Random Chance or Natural Selection

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Random Chance or Natural Selection

Post #1

Post by William »

[Quote from another thread]

bluegreenearth: Evolution is not guided by random chance but by natural selection

William: Q:. What is the difference?

I think the key word is "by" which - with the word "Guided" - implies some type of intelligent designer.
However, when I change the sentence with something along the lines of;

"Evolution is not the result of random chance but of natural selection" the implication of a Creator (some type of intelligent designer) is still to be seen in the words "natural selection".

Given [font=Georgia]Natural Selection[/font] is shown through science to be guiding evolution, it would appear that it is a substitute phrase which seeks to move our thinking away from there being a Creator, into that which is The Creation.

It bestows upon Creation the same necessity which theists bestow upon their Creators...the necessity of being able to guide a process intelligently and with purpose. Not just assigning The Creation with being nothing more than a mindless mishmash which accidentally came about purely by "random chance".

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Post #51

Post by Purple Knight »

DrNoGods wrote:If science has yet to solve a problem it does not mean that everything science has discovered and explained outside of that problem is therefore wrong. But this is what you are suggesting with a broad (and very obviously wrong) statement like that, and most of your other weak arguments against science which are basically the same (ie. science has yet to completely explain origin of the universe, or of life, therefore it is all wrong). That approach just doesn't work, no matter how many times you try it.
I think what he's trying to put together is some sort of evidence that we need something beyond science to explain A, B, or C.

S'okay... Let's say we do. Let's say science really can't (ever) explain those things. Indeed there's no reason to assume it can. There's a hypothesised tech cap, so why not a knowledge cap?

So let's assume the well of knowledge has run dry, all the knowledge it had to give drunk up. We can't get any more knowledge than we have; we can now only lose knowledge.

I still don't see the preference for God over it's simply a magical universe.

If science indeed falls short there's no reason - no knowledge we can obtain - that would favour choosing one of these over the other.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #52

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 51 by Purple Knight]
If science indeed falls short there's no reason - no knowledge we can obtain - that would favour choosing one of these over the other.


Yes ... this is my main objection. The answer does not automatically default to "god did it" if science has not yet solved a problem, or even if it never can. But many creationists use such a default as their primary argument, often when the unsolved science problem they reference (eg. origins) has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.

The other issue is when creationists try to argue that their view is compatible with modern science, then go to great lengths to support that view either by bashing some scientific topic (eg. radiometric dating) that shows they are wrong, or by referencing pseudoscience articles written by other creationists and published in special journals or on websites operated by creationists separate from the legitimate science community. What is the point? Why not just say they believe in an omnipotent god who can do anything, leave it at that, and skip all the time-wasting efforts to try and make a case for the scientific validity of creationism. It makes no sense. That battle was convincingly lost well over a century ago.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Post #53

Post by William »

[Replying to post 52 by DrNoGods]

William: Scientists have been using science to damaging effect since The Great Apes left the trees and became meat eating cavers.

They have yet to use their magic tricks to prove we are not living within a Creation, and their minions who worship their works and exalt them on high as the priests of their culture are just as frightened at the prospect.

If anything those high and mighty winners of prizes are doing exactly the opposite, using their magic tricks to occult The Creator behind a curtain of physical prowess.

Tricky brainiacks that they be. :)

We used to call them"Wizards" in less informative times....

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Post #54

Post by Diagoras »

William wrote:Scientists have been using science to damaging effect since The Great Apes left the trees and became meat eating cavers.
Really? Have you a cite to back up this anthropological claim?
They have yet to use their magic tricks...
No need for condescension, thank you.
...to prove we are not living within a Creation...
Proving this particular negative is difficult - I’m sure you’d agree. Have a watch of this video though, and let me know what you think.
...their minions who worship their works and exalt them on high as the priests of their culture...
Have you ever met a scientist? It seems to me that you are describing a totally different animal.
...are just as frightened at the prospect.
Try Googling ‘optimistic nihilism’ sometime - from the same people who did the video above. You might come to realise that many of us aren’t particularly surprised or worried about the idea that there’s no wizard behind the curtain.
If anything those high and mighty winners of prizes are doing exactly the opposite, using their magic tricks to occult The Creator behind a curtain of physical prowess.
Well, we certainly hold different views. Like Carl Sagan, I see science as ‘a candle in the dark’. If I’m allowed the same level of sardonic hyperbole, I’d say it “threw off the blankets of superstition and wilful blindness�, rather than covering anything up. The ‘candle’ reference is the subtitle of his book, ‘The Demon-haunted World’, which I highly recommend, although not to any worshipful level, to be clear.
We used to call them “Wizards" in less informative times..
Who’s this ‘them’ you are referring to?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Post #55

Post by William »

[Replying to post 54 ]

William: Scientists have been using science to damaging effect since The Great Apes left the trees and became meat eating cavers.

Diagoras: Really?

William: Yes.

Diagoras: Have you a cite to back up this anthropological claim?

William: The "Great Apes left the trees and became meat eating cavers"? That wasn't a claim.
  • They have yet to use their magic tricks to prove we are not living within a Creation


Diagoras: No need for condescension, thank you.

William: You're welcome.

Diagoras: Proving this particular negative is difficult - I’m sure you’d agree.

William: I would say it is impossible to disprove it, given the amount of evidence already uncovered.
  • ...their minions who worship their works and exalt them on high as the priests of their culture...


Diagoras: Have you ever met a scientist?

William: Yes.

Diagoras: It seems to me that you are describing a totally different animal.

William: Than what? There are priests and then there are priests.
There are scientists and then there are scientists.


Diagoras: Try Googling ‘optimistic nihilism’ sometime - from the same people who did the video above. You might come to realise that many of us aren’t particularly surprised or worried about the idea that there’s no wizard behind the curtain.

William: The prospect I was referring to is the one in which we live in a Creation.

Diagoras: Well, we certainly hold different views.

William: On the subject that Scientists have been using science to damaging effect?
  • We used to call them “Wizards" in less informative times..


Diagoras: Who’s this ‘them’ you are referring to?

William: Those who used science to perform magical tricks which in turn have damaging effects on the environment.
Are you in denial regarding the truth that Scientists have been using science to damaging effect?

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #56

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 53 by William]
They have yet to use their magic tricks to prove we are not living within a Creation...


What would prompt any scientist to spend time on such a proof? Whether or not we are living in a creation is not relevant to solving most scientific problems. The latest planetary and solar probes and their objectives, research into new drugs, research into how diseases like Parkinsons and many others work, searchs for explanations of observations surrounding dark matter and dark energy, etc. don't directly relate to whether or not we are living in a creation. What physical phenomena needing explanation would prompt science to try and prove we are not living in a creation? Why would this subject even be of any interest to a scientist, or to the funding agencies who support them? This seems to be a topic for philosophers.
Scientists have been using science to damaging effect since The Great Apes left the trees and became meat eating cavers.


They've also been using it to great effect to create vaccines and treatments for diseases, improve the standard of living for other humans, create technology that improves productivity and the ability to travel more efficiently, explore space and the worlds of the very small, and countless other examples where their work has benefited humans in general. If some work was to damaging effect, or for the creation of ever more devastating weapons of war, etc. that is the other side of the coin that is inevitable. But you can't dismiss all of science as being "damaging." Spending money and scientific effort to prove we are not living in a creation, when that has little or no bearing on useful science, seems a waste of both.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Post #57

Post by Diagoras »

[Replying to post 55 by William]

My reply moved to a more appropriate thread. We were discussing natural selection and I didn’t want to derail the discussion more than necessary.

See:
viewtopic.php?p=1004588#1004588

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Post #58

Post by William »

[Replying to post 57 by Diagoras]

[Replying to post 34 ]



William: Scientists have been using science to damaging effect

Diagoras: You need to provide a cite to back up the claim that: from the time that The Great Apes left the trees (and when, exactly was this?), that these ‘meat-eating cavers’ were ‘using’ science.

William: No I don't. It was a lighthearted jest to underline the real point.

Diagoras: Furthermore, that this science was ‘damaging’ (to what? And to what extent?)

William: What you mean by 'this science' is a puzzle. Science is Science. It is just a method, like atheism is just a position.

Diagoras:

William:

Diagoras:

William:

Diagoras:

William:

Diagoras:

William:

Diagoras:

William:

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Post #59

Post by William »

[Replying to post 56]

William: They have yet to use their magic tricks to prove we are not living within a Creation, and their minions who worship their works and exalt them on high as the priests of their culture are just as frightened at the prospect.

DrNoGods: What would prompt any scientist to spend time on such a proof?

William: I have no idea. What prompts them to do anything?

DrNoGods: Whether or not we are living in a creation is not relevant to solving most scientific problems.

William: Perhaps that is why they are not particularly adept at seeing the evidence in that light.

DrNoGods: The latest planetary and solar probes and their objectives, research into new drugs, research into how diseases like Parkinsons and many others work, searchs for explanations of observations surrounding dark matter and dark energy, etc. don't directly relate to whether or not we are living in a creation.

William: I don't recall claiming that they did. I was simply responding to your well liked post were you claimed some "battle" was won by scientists "well over a century ago"
  • Scientists have been using science to damaging effect since The Great Apes left the trees and became meat eating cavers.


DrNoGods: They've also been using it to great effect to create vaccines and treatments for diseases...


William: So it is not about the means, but some end game which justifies the means?

At least you didn't flip into full denial. Your response seems more along the lines of "so what if scientist have contributed the most damage. They also contributed means in which people could live longer to see it." :-k

Perhaps it is a simple case of recognizing that natural selection is indeed intelligent, but that it produced nothing more intelligent than scientists and therefore scientists would not be interested in the idea that they exist within a creation because of the implications there is greater intelligence than they collectively possess.
:-k

DrNoGods: If some work was to damaging effect, or for the creation of ever more devastating weapons of war, etc. that is the other side of the coin that is inevitable. But you can't dismiss all of science as being "damaging." Spending money and scientific effort to prove we are not living in a creation, when that has little or no bearing on useful science, seems a waste of both.


William: I suppose that one cannot dismiss all theist ideas simply because some theist ideas produced bad things. Would you be able to happily support such argument with equal dedicated reasoning?
Good on you if you can. Many non-theists simply cannot.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #60

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 58 by William]
William: I have no idea. What prompts them to do anything?


The quest to understand how nature works and to explain it within the context of the general scientific disciplines (mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc.). This is what drives scientific research generally.
William: Perhaps that is why they are not particularly adept at seeing the evidence in that light.


Well, if scientific research is carried out to solve problems and explain the natural world (my proposition), why would evidence be seen from the standpoint that we are living in a creation? Until there is evidence for that viewpoint (ie. a creator of some kind exists), why invoke the existence of a creator as part of any explanation of nature? First gather some evidence that such an entity exists, then consider it in explanations for how the natural world works.
William: I don't recall claiming that they did. I was simply responding to your well liked post were you claimed some "battle" was won by scientists "well over a century ago"


But you inferred that scientists should be making an effort to prove that we were not living in a creation by stating that they have yet to disprove it. I was asking why they should make such an effort at all given that it is not relevant to most of the research they are doing. As for the battle lost long ago, that was referring to young earth creationism. There is no way to justify a 6000 year old universe given what we know in 2020.
William: So it is not about the means, but some end game which justifies the means?


No ... it is simply the method by which we learn more about nature and explain it within the context of prior science. There is no "end game" other than the ultimate explanation for whatever observation is being studied. The heliocentric model of our solar system was not developed for any particular end game ... it just explained observations better than anything else. It is that simple, and most scientific research is aiming for a similar resolution. The search for the Higgs boson had as its goal to detect the Higgs boson. That was the end game.
At least you didn't flip into full denial. Your response seems more along the lines of "so what if scientist have contributed the most damage. They also contributed means in which people could live longer to see it."


I never admitted that scientists contribute "the most" damage, only that it is inevitable that progress in any area means that both "white hats" and "black hats" will utilize it to their advantage if they can. Quantum mechanics and the understanding of atomic physics was not developed with an "end game" of an atomic bomb, but that was one result of the physics. And you can debate whether Truman's decision to use it on Japan in 1945 resulted in net fewer deaths in the end from Japan's presumed quicker surrender. But the development of the physics behind the ability to design and build those bombs was never undertaken with that particular result in mind. Quantum mechanics really started, partially, with the goal of understanding the spectrum of the hydrogen atom, and why the spectral lines were discrete and not a continuum. Nothing at all to do with building bombs.
William: I suppose that one cannot dismiss all theist ideas simply because some theist ideas produced bad things. Would you be able to happily support such argument with equal dedicated reasoning?


I would first ask a theist to produce some evidence that a god of any kind actually exists, since without that evidence theist's ideas are built on very shaky ground. It is very different from the axioms underlying most fundamental science.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Post Reply