(March 14, 2014 at 11:29 am)Heywood Wrote: I substantiated my argument by calling out Dawkins for saying something which I think is wrong(he said evolution was completely blind).

The only way to substantiate your argument is to create a false dichotomy between an intentional agent or completely random processes that do not follow any rules.

(March 14, 2014 at 11:21 am)Heywood Wrote: Dawkins showed that an intellect can use evolution as a means to a specific end.

We've been doing that for thousands of years with agriculture and animal husbandry.

(March 14, 2014 at 11:21 am)Heywood Wrote: He then called his demonstration a cheat. Why?

Because it was artificial selection, not natural selection.

(March 14, 2014 at 11:21 am)Heywood Wrote: A)He believes natural evolution isn't guided by anything and thus not homing in on anything(which is clearly a blunder because it sometimes does home in on particular forms).

Your claim does not become less of a misconception the more you repeat it. Sure, if there's a God, it may be guiding evolution in a way similar to Dawkins' program...and if there's not, it's not, and evolution acts in exactly the same way. Adding a 'guider' does not increase the explanatory power of the theory in any way. And either way, Dawkins' program didn't simulate natural selection, whether natural selection is unguided or guided by a deity. Artificial selection is much, MUCH faster than natural selection. It's almost as though an intellect guiding evolution makes a real difference in the outcome.

(March 14, 2014 at 11:21 am)Heywood Wrote: B)He realizes evolution is guided by a fitness paradigm but was concerned people would conclude God used this as a means of creation(contrary to an atheistic world view).

I'm pretty sure this isn't a rabbit hole anyone could anticipate a person going down: organisms adapt to fit their environment, therefore God! I mean, theistically guided evolution is an old claim, but to reason that selective conservation of inherited variable traits actually implies a God is a new one.

I hope your idea catches on among Christians, if it does they'll be claiming evolution was their idea all along in twenty years, but at least they won't be claiming the universe isn't more than 10 thousand years old. Your ideas are harmless enough in comparison to be preferable.

(March 14, 2014 at 11:29 am)Heywood Wrote: I am arguing what I want to argue.

Evolution is guided and not blind. Evolution can be used by intellects to create specific things.

Evolution is guided by the environment, and animal breeding works. That's not arguing anything, that's stating the obvious.

Quote:I substantiated my argument by calling out Dawkins for saying something which I think is wrong(he said evolution was completely blind).

You substantiated the fact that you seem to mean something different from him by blindness of evolution, nothing more.

(March 14, 2014 at 11:29 am)Faith No More Wrote: Heywood, you're ignoring my points, so I want you to answer this question.

Does gravity require an intentional agent?

Gravity is a independent force. Evolution happens within a system.
They are not analogous.

Can you demonstrate evolution which creates complexity that does not require an intentional agent? I can't. I look at evolutionary systems whose origins are known to me and they all require the existence an intellect.

(March 14, 2014 at 11:35 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: I hope your idea catches on among Christians, if it does they'll be claiming evolution was their idea all along in twenty years...

Funny because it's true.

(March 14, 2014 at 11:21 am)Heywood Wrote: A)He believes natural evolution isn't guided by anything and thus not homing in on anything(which is clearly a blunder because it sometimes does home in on particular forms).

So, despite my- and many others- actually explaining what convergent evolution is, you've decided to completely ignore that in favor of just claiming that it's magic, instead?

And you fail to see how this is dishonest?

(March 14, 2014 at 11:36 am)Alex K Wrote: You substantiated the fact that you seem to mean something different from him by blindness of evolution, nothing more.

I addressed this concern but you ignored it. It seems that blindness, in Dawkins eyes, means not guided by anything. Hence he called his own accurate demonstration of how evolution works....a bit of a cheat...because it was guided by a fitness function.

Is natural evolution a bit of a cheat too because it is guided by a fitness function?

(March 14, 2014 at 11:37 am)Heywood Wrote:

(March 14, 2014 at 11:29 am)Faith No More Wrote: Heywood, you're ignoring my points, so I want you to answer this question.

Does gravity require an intentional agent?

Gravity is a independent force. Evolution happens within a system.
They are not analogous.

Can you demonstrate evolution which creates complexity that does not require an intentional agent? I can't. I look at evolutionary systems whose origins are known to me and they all require the existence an intellect.

So it's back to the oldest creationist/ID talking points, fine. But your argument really isn't with the one media figurehead of evolution you happen to know, it is with the thousands of researchers working on the subject.

How do you define complexity?

(March 14, 2014 at 11:37 am)Faith No More Wrote:

(March 14, 2014 at 11:35 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: I hope your idea catches on among Christians, if it does they'll be claiming evolution was their idea all along in twenty years...

Funny because it's true.

I think evolution is awesome. I wish everyone accepted it as it is certainly not contradictory to a theistic world view.

(March 14, 2014 at 11:41 am)Heywood Wrote: Is natural evolution a bit of a cheat too because it is guided by a fitness function?

In nature, Dawkins is not determining the fitness landscape. There's no evidence that anyone is.