncaused”, it is more in the sense of “undirected”. The apparent direction in evolution is produced by natural selection, not by random mutation.
rossum
Bending Science:“Scientific orthodoxy” precludes any mention of the super-natural because that is not its sphere of investigation. The physical sciences are there to investigate the natural world/ The super-natural belongs to theology.
Atheists who try to use science to “disprove” religion are guilty of the same category error as creationists.
True.
No evidence of that.
The fact that atheists try to use evolution to attack religion does not make evolution untrue.
If even Michael Behe finds it difficult to deny the evidence in favour of evolution, I would say that creationists going to have a hard job on their hands trying to rubbish it.
Governments and corporations sometimes bend the truth to suit themselves. So what’s new?Bending Science:
hup.harvard.edu/catalog/MCGBEN.html
Except that in times of war both belligerants indulge in propaganda, I am not sure what that is supposed to prove either.During the war in Vietnam, an American psychological warfare unit established a newspaper and radio station. Why did they do that? To convince the people that something only partly true or totally untrue was factual. I am tired of having my trust abused. It has happened to Catholics in the past, and I was there, that we were convinced to go along with something that was not true or good.
You felt the need to not just post it here:
Thanks Reggie.
Cannot be what by definition?But by sciences own definition they cannot be. It is a trap to be sure.