The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[polymath257]

Yes, there is a reason to rule them out, at least for the most part. [...]

You may be right. I certainly can't say.

But if there's one thing we know about the whole mind/brain issue, it's that we don't know what's happening. So I consider the issue very much open.

But we *do* know what is happening in quantum mechanics. Unless there is a mechanism for amplifying atomic level events to macroscopic levels, the quantum aspects are irrelevant.

Superpositions and entanglements are delicate.

[HappySkeptic]

I think this over-arching comment by Peebo is interesting. At its simplest level, evolution is change in allele frequencies over time. And the mechanisms of evolution we all know (mutation, selection, drift, etc.), are the reasons why allele frequencies change over time. But from here the theory grows broader: people become interested in adaptation, social behavior, speciation etc. With the broadest overarching umbrella perhaps being that of the historical narrative of life on earth, fossil records, origins, reconstructing the story of evolution.

I've added your book recommendation to my collection. (Libgen is like Barnes and Nobles for me lol.)

All those things are part of modern evolutionary theory, and are not controversial - except some aspects of behavior.  Explaining aspects of human behavior can get unscientific, as people spin just-so stories.  However, I do like game theory for better understanding how societies and social interactions work or don't work.

[John 6IX Breezy]

All those things are part of modern evolutionary theory, and are not controversial - except some aspects of behavior. 

I think controversy is the wrong word; there are certainly many issues and debates at every level, and in every facet, of evolution beyond just behavior. There are debates over statistical analysis, testability of phylogenies, inferences from fossils, and even debates over the very definition of species themselves, to name a few.

ps. Evolution, like any theory, has a certain weight, or inertia, to it. People tend to only see a theory's momentum across time, but don't realize that it dies at the alter of observation daily. Or they do know that a theory is always adjusting to the evidence, but don't realize the adjustment is mandated by its wrong predictions. There is a certain blindness to the faults of evolution that I think is unfortunate.

[Angrboda]

Every theory has problems at the boundaries. This is a stupid criticism.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Given that the accumulation of such problems is the precursor to crisis, revolutions, and paradigm shifts, I fail to see the stupidity.

[Angrboda]

Yeah, when that happens, you be sure to let me know. Until then, it's a stupid criticism of the theory. There's a reason most predictions fail. You figure it out. You're a smart boy.

[John 6IX Breezy]

There's a reason most predictions fail.

Because they're wrong, obviously lol.

[vulcanlogician]

So I guess no Freud or Jung then? Your loss.

Seriously man, I think you are too smart to be denying evolution. Not all Christians deny evolution. Not all Christians posit design. Design is a very bad argument now that we've been able to examine the fossil history. And I'm one of the people who thinks it was a very GOOD argument when William Paley made it back in the day. But since we've had a good look at fossils and the cosmic microwave background-- no. Terrible argument.

What exactly are your credentials in philosophy to denigrate the teleological argument without bothering to explain why? Let's say we have a theory A which superseeds evolution, and which completely explains existence and all aspects of beauty in nature... so what.. you stupid fools ? Is explaining the workings and the evolution of an object somewhat dispenses with the possibility of a creator? 

Let's say you fully understand the workings of your car engine... and thousands of years from now, they found you car engine's fossils and assembled a fossil history.. Would they then be entitled to say : oh it looks like we understand better how engines evolved.. no need for manufacturing companies!

I think you are an honest person, Breezy, but design is not an argument that is pushed by honest people (nowadays, anyway, in the post-Paley era). 

Modern philosophers like Swinburne and Lennox defend this same argument... They're not honest enough.. maybe? In any case, where is your essay responding to their defenses?

I majored in philosophy in college, and (if I may say) I was quite good at it. But I've always been of the opinion that anyone can philosophize no matter their credentials.

Though I used the term design, my post was not attacking design in general, but rather evolution denial. THAT'S what I feel is dishonest and predatory. I should have been more clear. I DID say "design is not pushed by honest people." I was thinking Kent Hovind-- not Oxford philosophers. So let me clarify. I think evolution denial is dishonest. Not design generally. You might have inferred this when I said something like "You should accept that God designed the system that let complex life form from microbes."

The design argument outside of evolution denial? Can't say I find the argument compelling. But neither do I think it is dishonest.

[The Architect Of Fate]

What exactly are your credentials in philosophy to denigrate the teleological argument without bothering to explain why? Let's say we have a theory A which superseeds evolution, and which completely explains existence and all aspects of beauty in nature... so what.. you stupid fools ? Is explaining the workings and the evolution of an object somewhat dispenses with the possibility of a creator? 

Let's say you fully understand the workings of your car engine... and thousands of years from now, they found you car engine's fossils and assembled a fossil history.. Would they then be entitled to say : oh it looks like we understand better how engines evolved.. no need for manufacturing companies!


Modern philosophers like Swinburne and Lennox defend this same argument... They're not honest enough.. maybe? In any case, where is your essay responding to their defenses?

I majored in philosophy in college, and (if I may say) I was quite good at it. But I've always been of the opinion that anyone can philosophize no matter their credentials.

Though I used the term design, my post was not attacking design in general, but rather evolution denial. THAT'S what I feel is dishonest and predatory. I should have been more clear. I DID say "design is not pushed by honest people." I was thinking Kent Hovind-- not Oxford philosophers. So let me clarify. I think evolution denial is dishonest. Not design generally. You might have inferred this when I said something like "You should accept that God designed the system that let complex life form from microbes."

The design argument outside of evolution denial? Can't say I find the argument compelling. But neither do I think it is dishonest.

He's pushing apologists propagandists like Swinburne and Lennox. Yikes!!! They further back the theory credentials aren't everything.

[Belacqua]

https://www.informationphilosopher.com/s...eology.pdf

Mayr on teleology.