What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-03-2013, 07:25 AM
What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(11-03-2013 02:39 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 02:18 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  More to it than physical processes? Nope.

Do you also check your horoscope? Just curious.

So if a mind can converge on a particular idea or thought why can't evolution converge on a form? But wait...convergent evolution demonstates that evolution can and does converge on particular forms.

Also I don't check my horoscope. Do you? Just curious.

Convergence needs no goal to occur. Do two colliding asteroids need a goal to collide? Whose goal?

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2013, 10:10 AM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2013 10:18 AM by Adenosis.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(11-03-2013 02:39 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 02:18 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  More to it than physical processes? Nope.

Do you also check your horoscope? Just curious.
So if a mind can converge on a particular idea or thought why can't evolution converge on a form? But wait...convergent evolution demonstates that evolution can and does converge on particular forms.

Also I don't check my horoscope. Do you? Just curious.

Convergence doesn't imply a goal. Look at my previous example. Do you think there is a goal in mind when two asteroids smash together? Convergence isn't the result of a goal, it's the result of chance. Think of the universe, there are hundreds of billions of galaxies each containing hundreds of billions of stars. A good portion of those stars are secondary star systems and have orbitting planets. With your logic, if any planets form similarily, then there was a goal or purpose. When your not an enemy of reason (or reality for that matter) you know that because of the quantities we observe, there are very likely planets similar to ours.

There may be many many ways in which species can differentiate (divergence), but there is always the chance that more than one species adapts in a similar way. Simply because there is a finite amount of mutations that can happen (the genome is not infinitely long, and contains only four keys), and if a specific adaptation is helpful to one species, it will be helpful to another in a similar environment. Nothing prevents another species from adapting in similar ways. Your merely asserting this convergence is evidence of some intellect, and it's not.

Your entire view of how this works is a result of your belief in god, even if you aren't aware of it. Our beliefs shape the filter we view reality through; our own unique perception filter. What your saying doesn't actually make sense, but it makes sense to you because your already assuming a god exists.

You see a process, you attribute god to playing a part in it.
We see a process, we take the time to understand the process for what it is, and we know that it is sufficiently explainable without supernatural nonsense. This doesn't mean were bias against god, it means your bias for him. We don't insert him into the evolutionary equation because he is (1) no required to make it work and (2) hasn't even been proved to exist himself. Yes yes you said the intelligence could be anything, but we all know your belief is that it was god, no point dancing around this.

Do you think there is a goal when a star explodes? In your mind the goal might be to create a second generation star system which contains heavy elements, the building blocks of life. But the birth, life, and death of a star is a completely explainable process that is simple the result of the physical laws.

Your asserting evolution is different (and human minds for that case). Do you understand how science works? Demonstrate this to be so if it is true.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2013, 11:07 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(11-03-2013 10:10 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 02:39 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  So if a mind can converge on a particular idea or thought why can't evolution converge on a form? But wait...convergent evolution demonstates that evolution can and does converge on particular forms.

Also I don't check my horoscope. Do you? Just curious.

Convergence doesn't imply a goal. Look at my previous example. Do you think there is a goal in mind when two asteroids smash together? Convergence isn't the result of a goal, it's the result of chance. Think of the universe, there are hundreds of billions of galaxies each containing hundreds of billions of stars. A good portion of those stars are secondary star systems and have orbitting planets. With your logic, if any planets form similarily, then there was a goal or purpose. When your not an enemy of reason (or reality for that matter) you know that because of the quantities we observe, there are very likely planets similar to ours.

There may be many many ways in which species can differentiate (divergence), but there is always the chance that more than one species adapts in a similar way. Simply because there is a finite amount of mutations that can happen (the genome is not infinitely long, and contains only four keys), and if a specific adaptation is helpful to one species, it will be helpful to another in a similar environment. Nothing prevents another species from adapting in similar ways. Your merely asserting this convergence is evidence of some intellect, and it's not.

Your entire view of how this works is a result of your belief in god, even if you aren't aware of it. Our beliefs shape the filter we view reality through; our own unique perception filter. What your saying doesn't actually make sense, but it makes sense to you because your already assuming a god exists.

You see a process, you attribute god to playing a part in it.
We see a process, we take the time to understand the process for what it is, and we know that it is sufficiently explainable without supernatural nonsense. This doesn't mean were bias against god, it means your bias for him. We don't insert him into the evolutionary equation because he is (1) no required to make it work and (2) hasn't even been proved to exist himself. Yes yes you said the intelligence could be anything, but we all know your belief is that it was god, no point dancing around this.

Do you think there is a goal when a star explodes? In your mind the goal might be to create a second generation star system which contains heavy elements, the building blocks of life. But the birth, life, and death of a star is a completely explainable process that is simple the result of the physical laws.

Your asserting evolution is different (and human minds for that case). Do you understand how science works? Demonstrate this to be so if it is true.


While I completely agree with you, I would question sending MrBlowJob on a quest to find evidence to support his assertion. That's not how you do science. It's quite clear that he already has a terrible conformation bias, and hiding behind the smokescreen of 'intelligent agent' has done little to dull the consequences of such bias. But we shouldn't encourage him to find evidence that supports his a priori conclusion. The point is to be as unbiased as possible when evaluating the evidence you have, and to let it lead you as best it can. This whole tread stems from his inability to follow the evidence without his bias kicking in. Even if he were to attempt to find evidence, his search would be tinged with his confirmation bias. He will ignore what the evidence actually shows, and latch on to whatever he thinks can support his agenda. That is not how you do science, if you are truly in search for the truth; that is the kind of amateurish shit that creationist and religious apologists do.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
11-03-2013, 11:48 AM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2013 11:57 AM by Adenosis.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(11-03-2013 11:07 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  While I completely agree with you, I would question sending MrBlowJob on a quest to find evidence to support his assertion. That's not how you do science. It's quite clear that he already has a terrible conformation bias, and hiding behind the smokescreen of 'intelligent agent' has done little to dull the consequences of such bias. But we shouldn't encourage him to find evidence that supports his a priori conclusion. The point is to be as unbiased as possible when evaluating the evidence you have, and to let it lead you as best it can. This whole tread stems from his inability to follow the evidence without his bias kicking in. Even if he were to attempt to find evidence, his search would be tinged with his confirmation bias. He will ignore what the evidence actually shows, and latch on to whatever he thinks can support his agenda. That is not how you do science, if you are truly in search for the truth; that is the kind of amateurish shit that creationist and religious apologists do.

Everything starts somewhere, if someone believes they have discovered something then good for them. It is either false or true, in either case it will be an experience. I suggest he tries to find evidence for it, and to continue trying to convince people of it if that's what he wants to do. Because after countless attempts of trying to convince others and being shown where he is wrong, he may eventually realize he is wrong. He might realize a confirmation bias induced standard of evidence was the reason for him to believe it.

Or he will be arrogant and assume himself to be right and everyone else to be wrong, and will never learn. Learning requires mistakes. To fail to see your own mistakes is to fail to gather greater understanding of reality, and instead to live in your own fantasy world.

It is not open minded and wise to accept something without evidence, it's a sign of ignorance. How do you differentiate between which unfalsifiable beliefs to hold? You don't. You believe those that you are subject to and have experiences with that shape it to be a true thing in your mind. Beliefs come from your experiences (Data processed by your brain throughout your life). These beliefs can be true or false, don't you think were evolved enough to care about whether our beliefs are true or not?

We are completely dominating this planet, we are creating technologies to improve interstellar travel, to harness the suns radiant energy more efficiently, etc. Yet it's a problem for the majority of us to review our beliefs, and determine which ones are true or false? What the hell is wrong with everyone? Let's get this change going at a more rapid pace! We shouldn't have so many people believing in things because they were raised to assume it was that way, or simply because they like the implications the belief has (afterlife for those in fear of death, comfort for those grieving, objective purpose beyond reproduction). That being said, I understand why we still have those people, change takes time, but sometimes I wish it was faster.

Schools need to focus more on teaching Logic, Critical thinking, and a respect for evidence. But the people that would make the changes to bring that into effect are also religious. Right now is an interesting time to live for multiple reasons, the relevant one being the evolution of mankind from religion to science; superstitions to knowledge. I see this transition as complete when people stop denying sound logical conclusions because of personal beliefs, when beliefs conform to the evidence of reality. I see this transition as increasing at an increasing rate.

Anyway, I kind of got into a rant, whoops Big Grin

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Adenosis's post
11-03-2013, 02:37 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-03-2013 11:13 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-03-2013 10:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  Or they may go extinct. There is not infinite plasticity in a species. The necessary genes may not be present and the necessary mutations may not occur.

The environment does not induce change to members of a species. Members of a species will survive or not. The members that survive contribute their DNA to the succeeding generations.

Chas, I never said the fitness paradigm would induce change to members of the species. Your making a straw man's argument. I said over generations change will occur in the population.
population != member.
No, you entirely misunderstood what I said.

I am saying that evolution operates at the level of the individual in that individuals survive or not. There is no higher level of evolution.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2013, 03:02 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(11-03-2013 12:58 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(09-03-2013 02:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't know for sure, but it appears so.


(10-03-2013 06:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, I did not. We do not know how the mind works.

Chas, it looks like you are back peddling to me.

My evidence is the mind. The mind is a mechanistic algorithmic process that can have goals. It demonstrates that mechanistic/algorithmic processes can have goals. Evolution is a mechanistic algorithmic process therefore it is possible that evolution can have goals.
I am not back pedaling.

The mind is the result of brain function; evolution is the product of differential survival of organisms.

The two are not equivalent in the way you propose.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
11-03-2013, 05:49 PM
What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(11-03-2013 11:48 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 11:07 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  While I completely agree with you, I would question sending MrBlowJob on a quest to find evidence to support his assertion. That's not how you do science. It's quite clear that he already has a terrible conformation bias, and hiding behind the smokescreen of 'intelligent agent' has done little to dull the consequences of such bias. But we shouldn't encourage him to find evidence that supports his a priori conclusion. The point is to be as unbiased as possible when evaluating the evidence you have, and to let it lead you as best it can. This whole tread stems from his inability to follow the evidence without his bias kicking in. Even if he were to attempt to find evidence, his search would be tinged with his confirmation bias. He will ignore what the evidence actually shows, and latch on to whatever he thinks can support his agenda. That is not how you do science, if you are truly in search for the truth; that is the kind of amateurish shit that creationist and religious apologists do.

Everything starts somewhere, if someone believes they have discovered something then good for them. It is either false or true, in either case it will be an experience. I suggest he tries to find evidence for it, and to continue trying to convince people of it if that's what he wants to do. Because after countless attempts of trying to convince others and being shown where he is wrong, he may eventually realize he is wrong. He might realize a confirmation bias induced standard of evidence was the reason for him to believe it.

Or he will be arrogant and assume himself to be right and everyone else to be wrong, and will never learn. Learning requires mistakes. To fail to see your own mistakes is to fail to gather greater understanding of reality, and instead to live in your own fantasy world.

It is not open minded and wise to accept something without evidence, it's a sign of ignorance. How do you differentiate between which unfalsifiable beliefs to hold? You don't. You believe those that you are subject to and have experiences with that shape it to be a true thing in your mind. Beliefs come from your experiences (Data processed by your brain throughout your life). These beliefs can be true or false, don't you think were evolved enough to care about whether our beliefs are true or not?

We are completely dominating this planet, we are creating technologies to improve interstellar travel, to harness the suns radiant energy more efficiently, etc. Yet it's a problem for the majority of us to review our beliefs, and determine which ones are true or false? What the hell is wrong with everyone? Let's get this change going at a more rapid pace! We shouldn't have so many people believing in things because they were raised to assume it was that way, or simply because they like the implications the belief has (afterlife for those in fear of death, comfort for those grieving, objective purpose beyond reproduction). That being said, I understand why we still have those people, change takes time, but sometimes I wish it was faster.

Schools need to focus more on teaching Logic, Critical thinking, and a respect for evidence. But the people that would make the changes to bring that into effect are also religious. Right now is an interesting time to live for multiple reasons, the relevant one being the evolution of mankind from religion to science; superstitions to knowledge. I see this transition as complete when people stop denying sound logical conclusions because of personal beliefs, when beliefs conform to the evidence of reality. I see this transition as increasing at an increasing rate.

Anyway, I kind of got into a rant, whoops Big Grin

I have good news for you. The progress you seek is actually taking place. But, it's hard to see from the US. Where are you right now?

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2013, 06:05 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(11-03-2013 05:49 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  I have good news for you. The progress you seek is actually taking place. But, it's hard to see from the US. Where are you right now?
Yes, but my point was that it seems too slow Tongue The faster the better. I'm in Canada.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2013, 12:37 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(11-03-2013 03:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 12:58 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Chas, it looks like you are back peddling to me.

My evidence is the mind. The mind is a mechanistic algorithmic process that can have goals. It demonstrates that mechanistic/algorithmic processes can have goals. Evolution is a mechanistic algorithmic process therefore it is possible that evolution can have goals.
I am not back pedaling.

The mind is the result of brain function; evolution is the product of differential survival of organisms.

The two are not equivalent in the way you propose.
Chas, would you agree evolution is a process that an intellect can use to create, manufacture, or discover?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2013, 12:54 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(12-03-2013 12:37 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 03:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  I am not back pedaling.

The mind is the result of brain function; evolution is the product of differential survival of organisms.

The two are not equivalent in the way you propose.
Chas, would you agree evolution is a process that an intellect can use to create, manufacture, or discover?
No.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: