Long, Detailed posts - Page 2

I, Brian · 08-31-2003, 12:17 AM

Actually, "Intelligent Design" is a much older philosophical concept, that Creationists have hijacked more recently simply to cloak their fundamentalist proselytising within the state education system. When I refer to "Intelligent Design" I am referencing the philosophical concept which I believe is the basis for the "anthropic principle".

Btw - while you're reading Gould, you may want to take a look at what Richard Dawkins had been saying about him. :roll eyes:

I'll reserve evolutionary theory itself for another thread, though.

Skeptic44 · 08-31-2003, 12:18 AM

[quote=Skeptic44]__________

Several of the best books on Natural Selection explain WHY it appears that there was some sort of a mind which gave order to our present form.... [/QUOTE}

Start here. If you're going to post messages about this subject, you need to be familiar with the various theories of Natural Selection, or you will find every person you talk to will give you the same answer.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker/pinker_p1.html

Be sure you clink on the link for "The Talk" at the bottom of page.

Think of Pinker as a way to cleanse your palate after wading through all the phony Intelligent Design websites.

www.creationresearch.org

You would think this one is a legitimate research paper - NOT!

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq...rematodes.html

Vajradhara · 09-02-2003, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic44

________________

This is enough to see your mistake.

Go to google and do a search on "Natural Selection."

Darwin's theory - concentrating on Jay Gould and current authors.

It isn't blind chance or accident - it's a combination of blind chance, accident, AND natural selection.

Explains your concerns much better than theory you posted.

Check out Steven Pinker and how many generations it takes for a trait to spread through a population - and why - you'll be amazed.

Namaste skeptic,

did you read the rest of the posting or stop there?

i'm pretty famaliar with natural selection and it's related processes, however natural selection does not address the "why" of our being the way we are, simply the "how".

one of biggest strawmen that i've seen recently is the whole misunderstanding of Evolution and Creation and their mutal incompatibility. the theories are not mutually exclusive by any means... heck, Darwin was a devout theist when he wrote Origin of Species... though i understand that he recanted this later in his life.

in any event, Karma is a very difficult subject for westerners to wrap their minds around and is also not something observable and testable, which makes for a poor scientific theory... all things to trip up the western mind.

Skeptic44 · 09-02-2003, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste skeptic,

i'm pretty famaliar with natural selection and it's related processes, however natural selection does not address the "why" of our being the way we are, simply the "how".

_______________

That's why I suggested you do more research.

It does address the why. And it's a really interesting subject.

Everything about "our being the way we are"... why, how, where, when, all of that.

I, Brian · 09-02-2003, 08:58 PM

No it doesn't - not in the slightest. Science never describes the why of even the most basic constructs of metaphysics.

And evolutionary science itself is one of the weakest of all scientific theories. The basic tenet of macro-evolution is a good one - but biology is so far behind in actually explaining the processes of macro-evolution that advocation of evolutionary theory must step extremely cautiously.

Read the science press if you don't believe what I mean - here's a good place to start: www.newscientist.com

I would be grateful if no one actually insults my intelligence by posting links to pro-evolutionary sites.

Anyone who wishes to claim that evolutionary theory is all fact with no grey areas can start by telling me straight - who is right about the timescale of macro-evolution: Stephen Jay Gould, or Richard Dawkins?

That, by the way, certainly does not mean to say that I support Creationism either. I simply give no truck to any form of fundamentalism - religious or secular.

Skeptic44 · 09-03-2003, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I, Brian

No it doesn't - not in the slightest. Science never describes the why of even the most basic constructs of metaphysics.
.

________________

Yes, it does.

After you discover all the rules of natural selection - how many generations it takes for a mutation with a 1% increase in survival factor to spread through a population, what % of a population will have x mutation after 100 generations - you come up with a surprisingly vast and thorough explanation for all of the questions asked in the original post.

Why do some people fail? Why are some born with crippling birth defects and other gifted athletes?

Science has given us - not a 100% certainity, but certainly a reasonable and valid possibility as to why.

There is no motive. No reason. It happened thru natural selection and mutation.

There is no "God-figure" sitting on the other side of the dimensional divide saying, "I wanted you to be born autistic for THIS reason."

It isn't because there's a higher power that decides, "I'm doing it for THIS reason."

Natural selection explains most, if not all, of the questions.

And if you don't agree... phrase the question in as few words as possible and give me another crack at it.

But the basic answer - there is no God deciding things. All of the things that appear to be an intellect guiding things are actually the result of Natural Selection. The idea of there being a single supernatural force behind them is only an illusion.

I, Brian · 09-04-2003, 09:32 AM

God is a concept that remains an unquantified construct. Science can only address concepts that are quanitified. So science as a discipline is absolutely incapable of addressing the concept of God so long as God remains unquanitified. Therefore, science is not equipped to make any direct pronouncement on God. (I'm taking "God" as being a pan-theist concept, btw.)

Now, some people will read their own verdict on God through the annals of modern science - various different religious and secular camps sometimes do this as a matter of course in very different ways.

Essentially, whether a person reads the presence of a Deity - through whatever processes of the unvierse...or not - remains an entirely personal perception.

Vajradhara · 09-10-2003, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic44

________________

Yes, it does.

After you discover all the rules of natural selection - how many generations it takes for a mutation with a 1% increase in survival factor to spread through a population, what % of a population will have x mutation after 100 generations - you come up with a surprisingly vast and thorough explanation for all of the questions asked in the original post.

Why do some people fail? Why are some born with crippling birth defects and other gifted athletes?

Science has given us - not a 100% certainity, but certainly a reasonable and valid possibility as to why.

There is no motive. No reason. It happened thru natural selection and mutation.

There is no "God-figure" sitting on the other side of the dimensional divide saying, "I wanted you to be born autistic for THIS reason."

It isn't because there's a higher power that decides, "I'm doing it for THIS reason."

Natural selection explains most, if not all, of the questions.

And if you don't agree... phrase the question in as few words as possible and give me another crack at it.

But the basic answer - there is no God deciding things. All of the things that appear to be an intellect guiding things are actually the result of Natural Selection. The idea of there being a single supernatural force behind them is only an illusion.

Namaste skeptic,

this is essentially the position of Karma as well. it's an impersonal force.. it's not someone or something passing judgement or rewarding proper behavior or belief. it's the natural outflow of our actions, whether positive or negative.

if a farmer plants his crops yet chooses not to water them, we don't say that he's being punished when his crop doesn't come in.... we say that "he reaped what he sowed." when he does take care of them and water them and they come in, we don't say that he's being rewarded either.

I, Brian · 09-10-2003, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

if a farmer plants his crops yet chooses not to water them, we don't say that he's being punished when his crop doesn't come in.... we say that "he reaped what he sowed." when he does take care of them and water them and they come in, we don't say that he's being rewarded either.

LOL!!!

For myself, I think you just succintly explained the concept better there than all the preceding information!

Certainly addresses, quite directly, my earlier concerns of a "moral engine" being behind karma.

Vajradhara · 09-10-2003, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I, Brian

LOL!!!

For myself, I think you just succintly explained the concept better there than all the preceding information!

Certainly addresses, quite directly, my earlier concerns of a "moral engine" being behind karma.

Namaste Brian,

excellent!

as i stated earlier, i'm destitute of learning and devoid of skill with words.. i am pleased that i was able to present it in a way that is more clear