Design Through Evolution

[Fran65]

He exists as a product of 4 billion years of evolving, self replicating molecules. He seeks to survive because animals with a survial drive had/have a greater chance of surviving until reproduction.

This is what is known as a circular argument. You have not answered the question, other than to say that man seeks to survive…because he seeks to survive. Why does he seek to survive?

Wanstronian, you have not answered my questions either.

It is acceptable to say that you prefer to see the universe as a brute fact if that is the case. The preference is no better, rationally, than the preference of Theists to believe in God. It could be said that the acceptance of the universe and its physical laws as ‘brute facts’ is a matter of faith.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

This is what is known as a circular argument. You have not answered the question, other than to say that man seeks to survive…because he seeks to survive. Why does he seek to survive?

I didn’t say that.

I said animals that had/have a greater drive to survive had/have a greater chance of surviving to reproduce. There is nothing circular about it???

 

[wanstronian]

This is what is known as a circular argument. You have not answered the question, other than to say that man seeks to survive…because he seeks to survive. Why does he seek to survive?

He seeks to survive to reproduce. The base urge in all life. You need no higher purpose.

Wanstronian, you have not answered my questions either.

I thought I had, by asking why a higher purpose would be necessary

It is acceptable to say that you prefer to see the universe as a brute fact if that is the case. The preference is no better, rationally, than the preference of Theists to believe in God. It could be said that the acceptance of the universe and its physical laws as ‘brute facts’ is a matter of faith.

I see them as not needing the question ‘Why’ to be asked. It’s not a matter of faith, it’s a matter of simply accepting the evidence I see all around me. The only reason to ask ‘why’ is if you already plan to answer it with, “Because God made it that way.”

 

[Fran65]

He seeks to survive to reproduce. The base urge in all life. You need no higher purpose.

I thought I had, by asking why a higher purpose would be necessary."

Because we need an answer to the question why man tries to survive. Survival is hard. its astruggle, so why are creatures trying to stay alive and propogate? It is a basic function of science to try to explain findings. man tries to survive - so why does he? Its not an unreasonable question!

I see them as not needing the question ‘Why’ to be asked. It’s not a matter of faith, it’s a matter of simply accepting the evidence I see all around me. The only reason to ask ‘why’ is if you already plan to answer it with, “Because God made it that way.”

I see. You can’t answer the question so its not a question worth asking.

As for accepting the evidence - absolutely. But again the question remains ‘why?’. Why is there something rather than nothing? Where has the universe come from? Why is it changing? Why are physical laws in existence? Where do they come from? Why are you looking at something and thinking about what it is you’re looking at? Why have we evolved consciousness? (Ooooooo - a Catholic who accepts evolution!)

Any good scientist wants to know why. That’s what science does: asks and at least tries to answer questions.

I have my answer. Now what’s yours?

As I said before, you can say ‘brute fact’ - but you seem reluctant. Why is that?

 

[Fran65]

I didn’t say that.

I said animals that had/have a greater drive to survive had/have a greater chance of surviving to reproduce. There is nothing circular about it???

No, …you were answering the question why does man try and survive and you said that he tries to survive because he’s then more likely to survive and reproduce.

That is circular.

You still haven’t told me why man tries to survive!

So, why does man try and survive? Why does he seek to reproduce? Remember, you can’t say that its to survive!

 

[Charles_Darwin]

No, …you were answering the question why does man try and survive and you said that he tries to survive because he’s then more likely to survive and reproduce.

That is circular.

You still haven’t told me why man tries to survive!

So, why does man try and survive? Why does he seek to reproduce? Remember, you can’t say that its to survive!

No i didnt.

They have been handed down from our ancestors due to the fact they provided a survival advantage. Its not rocket science.

 

[Fran65]

No i didnt.

They have been handed down from our ancestors due to the fact they provided a survival advantage. Its not rocket science.

So your answer is that man wants to survive because he wants to survive because that helped the species (man) survive.

Thanks for that.

 

[MindOverMatter]

He seeks to survive because animals with a survial drive had/have a greater chance of surviving until reproduction.

This is a flawed arguement. According to “Naturalism” and the theory of “Evolution”, raw nature, in so far as we are describing the parts that make up an organism, is blind to any particular “end”. Human beings seek to survive because they want to live, they want to remain “alive”. This has nothing to do with survival advantages.

If there is only “physical reality” in existence, one cannot say that a thing has a particular quality “because” it is objectively advantageous for it to have it. This implies objective purpose and meaning. This is contradictory to your position.

He seeks to survive because animals with a survial drive had/have a greater chance of surviving until reproduction.

This explains why organisms are better suited to survive in particular environments. Nobody is disputing the Theory of Evolution. They are disputing that the theory is logically capable of explaining everything about the natural order, such as why organisms try to survive and work toward meaningful ends, such as staying alive and developing methods of defense which exude objective meaning and purpose in that it helps an organism achieve a specific end and is actualized/executed to that effect.There is big difference. That an organism survives better in a particular environment is besides the point. Nobody is disputing that there are in fact natural benefits which are accidental by-products of nature rather then purposeful intentions of some kind of creator; and in so far as particular environments support the endurance of particular structures you are right to speak of “natural selection”. But one cannot say this about “objective meaning”. There is no basis for saying that its just an illusion or that it evolved. The objective meaning we find in life is required before the evolution of organisms can take place. Random variations coupled with mutation and environment still doesn’t explain why organisms work towards objectively meaningful ends such as survival. Where does the information come from? Where does the quality come from? Where does the objective meaning come from? Evolution and raw nature is not aware of life and yet it labors to that effect. You are just saying that the chemical laws, and all the qualities that result, just exist, which is not an answer at all in regards to finding a sufficient explanation; instead you are just stating a fact that has no real relevance in terms of finding a rational answer. Your error is that you think that the scientific process is sufficient for answering all questions concerning objective reality and our experiences. And you assume that physics needs no explanation. You assume absolute naturalism in your premise and thus assume its rationality with out justification and that is why you ought to be accused of circular reasoning.

 

[wanstronian]

Because we need an answer to the question why man tries to survive. Survival is hard. its astruggle, so why are creatures trying to stay alive and propogate? It is a basic function of science to try to explain findings. man tries to survive - so why does he? Its not an unreasonable question!

No, I guess it’s not. However, to postulate, as I believe you’re doing, that there is an ultimate purpose to all human endeavour that lies outside our understanding is just senseless. There is no reason to suppose that there is a deeper purpose. However, to assume there is can, I suppose, provide a comfort blanket for the ignorant and insecure. From that perspective it’s possible that the tendency to ask such questions has arisen as an offshoot of evolution.

I see. You can’t answer the question so its not a question worth asking.

No, you’re just stealing my argument. I repeat, the only reason to ask such a question is if you have an answer ready-made to make it sound like a valid question. But if you must ask the question, the answer is, “Nobody knows.” That’s no reason to go hypothesising ultimate beings and other such claptrap.

As for accepting the evidence - absolutely. But again the question remains ‘why?’. Why is there something rather than nothing?

Why not? Why must there be a purpose?

Where has the universe come from? Why is it changing? Why are physical laws in existence? Where do they come from? Why are you looking at something and thinking about what it is you’re looking at? Why have we evolved consciousness?

Nobody knows. If you need God to fill the gaps, then fill your boots. It means nothing.

Any good scientist wants to know why. That’s what science does: asks and at least tries to answer questions.

Indeed, and science is trying to find out how come the universe exists.They’re not trying to find out why, in terms of a purpose, it exists. You need to be careful with your semantics if you’re going to try and put science on your side.

I have my answer. Now what’s yours?

As I said before, you can say ‘brute fact’ - but you seem reluctant. Why is that?

Not reluctant at all. If you actually want me to type those words then okay:
Based on what we know about our universe, there is no reason to believe that the universe holds any deeper, supernatural purpose. Its existence is, as far as we can reliably tell, brute fact.

Happy now?

 

[wanstronian]

So your answer is that man wants to survive because he wants to survive because that helped the species (man) survive.

Thanks for that.

You can be flippant, but the survival instinct is well known and documented, as is the procreation instinct. There is NO reason to suppose that there is a higher purpose behind it.

 

[wanstronian]

MindOverMatter,

I’d say your mission isn’t going well so far. You’ve said nothing that justifies a diversion from atheism.

 

[MindOverMatter]

MindOverMatter,

I’d say your mission isn’t going well so far. You’ve said nothing that justifies a diversion from atheism.

I have given sufficient logical proof that neither Naturalism or Evolution, in principle, is logically sufficient in explaining the existence of empirical reality or the objective meaning we find in it. In other words your position is irrational.

At this point you can either agree to disagree, or prove me wrong.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

This is a flawed arguement. According to “Naturalism” and the theory of “Evolution”, raw nature, in so far as we are describing the parts that make up an organism, is blind to any particular “end”. Human beings seek to survive because they want to live, they want to remain “alive”. This has nothing to do with survival advantages.

If there is only “physical reality” in existence, one cannot say that a thing has a particular quality “because” it is objectively advantageous for it to have it. This implies objective purpose and meaning. This is contradictory to your position.

This explains why organisms are better suited to survive in particular environments. Nobody is disputing the Theory of Evolution. They are disputing that the theory is logically capable of explaining everything about the natural order, such as why organisms try to survive and work toward meaningful ends, such as staying alive and developing methods of defense which exude objective meaning and purpose in that it helps an organism achieve a specific end and is actualized/executed to that effect.There is big difference. That an organism survives better in a particular environment is besides the point. Nobody is disputing that there are in fact natural benefits which are accidental by-products of nature rather then purposeful intentions of some kind of creator; and in so far as particular environments support the endurance of particular structures you are right to speak of “natural selection”. But one cannot say this about “objective meaning”. There is no basis for saying that its just an illusion or that it evolved. The objective meaning we find in life is required before the evolution of organisms can take place. Random variations coupled with mutation and environment still doesn’t explain why organisms work towards objectively meaningful ends such as survival. Where does the information come from? Where does the quality come from? Where does the objective meaning come from? Evolution and raw nature is not aware of life and yet it labors to that effect. You are just saying that the chemical laws, and all the qualities that result, just exist, which is not an answer at all in regards to finding a sufficient explanation; instead you are just stating a fact that has no real relevance in terms of finding a rational answer. Your error is that you think that the scientific process is sufficient for answering all questions concerning objective reality and our experiences. And you assume that physics needs no explanation. You assume absolute naturalism in your premise and thus assume its rationality with out justification and that is why you ought to be accused of circular reasoning.

The problem is you misunderstand evolution. Evolution is not about “survival advantages”, its about organisms survive to reproduce.

Ok lets take our distant ancestors. They were pray animals that evolved in africa. So, Lets say we’re in the middle of the dry season and water is sparse. Our ancestors would have to share watering holes with predators. What happens to all the ansectors that dont run away when the predators get to close? They get eaten. They don’t reproduce, they don’t survive. So it is very much a survival advantage, which in turn is handed down to the next generation when the organism reproduces.

I have a question for you, given that you believe when you die you are off to heaven why don’t you want to die now, why would you want to live on earth?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I have given sufficient logical proof that neither Naturalism or Evolution, in principle, is logically sufficient in explaining the existence of empirical reality or the objective meaning we find in it. In other words your position is irrational.

At this point you can either agree to disagree, or prove me wrong.

No, you haven’t. You only think you have. Your reason = “I don’t understand how evolution could have done X, therefore god did it.” Pretty arrogant if you ask me. Some of us do understand how evolution works, but then some of us have actually studied the subject.

 

[Benadam]

No, you haven’t. You only think you have. Your reason = “I don’t understand how evolution could have done X, therefore god did it.” Pretty arrogant if you ask me. Some of us do understand how evolution works, but then some of us have actually studied the subject.

The substance of the argument doesn’t question how evolution resulted in X but answers the question of why evolution rsulted in X. Atheists say survival is the why of evolution. I can’t buy that. If that were so tree’s transcend all. Evolution has been a futile process ever since. In fact as life organizes more complex forms to operate from surviving becomes the more difficult. If survival is the answer to why evolution made X happen it’s been a monumental failure.

 

[MindOverMatter]

No, you haven’t. You only think you have. Your reason = “I don’t understand how evolution could have done X, therefore god did it.” Pretty arrogant if you ask me. Some of us do understand how evolution works, but then some of us have actually studied the subject.

I do understand evolution. Making unproven statements is not going to make it otherwise. I suggest you back up your statements, because i believe i understand it better then you. And because i understand it, i know that it cannot explain physical reality and the existence of objective meaning and irreducible complex information. Perhaps you should show me what i don’t understand and show me how evolution explains objective meaning, irreducible complex information, the desire to live, the existence of love, emotion, subjective feelings, mind. How does evolution explain the particularities of chemical laws, the very thing that is required before evolution can take place. You refuse to take my post point for point, and you fail to understand the limits of scientific explanation. I said in a past post that physics cannot explain everything in principle of its own limitations and nature and i explained why. I suggest you re-read them. It has nothing to do with knowledge. If we want to explain physics, chemical law, and all of that which goes with it, then we must, out of necessity, speak of a transcendent cause that is not physical. You seem to think that its a matter of knowledge, that some how one day science will find the answer in physical terms, because you assume naturalism out of some blind principle; not rationality. Its never going to explain it. Its a matter of logical principle. In principle of its nature, physical reality, natural laws, cannot possibly give a sufficient or rational explanation of objective meaning, physical reality, natural laws, chemical law, irreducibly complex information, or why biology tends to purposeful ends, and i have already explained why.

Unless your willing to do more then say i disagree and make unsupported claims about what i know and don’t know, then i suggest you agree to disagree full-stop, because i really don’t see why you keep posting and claiming to be rational when you are not. I can only hope that readers are not fooled by your dishonest form of debating.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

The substance of the argument doesn’t question how evolution resulted in X but answers the question of why evolution rsulted in X. Atheists say survival is the why of evolution. I can’t buy that. If that were so tree’s transcend all. Evolution has been a futile process ever since. In fact as life organizes more complex forms to operate from surviving becomes the more difficult. If survival is the answer to why evolution made X happen it’s been a monumental failure.

Eh?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I do understand evolution. Making unproven statements is not going to make it otherwise. I suggest you back up your statements, because i believe i understand it better then you.

Really? What seat of learning did you study at?

And because i understand it, i know that it cannot explain physical reality and the existence of objective meaning and irreducible complex information. Perhaps you should show me what i don’t understand and show me how evolution explains objective meaning, irreducible complex information, the desire to live, the existence of love, emotion, subjective feelings, mind.

Irreducible complexity has been debunked countless times. If you understand it then you would know this. Also if you understand why are you asking such questions?

**How does evolution explain the particularities of chemical laws, the very thing that is required before evolution can take place. **

If you understand it, why are you asking for it to explain chemical laws?

You refuse to take my post point for point, and you fail to understand the limits of scientific explanation.

What limits?

**I said in a past post that physics cannot explain everything in principle of its own limitations and nature and i explained why. **

Yep you said, but you have proven you don’t understand evolution so why should i care what you say. Besides what does physics have to do with evolution?

I suggest you re-read them. It has nothing to do with knowledge. If we want to explain physics, chemical law, and all of that which goes with it, then we must, out of necessity, speak of a transcendent cause that is not physical.

Again nothing to do with evolution.
**
You seem to think that its a matter of knowledge, that some how one day science will find the answer in physical terms, because you assume naturalism out of some blind principle; not rationality.**

I don’t assume anything i follow the evidence, and again this has nothing to do with evolution.

**Its never going to explain it. Its a matter of logical principle. In principle of its nature, physical reality, natural laws, cannot possibly give a sufficient or rational explanation of objective meaning, physical reality, natural laws, chemical law, irreducibly complex information, or why biology tends to purposeful ends, and i have already explained why. **
Your all over the place.

Unless your willing to do more then say i disagree and make unsupported claims about what i know and don’t know, then i suggest you agree to disagree full-stop, because i really don’t see why you keep posting and claiming to be rational when you are not. I can only hope that readers are not fooled by your dishonest form of debating.

…

 

[MindOverMatter]

**
Really? What seat of learning did you study at?**

All you have to do, if you can be bothered, is go to a good library.

Irreducible complexity has been debunked countless times.

Irreducible complex “information” has been debunked? You don’t even understand what i mean by that, you just assume that I’m talking about Behe’s theory. No. I don’t think that you even bothered to read my posts properly.

If you understand it, why are you asking for it to explain chemical laws?

You claimed that evolution can explain it. Not me. Of course evolution cannot account for it. You said that evolution can explain why organisms strive to stay alive, but you cannot even begin to answer that question with out taking into account the laws of chemistry. All you have managed to do is make the error of associating the desire for life and the striving of life with an organisms ability to survive within a particular environment, and then claiming that the environment is the cause of why organisms strive for life. Such an error is not made by somebody who knows the theory of evolution.

What limits?

You don’t know that science has limits?
You have poor conceptual abilities.
I have already explained this, and if you are humble enough to learn, you will find the answer in my previous posts.

Yep you said, but you have proven you don’t understand evolution

Where? Explain yourself.

Besides what does physics have to do with evolution?

What does physics have to do with evolution??? Are you serious? Are you saying that physics isn’t involved in biological processes?!!

Again nothing to do with evolution.

Are you saying that chemical laws have nothing to do with biological processes?!! This shows how much you know, and how much you are prepared to understand.

I don’t assume anything i follow the evidence,

I follow logic and evidence. Please show me how the evidence explains and disproves the necessity of my OP.

Charles_Darwin:
Your all over the place.

You are refusing to face the facts. Every post you have made has been an attempt to avoid the questions given; all you have done is make baseless assertions. Thats a shame; its not a sign of somebody who values reason.

 

[j1akey]

MindOverMatter:

Physical reality cannot ultimately account for why there are such things as emotions or the laws of chemistry or the laws of physics for that matter. Evolution cannot explain why so many useful qualities emerge that evidently work toward the bennefit of “life” and move toward meaningful ends. Evolution can only describe the processes that led to the actuality of a particulor quality. However; one could argue that evolution also produces alot of waste, which is correct, but that is to be expected in a system designed to evolve naturally. This still doesn’t explain the many meaningful and positve qualities that we do percieve. In fact evolution only works because of the over abundence of positive, meaningfull, and life sustaining qualities that do emerge, such as defence mechanisms, immune systems ect.

If we want to honestly explain the laws of chemistry or physics (without which there is no evolution) as a whole, we must transcend physical reality altogether and postulate the neccesary existence of a “transcendent hirachical inteligent cause”.

Does anybody wish to argue against this?
I hope you do not love your atheism, because its is my mission to destroy it.

Ok…first of all, atheism has nothing to do with evolution so this just looks like a holy crusade to tell us we’re all a bunch of retards more than anything else.

I know plenty of Catholics and Christians that think don’t think evolution is false so I’m not sure why you’re targeting Atheists specifically. You don’t like what we think so you go around trying to pick fights? It doesn’t matter what anyone says in support of evolution, you’re basically going to call them a dumb**s anyway so why even bother to debate with you about how it’s right or wrong?

Oh and by the way, based on what you’ve put up here so far I’m in no danger of not being an atheist anymore, in fact what you’ve said so far throughout this thread just reinforces my non-belief.