A Non-religious Critique of Darwinism

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bullwinkle
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:05 pm

Post by bullwinkle » Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:59 pm

Nikolai wrote:By the way, you haven't ever read Sheldrake's book on Morphic resonance have you - the way you talk about rubber sheets reminds me of his argument?
No I haven't heard of it. Would you recommend it?
Rortabend wrote:Yet the fact it is difficult for us to imagine isn't really a compelling objection. I think the best rebuttal to this argument can be found in Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker.
I agree that the fact that it is difficult to imagine isn't a compelling objection. That wasn't really what I was getting at; my concern is that the idea might be a logical muddle because it achieves something (evolution/increasing complexity) that I don't see as necessarily linked to adaptation. Maybe it depends on whether you look at evolution as a process of emergence or not. I've got a particular reference in mind. I'll have a look for it and if I can find the details I'll post it.

I'm a bit fed up of Dawkins. I've read 2 of his books: 'The Devil's Chaplain' and 'The God Delusion' and they were both rubbish. I've heard that his earlier books are better. Do you have any idea where in 'The Blind Watchmaker' the rebuttal you're thinking of is. I might go and read that section over a coffee in the bookshop.

Bullwinkle

User avatar
Rortabend
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:36 am
Location: Cambridge

Post by Rortabend » Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:37 am

I'm a bit fed up of Dawkins. I've read 2 of his books: 'The Devil's Chaplain' and 'The God Delusion' and they were both rubbish. I've heard that his earlier books are better. Do you have any idea where in 'The Blind Watchmaker' the rebuttal you're thinking of is. I might go and read that section over a coffee in the bookshop.
I can't agree with you more about Dawkins. When I started reading his books 15 years ago I was really impressed but now I'm bored of the uninformed rants about stuff he clearly hasn't resesearched. Can't remember which chapter it is but he's better on home turf.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12312
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:25 pm

Hi bullwinkle,
bullwinkle wrote:...It seems that a complex adaptation which is achieved in stages requires every stage to have some survival advantage. I find it quite difficult to see how it is in the nature of these small changes to add up to the achievement of something like a brain. It is as if we are explaining the thing that seems significant as a by-product of another process. Is there something missing here?
I do not think Darwin proposed that every mutation has to necessarily have a survival advantage. Just that if the mutation provides a survival advantage then the trait will be passed by reproduction and inheritance and will become a dominant one for the species.
I think you mean mind rather than brain as the nervous system appears to be a standard evolution for the vast majority of species and has been for a very long time. So I think minor changes to a nervous system over a long time could probably explain the apperance of a 'brain' that can support mind. Whether this explains mind I don't know.

User avatar
bullwinkle
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:05 pm

Post by bullwinkle » Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:00 pm

Hi all,

In the letters page of the current issue there is a reply by Mary Midgeley to the letters criticising her article on ID and evolution.

Bullwinkle

Jack
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:09 pm

Re: A Non-religious Critique of Darwinism

Post by Jack » Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:14 am

Nikolai wrote:
Much criticism of Darwinism comes from the religious, often because it contradicts truths spelled out in scripture.
Nikolai,

If I were to discount all the objections that the religious minded tend to put forth in the defense of their cherished positions and ask you, "what is your main arguement for the incapatability of intellegent design / evolution" what would be your own persanal response ?

Nikolai
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:36 pm
Location: Finland

Post by Nikolai » Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:09 pm

Hi Jack,

I'm not sure I fully understand your question but I see no incompatibility between intelligent design and evolution.

This thread was intended to draw attention to the many philosophical assumptions contained within the theory of evolution. I think that many of us take the veracity of evolution theory as a given when in actual fact, it is fraught with difficulties. These include such Kantian questions as whether time and space are properties of things in themselves or or they merely categories of understanding. For evoultion to be true we would have to allow an elapse of time before humans came along.

User avatar
Psychonaut
Posts: 465
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:40 pm
Location: Merseyside, UK

Post by Psychonaut » Thu May 01, 2008 7:58 am

Can you provide any such philosophical problems for evolution that are not also problems for the whole of science?

Nikolai
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:36 pm
Location: Finland

Post by Nikolai » Fri May 02, 2008 3:40 pm

No I can't. But to me that differentiates philosophy from science and makes it a different discipline. There are a lot of people who tackle philosophical questions by using big bang/evolution as their starting axiom (SGR's system is a good example of this). To me evolution theory is too unstable philosophically to be a foundation of any worthwhile knowledge. Yet it really is the 'official doctrine' of our time. I think it would be interesting for philosophers to be more critical of it than they are. What was interesting about this thread is that it soon became a scientific critique of evolution (e.g about mechanisms of change, mutation rates). I think as a society we are not well-versed at doing a truly philosophical critique, and I completely include myself in this.

User avatar
Psychonaut
Posts: 465
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:40 pm
Location: Merseyside, UK

Post by Psychonaut » Fri May 02, 2008 3:45 pm

Any particular evolutionary theories may be flawed, that does not critique evolutionary theory in general.

Evolution can be reduced thusly:

That which exists exists because it has been caused by something previous.
That which sufficiently causes itself in the next moment will continue to exist.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12312
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: A Non-religious Critique of Darwinism

Post by Arising_uk » Tue May 06, 2008 12:45 am

Jack wrote:...If I were to discount all the objections that the religious minded tend to put forth in the defense of their cherished positions and ask you, "what is your main arguement for the incapatability of intellegent design / evolution" what would be your own persanal response ?
Hi Jack,
It's to complicated. Why would God waste its time on such minute design considerations. Much easier to just seed a culture. No need to control the growth just the medium. Religion should give up arguing with Science and just say God started it All, no argument from Science there and much in agreement.

Jack
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:09 pm

Re: A Non-religious Critique of Darwinism

Post by Jack » Thu May 29, 2008 4:19 am

Arising_uk wrote: It's to complicated. Why would God waste its time on such minute design considerations. Much easier to just seed a culture. No need to control the growth just the medium. Religion should give up arguing with Science and just say God started it All, no argument from Science there and much in agreement.

"Arising,

If God controlled everything what would that mean for Man's maybe free will?

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12312
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: A Non-religious Critique of Darwinism

Post by Arising_uk » Fri May 30, 2008 12:07 am

Jack,
Well, if it exists and it did control everything then those who kill, rape, murder, maim and assault others, can sleep soundly in their beds knowing they are doing its will.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests