Why some people reject evolution

[Danmark]

[you can skip the intro and go right to the last paragraph]

Growing up, I was seldom interested in math. At first it seemed tedious and boring. I invented my own shortcuts to make it easier. Later it required discipline when it got too difficult to do in my head. So, i loved geometry, but lost interest after trig, which I didn't even try to understand. I've been thinking of trying to teach myself calculus, just to see if, at 69 I can do it. So, I looked for a free online course of study and found this:

As Henry Ford said, " Nothing is particularly hard if you divide it into small jobs ". Too much of the world is complicated by layers of evolution. If you understand how each layer is put down then you can begin to understand the complex systems that govern our world. Charles Darwin wrote in 1859 in his On The Origin of Species,

"When we no longer look at an organic being as a savage looks at a ship, as at something wholly beyond his comprehension; when we regard every production of nature as one which had a history; when we contemplate every complex structure and instinct as the summing up of many contrivances, each useful to the possessor, nearly in the same as when we look at any great mechanical invention as the summing of the labour, the experience, the reason, and even the blunders of numerous workmen; when we thus view each organic being, how far more interesting, I speak from experience, will the study of natural history become! " http://www.understandingcalculus.com/

So here's the question, do people not believe in evolution just because the Bible tells them so? Or is there another factor; that rather than try to understand it in small steps, one tiny transition at a time, since the entirety of the process ("microbe to man") seems impossible to them, do they reject it out of hand without looking at it step by step?

[Rufus21]

I was replying to post 57 wherein examples were made which are unable to be made without the condition of intelligence being present.

But the process is independent of the being. That's the whole point. In that example the process was initiated by an intelligent, conscience being but the proccess that followed was a mindless, random process that produced a very complex result. The being did not influence the process at all. The result would have been exactly the same if the being had not been present.

The whole point is that a random process can produce complex results with nothing more than a natural selection mechanism.

[William]

[Replying to post 61 by Rufus21]

That may be an explanation if the universe is a simulation created to follow a set of instructions (codes/algorithms) to simulate randomness which in turn creates complex results, but the point being that it is still initiated by conscious intelligence.

The computer random generator analogy still requires a programmer. Thus it is not independent of a being, as you assert. There would have been no result without that. This is contrary to your assertion that "The result would have been exactly the same if the being had not been present."

[Rufus21]

[Replying to post 62 by William]

Again, the process is independent of the programmer. The computer example did require a programmer to initiate the program, but that does not need to be the case in the natural world. If the process is random and the selection criteria is natural then there is no programmer/creator involved at all. It simply isn't necessary. Everything happens naturally.

[William]

[Replying to post 63 by Rufus21]

The computer example did require a programmer to initiate the program, but that does not need to be the case in the natural world.

Then the example of a random computer program given to show that it is possible for something to randomly create itself, is false.

It cannot be used to explain the existence of the universe. It cannot be used to explain how something can just magically make itself happen and generate complexity through that.

The whole thing required intelligence conscious creative input.

So the analogy and example is faulty.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 61 by Rufus21]

That may be an explanation if the universe is a simulation created to follow a set of instructions (codes/algorithms) to simulate randomness which in turn creates complex results, but the point being that it is still initiated by conscious intelligence.

The computer random generator analogy still requires a programmer. Thus it is not independent of a being, as you assert. There would have been no result without that. This is contrary to your assertion that "The result would have been exactly the same if the being had not been present."

None of this follows from anything you've claimed. You've posited the existence of a 'computer random generator' or something analogous. Then you go on as if you are not talking about an analogy at all, but rather a human designed computer or program. If we assume a totally random process, that does not imply the necessity of a conscious intelligence. Please explain how it would.

[Danmark]

Then the example of a random computer program given to show that it is possible for something to randomly create itself, is false.

That is not the issue. There is no claim that anything 'randomly creates itself.'
The claim is that life developed without conscious intelligence to direct it.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 59 by Rufus21]

Can you explain that a little further? How is a random process considered planned? Why is natural selection considered intelligent?

I was replying to post 57 wherein examples were made which are unable to be made without the condition of intelligence being present.

I could just as well ask you 'how is planned process considered random?' or 'why is natural selection considered mindless?' and the answer would be similar. It has to do with who is doing the considering and what is interpreted from that.

Because the mutations (or offspring airfoils) are randomly generated.

Natural selection is not intelligent, but it is non-random.

[Rufus21]

[Replying to post 64 by William]

You seem to be so hung up on the programmer that you are ignoring the program. Let me try again.

Once the program is running it does not require anything from the programmer, right? It runs completely independently without any external input. It creates complexity all by itself. The programmer just sits back and watches, right?

That’s it. That’s all. That’s evolution. It doesn’t matter who started it, the process ran all by itself.

Since your response focused on the programmer, let’s discuss that part as well. As you pointed out, the program could not run if someone hadn’t written it first. But let’s think about that – what kind of program could run without being written by anyone? Well, all of the “instructions� would have to be things that happen naturally – things that do not require any supernatural forces. Something like reproduction with random variation. Also, the mechanism by which it judged “good� and “bad� would have to be completely natural. Some sort of natural selection.

And we’re back to evolution being completely independent of supernatural forces.

[William]

[Replying to post 65 by Danmark]

I was commenting on post #57 by member PghPanther who appeared to be saying that if computers can be programmed to simulate randomness into complex systems, then that 'explains' the universe being able to form as it has without any mind being involved.


I then explained that the assumption of total randomness cannot be supported by such an analogy. The other example of mimicking nature in order to produce invention for motor-sport also is inclusive of consciousness - conscious participation in the creativity process.

In other words, trying to explain how assumed total randomness came to be so complex and ordered without some type of mind being involved is to do so using magical thinking.


[Replying to post 66 by Danmark]

Then the example of a random computer program given to show that it is possible for something to randomly create itself, is false.

That is not the issue. There is no claim that anything 'randomly creates itself.'

Okay... so the claim is that life did not randomly create itself. Are you sure about that?

The claim is that life developed without conscious intelligence to direct it.

Well I noted that aspect as well by saying that it very likely was set in motion by conscious intelligence and then left to unfold as it would. In doing so I was also making note of the fact that either way, conscious intelligence had to be involved.

[William]

[Replying to post 68 by Rufus21]

You seem to be so hung up on the programmer that you are ignoring the program.

You misunderstand what I am saying. A program cannot exist without a programmer.

Let me try again.

What I would encourage you to do is not be hung up on the program but understand that where there is a program, there is a programmer.