RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 1:39 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2015 at 1:46 pm by Chas.)
(February 6, 2015 at 12:17 pm)Heywood Wrote:(February 6, 2015 at 9:43 am)Chas Wrote: However, if you are now talking about evolution in a broader, less technical sense such as the evolution of computers, or the evolution of thought in the political world, or memes, then this has nothing much to do with biological evolution.
I am talking about every evolutionary system which contains the following elements: replication, heritable traits, change, and selection. Those elements define the set of things I am talking about. Biological evolution just happens to belong in that set because it is a system which contains those elements.
What you are doing is making a special pleading. You are saying that even though Biological evolution contains those elements it really doesn't belong to the set of things I am talking about.....that somehow it is a special case. You are making this special pleading without any justification.
No, it is not special pleading. Your definition does not include replication of replicators which is central to biological evolution.
Biological evolution is descent with modification. That means reproduction.
Your examples don't; your argument is pointless.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.