What? Questioning evolution is not science denial?

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 8, 2017

Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, science education}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

What pre-extinguished boffin said that? From Fern Elsdon-Baker at Guardian:

We clearly need to be careful not to assume that when people say they are rejecting “evolutionary science”, they are rejecting all scientific research or indeed all of what we might think of as evolutionary science. ‘Evolution’ as a term has gained a mishmash of cultural baggage over the years, not least a strong association with ‘New Atheist’ movements. Some may just reject it out of hand because they assume you have to be an atheist to accept evolutionary science. Our data suggests that ‘genetics’ doesn’t appear to have this baggage.

Furthermore, doubts about evolutionary science frequently appear to be related to the perceived limitations of evolutionary science-based explanations for human origins and human consciousness. For many respondents it appears that genetics can be more easily divorced from these bigger questions. Although we found that it was much more likely that religious or spiritual people would express doubts about aspects of human origins and evolution, doubts were also to a lesser degree expressed across non-religious or non-spiritual people – including atheists. This was most noticeable when we asked about evolutionary explanations for the existence of human consciousness. Just over half of religious or spiritual people in both countries thought human consciousness could not be explained by evolutionary processes. Astonishingly, we also found that over 1 in 3 of Canadian atheists, and nearly 1 in 5 UK atheists felt the same. More.

Of course, in the real world, why is that astonishing? No reasonable person could read the rubbish on human consciousness published in the pop science media and come away taking it seriously.

To the extent that Darwinians believe that the human mind is coterminous with the chimpanzee mind, they tend to sneer at the intelligence of the people who pay their salaries and put up with their ravings (up to a point). Then wonder why that doesn’t usually work. Our favorite example is calling on world-famous anti-religious bigot Richard Dawkins to explain “evolution” to doubtful schoolkids.

Never mind. Another day. Another grant. Maybe a chance to shut down doubters.

See also: Prof claims to know how to slam dunk creationists

What great physicists have said about immateriality and consciousness

and

Would we give up naturalism to solve the hard problem of consciousness?

Comments

CR @ 19: Origenes has already answered you to my satisfaction, but here goes. Your bits on a flash drive have no meaning independent from an agent that can properly interpret and act on them. They are contextually dependent, and without self agency. Knowledge is contextually, and completely reliant on the system which hosts, maintains, and employs it, which must meet certain thresholds of capability. Dogs may learn to lick toads for a high; maybe even demonstrate to other dogs; but they'll never make use of that cure to cancer on that flash drive. Their brains lack, not just the specific language, but the language capacity and the ability for tool usage. Also, as Origenes has already pointed out, anyone sufficiently capable of interpreting and making use of a cure to cancer on a flash drive must have a pretty good knowledge of the subject matter to even use it. They're not going to mistake it for somebody's tax returns and then accidentally synthesize the cure to cancer while trying to angle in on a paper trail. So, again, the knowledge is nothing outside of a system lacking the proper, compatible functions of interpretation and dispatch.LocalMinimum_{September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

@Origenes My criticism, and therefore my point, is right there in my comment. It's illustrated in the thought experiment about ordering the plans for X but accidentally receiving Z. As an intelligent agent, the intent to transform raw materials into X is not sufficient to actually result in X. It's only when the requisite knowledge of what actual transformations to perform is actually present there that you get X. The same goes for your belief that said plans will result in X. You get Z regardless if you believe they will result in X. So, you must have some additional assumption beyond merely being an intelligent agent, which is not explicit in the theory of ID. I cannot "choose" for some bits of information on a flash drive to be the cure for cancer. Any such bits will only actually cure cancer when they actually contain the knowledge of how to transform cancer cells in a way that causes their death, while not transforming healthy cells. My intent for arranging said bits is insufficient to cause them to cure cancer. The same goes for a belief I might have that they represent a curer. Neither of which will somehow magically cause those bits to actually cure cancer. That only happens when the requisite knowledge is present. I don't see why this is such a difficult criticism to understand. Oh, that's right. It's difficult because ID's intelligent designer is actually God, and he somehow magically brings about states of affairs merely with his will and intent.critical rationalist_{September 13, 2017
September
09
Sep
13
13
2017
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

Origenes @ 17: Glad to be of service!
If anyone speaks in a tongue, two, or at most three, should speak in turn, and someone must interpret. But if there is no interpreter, he should remain silent in the church and speak only to himself and God.
Indeed!LocalMinimum_{September 13, 2017
September
09
Sep
13
13
2017
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

LocalMinimum @16 Thank you for clarifying CR's position. His proposal seems to be that everything can be disconnected from each other. For instance, knowledge has nothing to do with belief or intent, the watchmaker has nothing to do with designing a watch and, indeed, the watchmaker's fingers have probably nothing to with his mind. This reductionism leads to clarity, at least in CR's mind. Central is the notion that "knowledge" creates itself, independent from mind or anything else.Origenes_{September 12, 2017
September
09
Sep
12
12
2017
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

Origenes @ 15: Well, you did say watchmaker, not designer; which could be construed, by some contrivance, however unnecessary, strained, dishonest, or otherwise; as someone who didn't actually design the watch. If you, too; imagined that the storage, acquisition, interpretation, implementation, and even original development of the knowledge of the construction of the watch all came for free; you, too, could see it as knowledge free from process! In fact, we can automate watchmaking with mindless machines; though their design would far more sophisticated than a simple watch, and would probably employ many timing devices in multiple functions. And they'd require a power source, some manner of engine whose fuel had to be refined and transported via some logistics chain or a power grid which would include a system of such dependent engines. But the explicit act of making of the watch could be reduced to a mindless process. Of course, we could just do it with the Watchmaker's fingers, as we know that fingers have no mind of their own, and are only incidentally connected to a mindful being.LocalMinimum_{September 12, 2017
September
09
Sep
12
12
2017
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

CR @14
CR: As an intelligent agent, I could start with raw materials and attempt to adapt them for a purpose of doing something, like telling time. However, my mere intention does not result in an actual watch that tells time. Nor would my belief that following certain steps would result in a working watch, necessary bring that about, in reality.
A watchmaker is an intelligent agent who is capable of designing and manufacturing a watch. Obviously if a wannabee watchmaker suffers from paralysis he is unable to build a watch and is therefore not a watchmaker. Also if a wannabee watchmaker doesn’t have the knowledge to build a watch he is not a watchmaker in any logical sense of the word. What is your point?
CR: Knowelge is independent of anyone’s belief or intent.
Does not follow. Obviously a belief or intent steers one in the direction of relevant knowledge.
CR: Watchmakers are actual watchmakers virtue of actually making watches. They possess the knowege of how to make watches.
Again, what is your point?
CR: Flipping the example, imagine if you wanted to make a metronome but was shipped the plans for a watch instead. If you followed the instructions, you would be a watchmaker, not a metronome maker, despite having a different intention and purpose in mind.
By “watchmaker” is meant an intelligent agent who is capable of designing and manufacturing a watch. You seem to think that a watchmaker is someone who can order and follow instructions by ppl who do know how to build watches. That is an absurd definition.
CR: So, when I say “a purpose” I mean, solve a problem.
What?Origenes_{September 12, 2017
September
09
Sep
12
12
2017
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

@Origenes
The watchmaker purposely designed watches to tell the time. So watches fulfill the purpose intended by the watchmaker. Ok got it.
As an intelligent agent, I could start with raw materials and attempt to adapt them for a purpose of doing something, like telling time. However, my mere intention does not result in an actual watch that tells time. Nor would my belief that following certain steps would result in a working watch, necessary bring that about, in reality. For example, if I ordered the plans for a watch and was accidentally shipped plans for, say, a metronome instead, would my belief or intention result in actually building a watch if I followed the instructions to the letter? No, it would not. Knowelge is independent of anyone’s belief or intent. That only happens when the requisite knowlege is actually present there. Watchmakers are actual watchmakers virtue of actually making watches. They possess the knowege of how to make watches. Flipping the example, imagine if you wanted to make a metronome but was shipped the plans for a watch instead. If you followed the instructions, you would be a watchmaker, not a metronome maker, despite having a different intention and purpose in mind. So, when I say “a purpose” I mean, solve a problem.critical rationalist_{September 11, 2017
September
09
Sep
11
11
2017
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

CR: The appearance of design is being well adapted to serve a purpose.
Origenes: Whose purpose?

CR: To use Paley’s thought experiment, watches are well adapted to the purpose of telling time.
The watchmaker purposely designed watches to tell the time. So watches fulfill the purpose intended by the watchmaker. Ok got it.
CR: This is the appearance of design.
The appearance of the design of actual design. Because watches are actually designed by watchmakers. Right?Origenes_{September 9, 2017
September
09
Sep
9
09
2017
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

@Origenes To use Paley’s thought experiment, watches are well adapted to the purpose of telling time. They solve a problem. They cannot be significantly varied without also significantly reducing their ability to tell time, if at all. This is the appearance of design.critical rationalist_{September 9, 2017
September
09
Sep
9
09
2017
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

CR: The appearance of design is being well adapted to serve a purpose.
Whose purpose?Origenes_{September 9, 2017
September
09
Sep
9
09
2017
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't explain photosynthesisET_{September 9, 2017
September
09
Sep
9
09
2017
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

@Barry Evolutionary processes do not explain consciousness. That’s like expecting evolution to explain photosynthesis. These are two different things. For example, although there are still a few aspects that we do not understand, the details of how plants turn water, light and CO into oxygen and glucose were not understood until the 1900’s. However, we had an explantion for how the knowege of how plants ended up with that feature before then. Namely, Darwins’ theory of evolution. Furthermore, it’s unclear how saying human beings are conscious because “that’s just what some conscious being must have wanted” explains consciousness. I’m really quite baffled by how you think this actuall makes any sense. Specifically, some being that “just was” compete with consciousness, already present, serves no explantory purpose. This is because one could more efficiently state that human beings “just appeared”, complete with consciousness, already present. All you’ve done is pushed the problem up a level without improving it. IOW, it’s as if you’ve merely pushed the food around on your plate and claimed to have eaten it. Yet, it still there staring you in the face. For this to make any sense, what you probably mean when you say “explain” is actually “justifiy”. Evolution doesn’t “justify” conciousness, which of course it doesn’t. Justificationism fails spectacularly when we attempt to take is seriously, because it’s impossible. Apparently, it works, because it worked in the past, except it didn’t actually work in the past either. But, by all means, feel free to explain how it actually works, in practice. You’ll be quite famous in philosophy circles and might even win a Nobel Prize! So, I’d suggest the very idea that it is possible, despite people pointing out out those fatal flaws, is an example of people believing in something no rational person can believe.critical rationalist_{September 9, 2017
September
09
Sep
9
09
2017
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

Note on "pre-extinguished boffin": It means someone like Bret Weinstein who, having tried to inject a note of rationality into an academic environment, can't come back due to fears for his own safety. This is tending to happen more and more now that reason is a Convention refugee from most campuses. A prof who even raises the question whether questioning "evolution" is science denial may be forced into humiliating professions of loyalty to randomly assorted crap he dare not evaluate. Let's hope it doesn't happen. Cf: The "Aren't I good?" girls.News_{September 9, 2017
September
09
Sep
9
09
2017
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT}

@polistra I would agree that the biosphere exhibits the appearance of design. The question is, what is the appearance of design? ID proponents say it has something to do with bits of information, etc. however, I would suggest it’s something more fundamental. The appearance of design is being well adapted to serve a purpose. More specificity, it is when something cannot be modified significantly without also significantly reducing its ability to serve that purpose. Notice that actually describes a “string of bits” embedded in a physical storage medium. The medium has been well adapted to serve the purpose of storing that information. And knowledge is information that plays a causal role in being retained. It cannot be varied significantly without reducing its ability to play that very same casual role in being retained. Also note that human designers are well adapted for the purpose of designing things. We cannot be modified significantly without significantly reducing our ability to serve that purpose, as well. As would, say, some advanced alien civilization, etc. IOW, It’s unclear how the explanation for being well adapted to serve a purpose can itself be, being well adapted to serve a purpose. That merely pushes the problem up a level without improving it.critical rationalist_{September 9, 2017
September
09
Sep
9
09
2017
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

I'll bet they'd get even more "astonishing" results with a differently worded question. Their question: "Humans and other living things were created by God and have always existed in their current form." I've always been an atheist, so I'd say No to the above question, but I'd say a loud and firm YES to this question: "Humans and other living things were created, and have always existed in their current form." All the evidence points in this direction.polistra_{September 9, 2017
September
09
Sep
9
09
2017
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT}

NEWS, another fabulous and truly flabergasting sentence; what does this mean; "What pre-extinguished boffin said that?" 'Pre-extinguished?' The simple fact that I gain from the article is that the number of atheists is growing at a fantastic rate. This growth is largely driven by youth, and many of these young are newly turned from their unsatisfactory faiths, (failing dismally to give answers to what we are doing here, and why we are human etc). It is to be expected that their grasp on their new approach to questions of origins and meaning are a little unclear, let me as a fully mature atheist explain it for you. This will let you understand where these young atheists will eventually be, in their understanding of life. "You, are lucky to be here, the chances of your existance are so astronomically tiny that you may fall into the arrogant myth, that a specific God cares for you or made you; don't do that. There is no purpose to the universe, and your job is to pass on your gentic material, and nothing more. Along the way you may enjoy your lucky existance by making friends, fulfilling your evolved curiosity, and loving your family. The End!"rvb8_{September 8, 2017
September
09
Sep
8
08
2017
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT}

A/mats embrace and promote a faith-based philosophy called naturalism. The idea that their particular brand of faith is uniquely supported by science is completely debunked. Only the truly stupid ones continue to speak with Dawkinesque arrogance and certainty. The intelligent ones have been humbled...by modern science.Truth Will Set You Free_{September 8, 2017
September
09
Sep
8
08
2017
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

"No reasonable person could read the rubbish on human consciousness published in the pop science media and come away taking it seriously." Agree.Dionisio_{September 8, 2017
September
09
Sep
8
08
2017
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington at 1: Believing mutually exclusive things? Indeed. In fact, that is rife in the education system where people are considered evil morons for not believing what no rational person can believe. What great physicists have not believed. What fashionable dullards and their pop science cheerleaders can believe because they have made a point of never sorting it out. Fasten your seatbelts.News_{September 8, 2017
September
09
Sep
8
08
2017
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

The really astonishing thing is that 1/3 of atheists think human consciousness can not be explained by evolutionary processes. But their metaphysical premises allow no other explanation. This proves once again that people have a remarkable capacity to believe mutually exclusive things if it suits them.Barry Arrington_{September 8, 2017
September
09
Sep
8
08
2017
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply