Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Mudhammam]

It seems like we're arguing dualism under the false guise of scientific credibility here.

Dualism has an armada of different meanings. For instance in physics there is wave/particle duality. In what sense are we arguing dualism?

As far as science goes, I don't think there is any real disagreement on the science. The disagreement is in the interpretation of that science.

Regarding the claim made by another poster that simulations are not evolution...that is just plain wrong. Any process which satisfies the definition of evolution can be said to be evolution. I put forth the following definition for evolution in this thread and received no objections or criticisms.

Evolution is a process whereby small changes in the heritable characteristics of a population accumulate thru a selective filter over successive generations. The accumulation of these changes ultimately result in significant increase in one or more of the following: complexity, diversity, and knowledge.


Simulations contain these elements and achieve the stated results.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into your convoluted view of natural selection but you seem to project human consciousness onto all of matter, from the collision of every atom to each organism. That is, because humans can guide evolution through artificial selection or design incredibly complex silicon machinery that mimics biological functionality, this implies that consciousness somehow must have manipulated the entire Universe for last the 13.8 billion years.