Random Chance or Natural Selection

[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".

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 55 by William]

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

People have only been employing the scientific method for a handful of centuries. The people doing so are the ones we refer to as scientists. Part of their objective was to sift through all the information, superstition and woo that had accumulated over time and sort out was was real and true from what was false and imaginary. They were after knowledge and an understanding of the world we live in. Once the knowledge obtained through the scientific method becomes available to all, there is no control over who uses it and for what purposes. Science may have discovered the means to kill people, but history has shown that much of the time those means were employed in the pursuit of religious persecution. Scientists have been using science to the betterment of humanity to great success. Meanwhile, religion, superstition and woo have been like a millstone around the neck of humanity.

[William]

[Replying to post 35]

Clownboat: you make nonsensical claims about great apes leaving the trees and being scientists cavers without any type of explination as to what you might mean. Again, it comes across as you pretending to have information that you do not have.

If we were in the philosophy section, it would be one thing, but this is the science sub-forum and there seems to be no science happening, just philosophy.
For what it's worth...

William: For what it is worth, I am aware that some non-theists appear to treat this sub-forum as some type of off-limits 'holy' ground controlled by naturalists of varying degree, but it is not as they think. It is the "Science and Religion" sub-forum and since religion has an aspect of spirituality and philosophy attached to it, the message is clear that such can be brought into the debating hereabouts.

Sorry if bubbles are popped...but that is just the Truth of it.

[William]

[Replying to post 60]


brunumb: People have only been employing the scientific method for a handful of centuries.

William: It is only the recent exponential factor which gives one that illusion.
The Truth is Humans have always practiced science as par for the course.

brunumb: The people doing so are the ones we refer to as scientists. Part of their objective was to sift through all the information, superstition and woo that had accumulated over time and sort out was was real and true from what was false and imaginary.

William: One does not have to be a scientist to do this complex task...although if you are saying that it is okay to refer to such people as "Scientists" then I as a Theist who understand that the evidence points to the possibility of we being within a Creation (and therefore a Creator will be involved) the focus then shifts to working out through the evidence what a Creation such as this is intended for - I prefer "Sleuth" to scientist, given the destructive paths the science of scientists have created.

brunumb: They were after knowledge and an understanding of the world we live in. Once the knowledge obtained through the scientific method becomes available to all, there is no control over who uses it and for what purposes. Science may have discovered the means to kill people, but history has shown that much of the time those means were employed in the pursuit of religious persecution.

William: Is it justifiable to sell fighting children scientifically created weaponry when their sticks and stones sufficed?
Taking advantage of a worldly situation in which one can profiteer is something scientists have proven to indulge in. As such, I see no reason to take their word for it, that there is no need to contemplate being within a Creation, created by a creator.

Those childish religious wars are not about being within a Creation. They are about what people think The Creator placed them here for, thus what the nature of The Creator 'must' be.
Not the type of theism which interests I.

brunumb: Scientists have been using science to the betterment of humanity to great success. Meanwhile, religion, superstition and woo have been like a millstone around the neck of humanity.

William: We are already discovering first hand the millstones scientists have placed around the neck of Humanity. They are the priests of the new god-less religion which has evolved over a handful of centuries.

Before that, they were known as "Wizards" and served pretty much the same function, just more primitively...they invented woowoo...

[Diagoras]

Taking advantage of a worldly situation in which one can profiteer is something scientists have proven to indulge in. As such, I see no reason to take their word for it, that there is no need to contemplate being within a Creation, created by a creator.

Opinion noted.

Similarly, others could just as easily say:

“Taking advantage of a worldly situation in which one can profiteer is something religious leaders have proven to indulge in. As such, I see no reason to take their word for it, that there is a need to contemplate being within a Creation, created by a creator.�

Given that disparaging priests will be just as easy to do as disparaging scientists seems to be for you, perhaps you could concentrate on providing actual evidence that all can examine (not just ‘special, hidden’ knowledge) in a forum which actually does demand it?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 62 by William]

William: One does not have to be a scientist to do this complex task...although if you are saying that it is okay to refer to such people as "Scientists" then I as a Theist who understand that the evidence points to the possibility of we being within a Creation (and therefore a Creator will be involved) the focus then shifts to working out through the evidence what a Creation such as this is intended for - I prefer "Sleuth" to scientist, given the destructive paths the science of scientists have created.

If there was any compelling evidence that we are in a creation or a simulated creation, then I think that genuine scientists rather than amateur Miss Marples would be pushing the case.

[William]

[Replying to post 64 ]

brunumb: If there was any compelling evidence that we are in a creation or a simulated creation, then I think that genuine scientists...

William: No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.

brunumb: ...rather than amateur Miss Marples...

William: Counterexample

brunumb: ...would be pushing the case

William: 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. Think about it.

[William]

[Replying to post 63 by ]

William: Taking advantage of a worldly situation in which one can profiteer is something scientists have proven to indulge in. As such, I see no reason to take their word for it, that there is no need to contemplate being within a Creation, created by a creator.

Diagoras: Opinion noted.

William: While it is certainly an opinion (I also note your opinion) it is still based in logic and truthfulness.

Diagoras: Similarly, others could just as easily say:

• “Taking advantage of a worldly situation in which one can profiteer is something religious leaders have proven to indulge in. As such, I see no reason to take their word for it, that there is a need to contemplate being within a Creation, created by a creator.â€�

William: Indeed, the above is just as truthful and wise an opinion, but of itself offers no argument against what it is I am arguing. I often opinion the same as neither materialist priest or religious priest deserves my unquestioning attention.


Diagoras: Given that disparaging priests will be just as easy to do as disparaging scientists seems to be for you, perhaps you could concentrate on providing actual evidence that all can examine (not just ‘special, hidden’ knowledge) in a forum which actually does demand it?

William: There is no need to do so. The evidence is irrefutable.
One just has to have the dedication to notice and examine it.
If you are suggesting for a moment that scientists are not responsible for the greater part of the damage done on this planet, then perhaps you are unwilling to take a look?

[Diagoras]

There is no need to do so. The evidence is irrefutable.

Should be really easy to show it then. Why don’t you humour us anyway, even though there’s ‘no need’?

One just has to have the dedication to notice and examine it.

There is actually a name for this type of logical fallacy: the ‘conspiracy theory’ fallacy. “Of course you don’t see the truth, because you’re not looking properly or hard enough!�

If you are suggesting for a moment that scientists are not responsible for the greater part of the damage done on this planet, then perhaps you are unwilling to take a look?

I believe this has already been addressed, and in any case isn’t relevant to the discussion.

[William]

[Replying to post 67 by Diagoras]

William: General rule of thumb I follow is that when an opponent resorts to personal insults they have wandered away from actual debate and conceded.

However, I always offer them the chance to go 1 on 1, so if you think you can do so with me on the subject of evidence for a simulated universe, without resorting to personal insult I am happy to do so.
If not, then our interaction is over.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 68 by William]

A genuine question: which part of my post do you consider to be a personal insult? I’d prefer that anyone levelling that accusation at me describe the specific words or phrases that caused offence. PM or public post is fine - either way.

Ideally, also report the post. An independent Moderator’s warning would certainly be a spur to change, if such were needed. I’d rather apologise and change behaviour than disengage. I too have no interest in any kind of ‘slanging match’.

But I need to know the details, otherwise how can I know what to change?