Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinism: An Embarrassment for Legitimate Science

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I write this post from a hotel room in Livermore, California, home of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where my company has sent me for advanced training in computational fluid dynamics using LS-DYNA, arguably the most advanced finite element analysis program ever devised, originally at LLNL in the 1970s for the development and analysis of variable-yield nuclear weapons.

I have a particular interest in LLNL because my father worked on the Manhattan A-bomb Project during WWII, and was the founder and director of an experimental nuclear reactor at Washington State University, which has been named in his honor.

Here is some info from the LLNL website:

For more than half a century, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has applied cutting-edge science and technology to enhance national security.
Origins. The Laboratory was established in 1952 at the height of the Cold War to meet urgent national security needs by advancing nuclear weapons science and technology. Renowned physicists E.O. Lawrence and Edward Teller argued for the creation of a second laboratory to augment the efforts of the laboratory at Los Alamos.

The people who developed this technology are legitimate scientists. Darwinists are pseudo-scientists who have no notion of what science is all about. Compare the accomplishments of the LLNL scientists and developers of LS-DYNA to those of people like Dawkins and his “weasel” program.

Darwinism is a downright embarrassment for legitimate science.

Comments
Elizabeth Liddle,
And, while finding we are wrong may be painful, for many reasons, most people (in my experience) have the courage to put up with the pain! It only smarts a little :)
In reading this, I've been idly considering what pain I'd feel if evolution was shown to be completely erroneous and dismissed in science. Quite frankly, I can't imagine I'd have much heartburn. It would be disappointing to look at all the life around me and accept that it was not related in anyway to one another biologically, but the fact is I'd still perceive their behavior, colors, and interaction and find that fascinating. Of course, in my mental wanderings on this I also envision that the replacing theory would have an equally feasible explanation for the colors, behaviors, and interactions, so I'd be good with that. I'd be rather bummed about all the work I'd done that was apparently erroneous, but then again I'd have a better picture of the world around me and since the new theory would have to take into consideration the explanations my work has been based upon, it wouldn't have been a complete waste of my time. Interesting mental exercise...Doveton
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
tgpeeler,
Science doesn’t exclude design?? What planet are you living on, earthling? Of course “science” excludes design. Science HAS TO exclude design (and God) because of its fundamental metaphysical commitment, which is naturalism.
I honestly don't know how to respond to such a basic misunderstanding, except to say your conflating 'design' and the supernatural.lastyearon
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
But Hey Nick, perhaps you can work out the kinks in population genetics??? Oxford University Admits Darwinism's Shaky Math Foundation - May 2011 Excerpt: However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is. - On a 2011 Job Description for a Mathematician, at Oxford, to 'fix' the persistent mathematical problems with neo-Darwinism within two years. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/oxford_university_admits_darwi046351.htmlbornagain77
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
Nick I see you mentioned population genetics to try to buttress your atheistic materialism. I think you may want to stay away from that whole line of reasoning: Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203 Waiting Longer for Two Mutations, Part 5 - Michael Behe Excerpt: the appearance of a particular (beneficial) double mutation in humans would have an expected time of appearance of 216 million years, http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/03/waiting-longer-for-two-mutations-part-5/ Getting Over the Code Delusion (Epigenetics) - Talbot - November 2010 - Excellent Article for explaining exactly why epigentics falsifies the neo-Darwinian paradigm of genetic reductionism: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/getting-over-the-code-delusion Hopeful monsters,' transposons, and the Metazoan radiation: Excerpt: Viable mutations with major morphological or physiological effects are exceedingly rare and usually infertile; the chance of two identical rare mutant individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event. These problems of viable "hopeful monsters" render these explanations untenable. Paleobiologists Douglas Erwin and James Valentine etc.. etc.. etc..bornagain77
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
Nick @ 34 "Gene duplication + mutation + selection creates new information. There is a lot of evidence for this hypothesis." Surely I don't get your point. It looks like you are saying that information comes from information and that there is evidence for this. Wow. So that's what biology has been up to these days... Maybe you could offer up a comment or two on the origin of this information and how it is explained by physical laws acting over time.tgpeeler
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
Chris:
Lizzie said “But, equally, it is possible that equivalent prejudices are impairing your reason, and blinding you to the scientific facts!”
As I explained in the post I linked to previously, ID proponents generally don’t bring prejudices to the table because we can take or leave evolution. In fact, we can even take or leave ID. Sure, we’d have to admit we were wrong about that particular scientific theory. But I can’t see how this would affect our worldview very much. We’d just end up agreeing with the Biologos crowd instead. So, we are free to go wherever the evidence leads, without prejudice. Atheists, on the other hand are not free to go wherever the evidence leads if it spells an end to evolution. Nor can they embrace ID theory if the evidence leads there. Either outcome points to a Designer who might be the same Creator that everyone else believes in. That situation is completely unacceptable to atheism. It must be avoided, even if that means ignoring the appeals of reason and science. Without their prejudice, atheists would be faced with the collapse of their worldview. You can’t equate that situation to ID proponents, Lizzie.
heh. Mirrors are funny things, eh? But there's an apples-and-oranges point here, Chris. An atheist who believes there is no God would indeed be in the position you describe. But I have met very few atheists who believe there is no God. (Actually I'm one of them, but I'm in a minority!) Most simply don't believe in something for which they consider there is no evidence, namely, god or gods. No "collapse of a worldview" is entailed by finding evidence for something that they hitherto considered there was no evidence for. Just surprise. And, as I'm sure you are aware, many scientists are not atheists, and yet share the view that biology is not evidence for God. Indeed even Todd Wood, a young earth creationist (one I very much admire) readily concedes that the Darwinian model explains the data very well. He just thinks it is wrong, and he means to find out just where. On the other hand, GilDodgen frequently equates Darwinism with the nihilist worldview he once held and rejected. It seems to me that for him, his worldview may well rest on the view that " Darwinists are pseudo-scientists who have no notion of what science is all about", and may well, therefore, have a strong emotional vested interest in maintaining that stance. I'm not saying he does - but I am saying that it is no more unreasonable for me to suspect him of having an emotional vested interest in his case than it is for him to do the same with me. But, in both cases, I think it is a mistake. We have to assume that our interlocutors are essentially honest until there is strong evidence otherwise, I think, because otherwise we get nowhere. And the first step towards self-honesty is being aware of one's own biases. We are all biased towards the view we currently hold (as a friend of mine says - Of course I think I'm right - if I thought I was wrong I'd change my mind!) but most of us also don't want to be mistaken either! I'd much rather find out I was wrong than remain in error! And, while finding we are wrong may be painful, for many reasons, most people (in my experience) have the courage to put up with the pain! It only smarts a little :)Elizabeth Liddle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
as to Nick's statement: 'Gene duplication + mutation + selection creates new information.' This statement, as with his hypothetical T3SS to Flagellum narrative, is false as far as empirical evidence it concerned: Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum! Excerpt: Douglas Axe of the Biologic Institute showed in one recent paper in the journal Bio-complexity that the model of gene duplication and recruitment only works if very few changes are required to acquire novel selectable utility or neo-functionalization. If a duplicated gene is neutral (in terms of its cost to the organism), then the maximum number of mutations that a novel innovation in a bacterial population can require is up to six. If the duplicated gene has a slightly negative fitness cost, the maximum number drops to two or fewer (not inclusive of the duplication itself). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute044801.html The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations Douglas D. Axe* Excerpt: In particular, I use an explicit model of a structured bacterial population, similar to the island model of Maruyama and Kimura, to examine the limits on complex adaptations during the evolution of paralogous genes—genes related by duplication of an ancestral gene. Although substantial functional innovation is thought to be possible within paralogous families, the tight limits on the value of d found here (d ? 2 for the maladaptive case, and d ? 6 for the neutral case) mean that the mutational jumps in this process cannot have been very large. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4/BIO-C.2010.4 An Insurmountable Problem for Darwinian Evolution - Gene Duplication - And Minor Transformation of Protein Function - May 2011 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-05-16T17_01_43-07_00 Is gene duplication a viable explanation for the origination of biological information and complexity? - December 2010 - Excerpt: The totality of the evidence reveals that, although duplication can and does facilitate important adaptations by tinkering with existing compounds, molecular evolution is nonetheless constrained in each and every case. Therefore, although the process of gene duplication and subsequent random mutation has certainly contributed to the size and diversity of the genome, it is alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Complexity, 2011 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract Evolution by Gene Duplication Falsified - December 2010 Excerpt: The various postduplication mechanisms entailing random mutations and recombinations considered were observed to tweak, tinker, copy, cut, divide, and shuffle existing genetic information around, but fell short of generating genuinely distinct and entirely novel functionality. Contrary to Darwin’s view of the plasticity of biological features, successive modification and selection in genes does indeed appear to have real and inherent limits: it can serve to alter the sequence, size, and function of a gene to an extent, but this almost always amounts to a variation on the same theme—as with RNASE1B in colobine monkeys. The conservation of all-important motifs within gene families, such as the homeobox or the MADS-box motif, attests to the fact that gene duplication results in the copying and preservation of biological information, and not its transformation as something original. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201101.htm#20110103a The GS (genetic selection) Principle – David L. Abel – 2009 Excerpt: Stunningly, information has been shown not to increase in the coding regions of DNA with evolution. Mutations do not produce increased information. Mira et al (65) showed that the amount of coding in DNA actually decreases with evolution of bacterial genomes, not increases. This paper parallels Petrov’s papers starting with (66) showing a net DNA loss with Drosophila evolution (67). Konopka (68) found strong evidence against the contention of Subba Rao et al (69, 70) that information increases with mutations. The information content of the coding regions in DNA does not tend to increase with evolution as hypothesized. Konopka also found Shannon complexity not to be a suitable indicator of evolutionary progress over a wide range of evolving genes. Konopka’s work applies Shannon theory to known functional text. Kok et al. (71) also found that information does not increase in DNA with evolution. As with Konopka, this finding is in the context of the change in mere Shannon uncertainty. The latter is a far more forgiving definition of information than that required for prescriptive information (PI) (21, 22, 33, 72). It is all the more significant that mutations do not program increased PI. Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces formal function. No increase in Shannon or Prescriptive information occurs in duplication. What the above papers show is that not even variation of the duplication produces new information, not even Shannon “information.” http://www.scitopics.com/The_GS_Principle_The_Genetic_Selection_Principle.html etc,, etc,,bornagain77
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
lastyearon "“design is excluded a priori because it’s not “scientific”” when it has been pointed out over and over that science doesn’t exclude ‘design’. It excludes the supernatural." Science doesn't exclude design?? What planet are you living on, earthling? Of course "science" excludes design. Science HAS TO exclude design (and God) because of its fundamental metaphysical commitment, which is naturalism. Man, if you can't even keep your own stuff straight... Let's try this. Only the natural is amenable to explanation by science. (This is not a scientific statement.) Therefore, only the natural exists. All that is natural is physical or material. God/design are not physical or material, therefore, God/design do not exist. That whole bit of nonsense depends upon the truth of naturalism but naturalism is patently and necessarily false. Plus how do you get from science explains the material world (no argument here) to that means the material world is all that exists? Explain that to me. Let me extend my offer to EL to you. What are your non-negotiable intellectual commitments? Do you have any?tgpeeler
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
Mung:
Elizabeth Liddle:
And my view is that life is one of those regularities – something that is probably inevitable in a universe with properties like ours
And the reason this universe has the properties it does, if any, is…?
I don't know, Mung. Possibly because a benign (or bored) deity willed it into being. Possibly because it isn't actually "fine-tuned" at all, but that the properties it has are the only properties possible. Possibly because while lots of properties are possible, and indeed pertain in the unobservable regions of our universe, only regions of the universe in which they pertain can give rise to entities capable of wondering about it. Possibly because the universe is cyclical, and every so often, one with the properties this one has comes up. I don't know. But that is very different from inferring a deity from biology.Elizabeth Liddle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
Origin of Life Origin of Mitosis (600+ genes) Origin of Body Plans Origin of Sexual Reproduction Origin of Consciousness
For many of these, go to PubMed, look up Tom Cavalier-Smith, and start reading. For the origin of information: this is the silliest ID argument in the book. Gene duplication + mutation + selection creates new information. There is a lot of evidence for this hypothesis. The origin of certain new genes has been reconstructed in great detail which only need to invoke completely standard and much-observed mutational and population-genetics processes. Look up Sdic, yingwei, etc. Supernatural intervention is not a necessary postulate for the origin of new information. And thanks, Gil, for admitting that you've never been to an Evolution meeting, nor interacted in a scholarly fashion with biological science. And yet you casually toss out insults and completely fallacious arguments without missing a beat. This is the *primary* reason creationists/IDists etc. don't get no respect in the scientific community. You've got to earn respect. Science is not a topic where everyone gets an A no matter what answer they put down.NickMatzke_UD
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
Well if you've been reading this blog, It's irrational to say this.. "design is excluded a priori because it’s not “scientific”" when it has been pointed out over and over that science doesn't exclude 'design'. It excludes the supernatural.lastyearon
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Forgive me LastYearOn, for taking you seriously for a minute there. I thought you would want to substantiate your claims and confront counter-arguments. I now realise you are only here to fall out with us. See you next pseudonym.Chris Doyle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
So lastyearon let's give this a go. What is irrational about a belief system that is grounded in and based on the first principles of reason? Go ahead, tell me that you are rational and then tell me HOW you are rational and I am not. Be specific. Back up your claim. This should be fun. It's a slow day...tgpeeler
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
Most of the ID supporters here are very smart, and they are capable of evaluating arguments rationally. However they also have an irrational belief system which they hold absolutely, and which conflicts with many of the arguments Elizabeth and other ID critics here make. The easiest way to reduce the inevitable cognitive dissonance is to project their irrationality onto their opponent's arguments. In doing so, they satisfy their need to feel that they're being rational, while still maintaining their belief.lastyearon
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
arkady @ 7 "I wonder, too, if oppostion to design theory isn’t rooted in issues other than science." I think so. As far as I can tell, the opposition is almost always grounded in a failure to strictly adhere to the laws of rational thought. Conclusions from first principles don't count as "evidence" but this is non-sensical, literally. This is why EL can blithely and interminabley make reference to "no evidence" for God. Well, in her world, duh. God is immaterial and science deals with the material world. Science explains the material world so the material world is all there is. So God doesn't exist and there can be no evidence for Him, ever, since all that exists is material and He's allegedly immaterial. I think that fairly sums it up from their point of view. Unfortunately for everybody, they are hopelessly confused about what counts as evidence and what is rational. In the end, it's their epistemology that leads to their ontological problem. Once this has been explained to them, it then becomes a matter of willful ignorance. I've tried many times to engage "them" on fundamental intellectual commitments. Always to no avail. So how can one expect to ever make headway arguing with someone who rejects reason as foundational and authoritative in matters of truth? One cannot. One can only hope that someone lurking will see what makes sense and what does not. Plus, it helps to sharpen my thoughts as I'm sure it helps others. Any opposition, even irrational opposition, is better than no opposition. Think of it, design is excluded a priori because it's not "scientific" but what is "scientific" is itself not a "scientific" question. Who cannot instantly see the circularity and irrationality of that? Lots of people as it turns out. Bottom line, we are trying to bring people to truth by reasoning with them but they reject the authority of reason in matters of truth. That's one of the things that makes it so much "fun" to do... In fact, just for my own vicious amusement and to provide one more data point for my claim, I'm going to ask EL to tell me what her fundamental, non-negotiable, intellectual commitments are. She posted on this thread so maybe she's still reading.tgpeeler
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
"Since many ID supporters here have A priori beliefs that they are absolutely committed to, and since they cannot evaluate the arguments you make without bias, they assume that those very same motives apply to you." You just projected a misrepresentation based upon your prior beliefs about people you disagree with. "And since you take a rational approach, and try to evaluate arguments by their merit and without a commitment to a belief system, you assume that those very same attributes apply to the ID proponents here" Then took the opportunity to project a self-satisfying characteristic onto someone you agree with. - - - - - - No need to make this stuff up.Upright BiPed
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
Chris Doyle, Post 17 is a great example of my point.lastyearon
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
LastYearOn, that's demonstrably false. See post 17.Chris Doyle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, you wrote..
I do think it is serious mistake to assume that people whose conclusions you disagree with reached those conclusions because of some “belief” system, rather than argument and evidence. Sometimes this is the case; many times it is not, and so I think it is a very unsafe starting assumption. I make a point of always assuming that people who disagree with me do so on rational grounds. I think it’s a much more productive assumption, even when, as it sometimes does, it turns out to be probably unwarranted!
Both you and the ID supporters here are projecting your own approach onto your opponent. Since many ID supporters here have A priori beliefs that they are absolutely committed to, and since they cannot evaluate the arguments you make without bias, they assume that those very same motives apply to you. And since you take a rational approach, and try to evaluate arguments by their merit and without a commitment to a belief system, you assume that those very same attributes apply to the ID proponents here(although after hundreds of hours of the same arguments you clearly recognize that isn't really the case).lastyearon
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
You are insulting an entire field of study, likely without ever seriously engaging with the data and people in it.
Therefore, you are a creationist.
No, you are a IDC creationist. Why let a good smear go to waste.Upright BiPed
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
And my view is that life is one of those regularities – something that is probably inevitable in a universe with properties like ours
And the reason this universe has the properties it does, if any, is...?Mung
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
Chris, Don't get sucked into the hand-waving. Look at the overall argument in her post. There are some things that happen regularly, like summer follows winter. Therefore, she rejects that they are accidental. Entirely question-begging, illogical, and irrational. No doubt these regularities cause themselves, for they are not the result of accidental matter energy arrangements.Mung
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, Gil states:
The Darwinian hypothesis about the origin of information in living systems is simply not credible. This is not hard to figure out, and design is the only reasonable, rational inference.
Your best and only response begs the question. The very system you appeal to to explain the appearance of design itself appears to be designed. You have no counter-argument. None. How can this not be obvious?Mung
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
By the way, what relevance do GAs have to cell biology? Or indeed physiology? Don't they have about as much relevance as a bunch of pebbles do to a network of PCs? Unless you want to say that "Methinksitisaweasel" because it really is a weasel...Chris Doyle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
Hello again Lizzie, I use the term 'Accident' as the opposite of 'Design'. I'd say weather conditions are the product of a Designed system, though I wouldn't suggest that the first place to look for Intelligent Design is in a snowflake. Not when we have the cell to contend with! In more practical terms, I use the term 'Accident' to explain the absence of Design in terms of control and planning. If I drop a glass on the floor and it shatters, I see shards of glass and that is a result of an accident. If I don't drop the glass, but inspect it instead, then what I'm seeing in the result of a design. I hope that answers your question. It ties into your comments about meaning and purpose. I explained elsewhere why there is no purpose or meaning to atheism: https://uncommondescent.com/science/why-there-is-no-scientific-explanation-for-evil/comment-page-2/#comment-387290 When you talk about atheists being capable of leading a life with meaning and purpose (no doubt, you include with morality too), there is no logical or rational basis to support that position. Rather, we're back to those prejudices: things which you must hold onto, despite the logical and rational basis to let them go.Chris Doyle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
You are insulting an entire field of study, likely without ever seriously engaging with the data and people in it.
Therefore, you are a creationist. Brilliant logic! I think it's us who are being insulted by people like Nick who have an entire field of study at their disposal and yet still have no evidence. Origin of Life Origin of Mitosis (600+ genes) Origin of Body Plans Origin of Sexual Reproduction Origin of Consciousness and on and onMung
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
Lizzie said "But, equally, it is possible that equivalent prejudices are impairing your reason, and blinding you to the scientific facts!" As I explained in the post I linked to previously, ID proponents generally don't bring prejudices to the table because we can take or leave evolution. In fact, we can even take or leave ID. Sure, we'd have to admit we were wrong about that particular scientific theory. But I can't see how this would affect our worldview very much. We'd just end up agreeing with the Biologos crowd instead. So, we are free to go wherever the evidence leads, without prejudice. Atheists, on the other hand are not free to go wherever the evidence leads if it spells an end to evolution. Nor can they embrace ID theory if the evidence leads there. Either outcome points to a Designer who might be the same Creator that everyone else believes in. That situation is completely unacceptable to atheism. It must be avoided, even if that means ignoring the appeals of reason and science. Without their prejudice, atheists would be faced with the collapse of their worldview. You can't equate that situation to ID proponents, Lizzie.Chris Doyle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
Chris, a small but important point:
What this debate is really about is why do some people – atheists mainly – believe that everything just made itself purely naturalistically, by accident, despite the fact that it is blatantly obvious that it didn’t?
Could you explain exactly what you mean by "accident" in this sentence? For instance, would you call it an accident that hydrogen combines with oxygen to form a liquid? Would you call it an accident that the weather tends to be warmer in the summer than in the winter? Would you call it an accident that hurricanes form? Would you call the form of a snowflake accidental? These are not rhetorical questions, by the way - I'd really like to know your answers, because I'd like to know what you think we atheists actually think! I wouldn't regard any of those things as "accidents" - I'd say call them regularities (stochastic regularities at any rate - statistically predictable in aggregate if not individually) of our universe, arising from properties of its parts and of (nested) assemblies of its parts. And my view is that life is one of those regularities - something that is probably inevitable in a universe with properties like ours - and of course, if our universe did not have properties that made life inevitable there would be no us to consider whether we were an accident or not! So no, I don't think life is an "accident". Perhaps what you really mean is that I think that life is purposeless, and meaningless. I do think that there is no being whose it purpose it was that living things should exist, any more than I think there was a being whose purpose it was that iron should exist. However, that doesn't mean that my life has no purpose or meaning! A purpose (many) I most certainly have, as I'm sure you do too! And I find life full of meaning as well! So far from denying meaning and purpose in life, I wholeheartedly recognise and embrace it, as do most atheists (though I do meet the odd nihilist).Elizabeth Liddle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
"No, Upright BiPed, that part is clearly demonstrated already. We know that once you have a minimal self-replicator replicating with variance in its ability to self-replicate, that design-like processes kick in to optimise that self-replicator’s ability to self-replicate in its current environment." This takes for granted the existence of the information system which makes inheritance and variation possible. So yes, if you take the existence of design for granted, then it has already been demonstrated that there is no need for design.Upright BiPed
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
No, Upright BiPed, that part is clearly demonstrated already. We know that once you have a minimal self-replicator replicating with variance in its ability to self-replicate, that design-like processes kick in to optimise that self-replicator's ability to self-replicate in its current environment. This is why GAs work. That is why we see adaptation in action in living populations, as well as evidenced, in the fossil and genetic record, over larger time scales. So the next question is: what is the simplest self-replicator capable of initiating this process, and could that have arisen from non-self-replicating entities? That's the question I hope to address in my project :) Not that lots of people aren't on it already.Elizabeth Liddle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply