Dawkins and the design of Life
John Jones
But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design? Not
even a life form makes the Dawkinian distinction between life and
non-life. After all, life-forms can treat all life forms and non-life
forms (including itself) as environmental, non-life, consumables.
So is Dawkins going proxy for God when he, Dawkins, makes a distinction
between life and non-life designs?
Nic
yes and the number of vetenary surgeons who commit suicide is somewh\t
higher in UK than would be anticipated, as are the number of dental
sugeons....
but the pay is oh so clear!
John Jones
Just thought I'd reply to bring this post to the top of the pile for a bit.
Bill M
"John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hcfh86$8ml$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
>
> But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
> when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
Any intelligent person would and could distinguish between life forms and
non-life forms.
> How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design?
Why do you believe that life forms have a design when the scientific
evidence
is that life forms have evolved from basic living cells?
>Not even a life form makes the Dawkinian distinction between life and
>non-life. After all, life-forms can treat all life forms and non-life forms
>(including itself) as environmental, non-life, consumables.
This circular reasoning leads you no where!
> So is Dawkins going proxy for God when he, Dawkins, makes a distinction
> between life and non-life designs?
Making a distinction between life forms and non-life forms only takes
intelligent
observation. It does not require being a God!
Larry
Which pile??
--
Larry
Larry
@newsfe01.iad:
> Making a distinction between life forms and non-life forms only takes
> intelligent
> observation. It does not require being a God!
>
>
If anyone has any problem embracing evolution, all he needs do is to
embrace someone with H1N1 EVOLVED flu virus to prove that evolution is
quite alive and well....every flu cycle for the last few million years.
This years virus will EVOLVE its DNA, without some alien's intervention,
quite nicely into NEXT YEARS flu virus none of us are immune from!
Perhaps he could kiss the infected victim on the lips for better effect and
evolutionary demonstration of his own immunity to evolved virii....(c;]
--
Larry
panam...@hotmail.com
> John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote innews:hcfson$945$2...@news.eternal-september.org:
The pile of shit that most Cretinists live on. On one hand, that much
manure might help their crops grow...but on the other, it's ironic
that they'd deny the biological reasons manure can actually help
plants.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
John Stafford
Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
> "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:FxLGm.3410$Mg.172
> @newsfe01.iad:
>
> > Making a distinction between life forms and non-life forms only takes
> > intelligent
> > observation. It does not require being a God!
> >
> >
>
> If anyone has any problem embracing evolution, all he needs do is to
> embrace someone with H1N1 EVOLVED flu virus to prove that evolution is
> quite alive and well....every flu cycle for the last few million years.
>
> This years virus will EVOLVE its DNA, without some alien's intervention,
> quite nicely into NEXT YEARS flu virus none of us are immune from!
Evolve does not properly describe how viruses behave. They occur largely
at random as different geometries and their fundamental parts are
elemental. It is simply a matter of chance that we occasionally find
some so virulent (duh) that we become aware of their existence by
becoming ill. The other millions of viruses go unnoticed.
As an aside, sometimes I wonder if they don't fall into our atmosphere
from space. See articles by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. OK,
now that's digressing...
Zinnic
Dawkins and most of us make the distinction between life and non-life
in the same way as we make the distinction between day and non-day
(night).
Demanding an exact location of the transition point is simply being
John Jones!
Zinnic
bigfl...@gmail.com
> "John Jones" <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hcfh86$8ml$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
>
> > But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
> > when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
>
> Any intelligent person would and could distinguish between life forms and
> non-life forms.
And some are aware of the difference between life and life form. Just
lok how your form has evolved from the time of conception. Are you
still the you you were when you were twenty one, forty one, sixty one?
>
> > How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design?
>
> Why do you believe that life forms have a design when the scientific
> evidence
> is that life forms have evolved from basic living cells?
>
> >Not even a life form makes the Dawkinian distinction between life and
> >non-life. After all, life-forms can treat all life forms and non-life forms
> >(including itself) as environmental, non-life, consumables.
>
> This circular reasoning leads you no where!
>
> > So is Dawkins going proxy for God when he, Dawkins, makes a distinction
> > between life and non-life designs?
>
> Making a distinction between life forms and non-life forms only takes
> intelligent
> observation. It does not require being a God!
This takes on a whole new meaning when you look at the atomic
structure of a 'rock and a hard place (being human of course;-)..
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
Being sentient, one can distinguish between biological and spiritual
(not religious) laws.
The power of the psychosomatic is top down, not bottom up.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
> In article <Xns9CB5423633DEnoonehome...@74.209.131.13>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
The academics would have us believe they all came from the big bang,
or a least their ingredients did.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Oct 30, 3:10 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
>
> > But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
> > when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
>
> > How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design? Not
> > even a life form makes the Dawkinian distinction between life and
> > non-life. After all, life-forms can treat all life forms and non-life
> > forms (including itself) as environmental, non-life, consumables.
>
> > So is Dawkins going proxy for God when he, Dawkins, makes a distinction
> > between life and non-life designs?
Im glad you have been given a day pass to 'get out' again :-)
>
> Dawkins and most of us make the distinction between life and non-life
> in the same way as we make the distinction between day and non-day
> (night).
How do you explain that difference to a person blind from birth.
> Demanding an exact location of the transition point is simply being
> John Jones!
The Welsh are usually looking for such identity points.:-)
BOfL
> Zinnic
Zinnic
wrote:
> On Oct 31, 5:46 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 30, 3:10 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
>
> > > But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
> > > when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
>
> > > How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design? Not
> > > even a life form makes the Dawkinian distinction between life and
> > > non-life. After all, life-forms can treat all life forms and non-life
> > > forms (including itself) as environmental, non-life, consumables.
>
> > > So is Dawkins going proxy for God when he, Dawkins, makes a distinction
> > > between life and non-life designs?
>
> Im glad you have been given a day pass to 'get out' again :-)
>
>
>
> > Dawkins and most of us make the distinction between life and non-life
> > in the same way as we make the distinction between day and non-day
> > (night).
>
> How do you explain that difference to a person blind from birth.
With a difficulty comparable to explaining sound to a person deaf from
birth .
However, infinitely easier than explaining consciousness to the
unconscious! :-)
> > Demanding an exact location of the transition point is simply being
> > John Jones!
>
> The Welsh are usually looking for such identity points.:-)
Being only 50% Welsh and unusual to boot, I am able to recognize the
greyness that lies between all blacks and whites! (Including I and
We)
Zinnic
>
> > Zinnic- Hide quoted text -
Mitchell Holman
news:Xns9CB5423633...@74.209.131.13:
Modern Creationist: Someone who is sure that evolution is
a myth but demands the latest advances from evolutionary
biology when HE gets sick.
Matt Silberstein
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
<hcfh86$8ml$1...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
>Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
>
>But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
>when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
>
>How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design?
How about you try to define "design" in a way that makes sense of that
sentence.
>Not
>even a life form makes the Dawkinian distinction between life and
>non-life.
Huh? What is a "Dawkinian distinction"
>After all, life-forms can treat all life forms and non-life
>forms (including itself) as environmental, non-life, consumables.
>So is Dawkins going proxy for God when he, Dawkins, makes a distinction
>between life and non-life designs?
Again, you provide some of the finest poetry created by tossing
magnetic words against a refrigerator door.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Anthony Williams
> Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
Wrong!Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "intelligently designed."
ZerkonXXXX
> Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
with an intention?
hypa...@comcast.net
wrote:
some poxy spirit (that lives outside of everything and has
existed forever) breathed on? If this spirit is perfection, why
would it need us? Was it bored? Need and boredom can't
exist in perfection. If they do, than this spirit critter is not
perfect. Then, according to Christian rules, it is not their
idea of 'God'. Then, their 'God' doesn't exist.
And, then there's time...
raven1
WTF are you babbling about?
Larry
news:Xns9CB548D703590...@216.196.97.130:
> Modern Creationist: Someone who is sure that evolution is
> a myth but demands the latest advances from evolutionary
> biology when HE gets sick.
>
>
>
>
You can bet your ass he will.....(c;]
--
Larry
John Jones
The itchy one.
John Jones
Hello and woo
John Jones
> Any intelligent person would and could distinguish between life forms and
> non-life forms.
As opposed to what?
>
>> How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design?
>
> Why do you believe that life forms have a design when the scientific
> evidence
> is that life forms have evolved from basic living cells?
How do you recognise a life-form? You apply a design. A blue-print. A
design isn't a physical act.
John Jones
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:10:52 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
> <hcfh86$8ml$1...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
>
>> Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
>>
>> But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
>> when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
>>
>> How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design?
>
> How about you try to define "design" in a way that makes sense of that
> sentence.
Yes. A design is a blue-print, and not a realisation of that blue-print.
Dawkins must put his question on design in this way:
Rather than say that life is merely designed, Dawkins should say that
life is not realised or manifested through a design of God,
But once he argues that, then Dawkins is committed to the idea that
design identifies life.
Dawkins can't talk about life unless he has a design or template for
life, a template that allows him to recognise life and talk about it.
Nomen Publicus
> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:10:52 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
>> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
>> <hcfh86$8ml$1...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
>>>
>>> But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
>>> when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
>>>
>>> How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design?
>>
>> How about you try to define "design" in a way that makes sense of that
>> sentence.
>
> Yes. A design is a blue-print, and not a realisation of that blue-print.
> Dawkins must put his question on design in this way:
> Rather than say that life is merely designed, Dawkins should say that
> life is not realised or manifested through a design of God,
>
> But once he argues that, then Dawkins is committed to the idea that
> design identifies life.
No. I think you will find that "life" is recognised by behaviour rather
than by appearence. If it eats, shits, grows and reproduces then it's
probably alive. Viruses are borderline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
>
> Dawkins can't talk about life unless he has a design or template for
> life, a template that allows him to recognise life and talk about it.
>
--
Church: Local branch of The International House of Myths
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Oct 31, 6:05 am, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 31, 5:46 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 30, 3:10 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
>
> > > > But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
> > > > when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
>
> > > > How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design? Not
> > > > even a life form makes the Dawkinian distinction between life and
> > > > non-life. After all, life-forms can treat all life forms and non-life
> > > > forms (including itself) as environmental, non-life, consumables.
>
> > > > So is Dawkins going proxy for God when he, Dawkins, makes a distinction
> > > > between life and non-life designs?
>
> > Im glad you have been given a day pass to 'get out' again :-)
>
> > > Dawkins and most of us make the distinction between life and non-life
> > > in the same way as we make the distinction between day and non-day
> > > (night).
>
> > How do you explain that difference to a person blind from birth.
>
> With a difficulty comparable to explaining sound to a person deaf from
> birth .
I thought you may have mentioned the unsighted could refer to sounds
that vary with the time of
day...but you missed it.
> However, infinitely easier than explaining consciousness to the
> unconscious! :-).
Never tried to talk to a rock, so Ill have to take your word for
it.....
>
> > > Demanding an exact location of the transition point is simply being
> > > John Jones!
>
> > The Welsh are usually looking for such identity points.:-)
>
> Being only 50% Welsh and unusual to boot, I am able to recognize the
> greyness that lies between all blacks and whites! (Including I and
> We).
I guess the top half would be Welsh?
BOfL
> Zinnic
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Zinnic- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
John Jones
Behaviour isn't a physical description.
polymer
> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:10:52 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
>> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
>> <hcfh86$8ml$1...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
>>>
>>> But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious
>>> design when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
>>>
>>> How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design?
>>
>> How about you try to define "design" in a way that makes sense of that
>> sentence.
>
> Yes. A design is a blue-print, and not a realisation of that blue-print.
> Dawkins must put his question on design in this way: Rather than say
> that life is merely designed, Dawkins should say that life is not
> realised or manifested through a design of God,
>
> But once he argues that, then Dawkins is committed to the idea that
> design identifies life.
Dawkins uses the word "design" but is very, very clear about
using it in a very specific way that does _not_ imply a designer.
As usual, Jones, your philosophy
goes no deeper than playing word games.
Nomen Publicus
Life is a process.
--
Will not a filthy play, with the blast of a trumpet, sooner call thither
a thousand, than an hour's tolling of a bell, bring to the sermon
a hundred? -- John Stockwood, 1578
Zinnic
I guess I did miss your answer and a host of others! However, next
time give me a sporting chance and make it a multiple choice
question :-).
> Never tried to talk to a rock, so Ill have to take your word for
> it.....
Maybe not, but it is hard to believe you have not kissed the Blarney
stone!
> > > > Demanding an exact location of the transition point is simply being
> > > > John Jones!
>
> > > The Welsh are usually looking for such identity points.:-)
>
> > Being only 50% Welsh and unusual to boot, I am able to recognize the
> > greyness that lies between all blacks and whites! (Including I and
> > We).
>
> I guess the top half would be Welsh?
Unlike you, I split it down the middle and commit neither to Welsh
or Anglo (and in general to neither black or white).
I leave you to find definitive answers through your big "I". For me,
it is enough to know there are none (er.... I think.). :-)
Zinnic
Matt Silberstein
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
<hcj0is$9u5$1...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:10:52 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
>> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
>> <hcfh86$8ml$1...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
>>>
>>> But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
>>> when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
>>>
>>> How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design?
>>
>> How about you try to define "design" in a way that makes sense of that
>> sentence.
>
>Yes. A design is a blue-print, and not a realisation of that blue-print.
OK, so show there is such blue print for life or non-life.
>Dawkins must put his question on design in this way:
Dawkins is not talking about blueprints, so when he talks about design
he means something other than what you mean.
>Rather than say that life is merely designed,
He does not say that.
>Dawkins should say that
>life is not realised or manifested through a design of God,
>
>But once he argues that, then Dawkins is committed to the idea that
>design identifies life.
No, he would not be. Your conclusion makes no sense. I can't criticize
the logic because I don't see any logic presented.
>Dawkins can't talk about life unless he has a design or template for
>life, a template that allows him to recognise life and talk about it.
Huh?
Matt Silberstein
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
<hcjtd3$fif$2...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
When you find some non-physical behavior let us know.
(And, please, learn that use/mention distinction. No, behavior is not
a description, but he did not say that behavior was a description.
Description is a thing that humans do, we describe things in the
world.)
Errol
>> Dawkins can't talk about life unless he has a design or template for
> life, a template that allows him to recognise life and talk about it.
Do you have a template for dawkins? otherwise stop talking about him.
John Jones
Process isn't a physical description either.
John Jones
Theft, murder, partying, sailing, singing, etc. All these are not given
through a physical description.
John Jones
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:50:58 +0000, John Jones wrote:
>
>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:10:52 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
>>> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
>>> <hcfh86$8ml$1...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
>>>>
>>>> But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious
>>>> design when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
>>>>
>>>> How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design?
>>> How about you try to define "design" in a way that makes sense of that
>>> sentence.
>> Yes. A design is a blue-print, and not a realisation of that blue-print.
>> Dawkins must put his question on design in this way: Rather than say
>> that life is merely designed, Dawkins should say that life is not
>> realised or manifested through a design of God,
>>
>> But once he argues that, then Dawkins is committed to the idea that
>> design identifies life.
>
> Dawkins uses the word "design" but is very, very clear about
> using it in a very specific way that does _not_ imply a designer.
Design always implies a designer. Dawkins must say where he gets his
design for life from.
John Jones
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:50:58 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
> <hcj0is$9u5$1...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
>
>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:10:52 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
>>> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
>>> <hcfh86$8ml$1...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
>>>>
>>>> But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
>>>> when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
>>>>
>>>> How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design?
>>> How about you try to define "design" in a way that makes sense of that
>>> sentence.
>> Yes. A design is a blue-print, and not a realisation of that blue-print.
>
> OK, so show there is such blue print for life or non-life.
I want to know what Dawkins blueprint is. He needs a blueprint of some
sort if he is to distinguish a life form from a non life form.
>
>> Dawkins must put his question on design in this way:
>
> Dawkins is not talking about blueprints, so when he talks about design
> he means something other than what you mean.
>
>> Rather than say that life is merely designed,
>
> He does not say that.
Yes I know. I meant to say "Rather than merely say that life is not
designed,"
>
>> Dawkins should say that
>> life is not realised or manifested through a design of God,
>>
>> But once he argues that, then Dawkins is committed to the idea that
>> design identifies life.
>
> No, he would not be. Your conclusion makes no sense. I can't criticize
> the logic because I don't see any logic presented.
If Dawkins says that God didn't design life, then he must say who
designed it. Because, obviously, Dawkins sees a design of some sort.
>> Dawkins can't talk about life unless he has a design or template for
>> life, a template that allows him to recognise life and talk about it.
>
> Huh?
Where does Dawkins get his blueprint for life if the blueprint is not
found in nature?
Nomen Publicus
Life isn't a physical thing.
--
The sailor does not pray for wind, he learns to sail. -- Gustaf Lindborg
polymer
Lie. It can be, and is commonly, used in other ways as well.
Dawkins is completely clear that he is using it in a way that
does not imply a designer.
Your 'philosophy,' if it can even be called that, consists
of nothing of word games.
Errol
>
> I want to know what Dawkins blueprint is. He needs a blueprint of some
> sort if he is to distinguish a life form from a non life form.
>
He has a large metal blueprint.
He smacks it down on a small life form (a bug for EG) or a small non
life form (a rock for EG).
When he looks underneath the metal blue print, it has either a
squished life form or a dent (non life form)
Iv'e tried it and it works.
polymer
Jonesie has a blue print, too:
1) go to a dictionary and find a term,
2) find some writer who uses that term in a way
that does not exactly match that of the dictionary,
3) declare writer's work invalid because of the misuse
of the term,
4) lean back and feel satisfied in being the first
genius to find the writer's fatal mistake.
Matt Silberstein
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
<hcmed8$n5r$3...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
All of those are physical things. We can describe them as well. But I
don't grasp what you might mean by "given through a physical
description". I know the meaning of each of the words, but together
they make no sense.
Matt Silberstein
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
<hcmefu$n5r$4...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
If design requires a designer, then you have to show the existence of
the designer.
> Dawkins must say where he gets his
>design for life from.
Evolution. He says that quite clearly.
Matt Silberstein
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
<hcmer7$sus$1...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:50:58 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
>> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
>> <hcj0is$9u5$1...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:10:52 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
>>>> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
>>>> <hcfh86$8ml$1...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
>>>>>
>>>>> But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
>>>>> when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
>>>>>
>>>>> How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design?
>>>> How about you try to define "design" in a way that makes sense of that
>>>> sentence.
>>> Yes. A design is a blue-print, and not a realisation of that blue-print.
>>
>> OK, so show there is such blue print for life or non-life.
>
>I want to know what Dawkins blueprint is. He needs a blueprint of some
>sort if he is to distinguish a life form from a non life form.
No, he does not. He is not using your meaning of the term. He, like
any biologist, distinguishes life from non-life by the behavior of the
system in question.
>>
>>> Dawkins must put his question on design in this way:
>>
>> Dawkins is not talking about blueprints, so when he talks about design
>> he means something other than what you mean.
>>
>>> Rather than say that life is merely designed,
>>
>> He does not say that.
>
>Yes I know. I meant to say "Rather than merely say that life is not
>designed,"
I still don't have a clue what you mean. Do you? Here is an easier
one, have you actually read Dawkins? I don't like his writings or his
arguments, but he is worlds above you and is pretty clear on these
issues.
>>
>>> Dawkins should say that
>>> life is not realised or manifested through a design of God,
>>>
>>> But once he argues that, then Dawkins is committed to the idea that
>>> design identifies life.
>>
>> No, he would not be. Your conclusion makes no sense. I can't criticize
>> the logic because I don't see any logic presented.
>
>If Dawkins says that God didn't design life, then he must say who
>designed it. Because, obviously, Dawkins sees a design of some sort.
OK, you have no read Dawkins. He is pretty clear on this: we see the
traits we do because of evolution. He thinks that evolution is mostly
natural selection and he is wrong about that, but he is correct that
evolution is the designer. (There is nothing in your previous notion
of design that requires intent or willful action.)
I would argue that life looks designed because design (that thing that
humans do that we call design) is an evolutionary process. Design
differs from creation in that design is used to solve problems of
incomplete information and insufficient resources, design is done by
making incremental changes to existing solutions and trying them to
see if it works. IOW human design and biological evolution are both
examples of the same basic process.
>>> Dawkins can't talk about life unless he has a design or template for
>>> life, a template that allows him to recognise life and talk about it.
>>
>> Huh?
>
>Where does Dawkins get his blueprint for life if the blueprint is not
>found in nature?
I have no idea how to make that fit your previous words. You really
have a serious communication problem. And I do read modern
professional philosophy works.
John Jones
That's right.
John Jones
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:06:49 +0000, John Jones wrote:
>
>> polymer wrote:
>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:50:58 +0000, John Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:10:52 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
>>>>> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
>>>>> <hcfh86$8ml$1...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious
>>>>>> design when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design?
>>>>> How about you try to define "design" in a way that makes sense of
>>>>> that sentence.
>>>> Yes. A design is a blue-print, and not a realisation of that
>>>> blue-print. Dawkins must put his question on design in this way:
>>>> Rather than say that life is merely designed, Dawkins should say that
>>>> life is not realised or manifested through a design of God,
>>>>
>>>> But once he argues that, then Dawkins is committed to the idea that
>>>> design identifies life.
>>> Dawkins uses the word "design" but is very, very clear about using it
>>> in a very specific way that does _not_ imply a designer.
>> Design always implies a designer.
>
> Lie.
Fraud.
> It can be, and is commonly, used in other ways as well.
> Dawkins is completely clear that he is using it in a way that
> does not imply a designer.
Yeh, I can use the name of my aunty to imply she has a beard.
John Jones
Then he must say who or what the designer is.
John Jones
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:12:50 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
> I would argue that life looks designed because design (that thing that
> humans do that we call design) is an evolutionary process. Design
> differs from creation in that design is used to solve problems of
> I have no idea how to make that fit your previous words. You really
> have a serious communication problem. And I do read modern
> professional philosophy works.
>
If nature gives us the blueprint for life, then nature is another name
for God. If nature does not give us the blueprint for life then Dawkins
needs to say where he gets his blueprint for life from.
polymer
That is, indeed, the kind of language game in which you constantly
engage.
John Jones
Their physical summation doesn't describe them. You need something else
to distinguish a murder from a mercy killing.
> But I
> don't grasp what you might mean by "given through a physical
> description". I know the meaning of each of the words, but together
> they make no sense.
>
I mean that acts and behaviours, designs and blueprints, are not
physical descriptions. We can give a physical description of a set of
flowers but it won't describe or give us the design we call a bouquet.
Puck Greenman
More to the point, you first have to show that there IS a "blue print for life". and
explain how it can be recognised/identified.
Mere assertions, are valueless.
Does the same blueprint apply to mammals and trees , or fish and fungi, or does each life
form have it's own blueprint?
How about microbes, insects, virus?
Stop making vague assertions, and start offering some genuine evidence to support your
claim for design.
By the by, assertions like, "look around you", and "you're here aren't you?", do not count
as evidence.
Dan Listermann
"John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hcpmjh$95k$5...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:12:50 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
>> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
>
>> I would argue that life looks designed because design (that thing that
>> humans do that we call design) is an evolutionary process. Design
>> differs from creation in that design is used to solve problems of
>
>> I have no idea how to make that fit your previous words. You really
>> have a serious communication problem. And I do read modern
>> professional philosophy works.
>
> If nature gives us the blueprint for life, then nature is another name for
> God.
You are an animist!
Puck Greenman
>I want to know what Dawkins blueprint is. He needs a blueprint of some
>sort if he is to distinguish a life form from a non life form.
You have not yet offered any evidence for a blue print.
All that you are doing is committing the logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion, and
then demanding that someone else provides evidence for it.
John Jones
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:43:29 +0000, John Jones <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:12:50 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
>>> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
>>> I would argue that life looks designed because design (that thing that
>>> humans do that we call design) is an evolutionary process. Design
>>> differs from creation in that design is used to solve problems of
>>> I have no idea how to make that fit your previous words. You really
>>> have a serious communication problem. And I do read modern
>>> professional philosophy works.
>>>
>> If nature gives us the blueprint for life, then nature is another name
>> for God. If nature does not give us the blueprint for life then Dawkins
>> needs to say where he gets his blueprint for life from.
>
>
> More to the point, you first have to show that there IS a "blue print for life". and
> explain how it can be recognised/identified.
I'm not claiming that there is a blue-print or design for life. Dawkins
is claiming it.
John Jones
You left the bit out where I gave the alternative view. Why?
John Jones
How does Dawkins distinguish a life-form from a non-life form? Or is it
a fortuitous accident that he picked them out?
Don't you see? If Dawkins says that life is no more than a material
accident, then he needs to say at what point the accident became
recognisable as life. He can't do that.
Matt Silberstein
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
<hcq82e$f3u$1...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
I don't have a clue what you mean here. They are physical, *we*
describe things.
> You need something else
>to distinguish a murder from a mercy killing.
Yes, a subjective judgment by humans.
>> But I
>> don't grasp what you might mean by "given through a physical
>> description". I know the meaning of each of the words, but together
>> they make no sense.
>>
>
>I mean that acts and behaviours, designs and blueprints, are not
>physical descriptions.
Some actions and behaviors are descriptions. But that is not what you
mean. We people make descriptions of things.
>We can give a physical description of a set of
>flowers but it won't describe or give us the design we call a bouquet.
Yep, descriptions are not the thing described, the map is not the
territory.
Matt Silberstein
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
<hcpmbv$95k$4...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
He did, I just did. It was the first word in that paragraph:
evolution.
Let me repeat it: evolution.
Got it? Let me try again: evolution is the designer of life.
Matt Silberstein
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
<hcpmjh$95k$5...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:12:50 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
>> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
>
>> I would argue that life looks designed because design (that thing that
>> humans do that we call design) is an evolutionary process. Design
>> differs from creation in that design is used to solve problems of
>
>> I have no idea how to make that fit your previous words. You really
>> have a serious communication problem. And I do read modern
>> professional philosophy works.
>>
>
>If nature gives us the blueprint for life,
There is no blueprint for life.
>then nature is another name
>for God.
And god another name for nature.
>If nature does not give us the blueprint for life then Dawkins
>needs to say where he gets his blueprint for life from.
Evolution.
Matt Silberstein
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
<hcqb05$c0k$1...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
>Puck Greenman wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:12:50 +0000, John Jones <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I want to know what Dawkins blueprint is. He needs a blueprint of some
>>> sort if he is to distinguish a life form from a non life form.
>>
>> You have not yet offered any evidence for a blue print.
>>
>> All that you are doing is committing the logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion, and
>> then demanding that someone else provides evidence for it.
>
>
>How does Dawkins distinguish a life-form from a non-life form?
Same way all other biologists do, by the behavior of the systems
involved. Biological systems reproduce, metabolize, etc.
> Or is it
>a fortuitous accident that he picked them out?
>
>Don't you see? If Dawkins says that life is no more than a material
>accident, then he needs to say at what point the accident became
>recognisable as life. He can't do that.
No, he does not have to draw some sharp line. Nor does anyone claim it
is an accident.
Matt Silberstein
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
<hcqalb$81a$2...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
No, he does not. You have your own meaning of "design", but Darwin
uses a far more standard meaning. Anyway, he does not say life is
designed or looks designed or has a blueprint, he says that life is a
designoid, it is something that has some similarities to designed
objects. I gave you a nice explanation for the similarity, but you
seem to have ignored it. Here it is again:
[begin repost]
I would argue that life looks designed because design (that thing that
humans do that we call design) is an evolutionary process. Design
differs from creation in that design is used to solve problems of
incomplete information and insufficient resources, design is done by
making incremental changes to existing solutions and trying them to
see if it works. IOW human design and biological evolution are both
examples of the same basic process.
[end repost]
BTW, not all designed objects have blueprints.
Brian E. Clark
jonesc...@btinternet.com says...
> >> Dawkins must say where he gets his
> >> design for life from.
> >
> > Evolution. He says that quite clearly.
>
> Then he must say who or what the designer is.
E - V - O - L - U - T - I - O - N.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Puck Greenman
Can you say "metaphor"?
Because the origin of life is still unknown, we cannot give it technical words of it's
own, so we use the words that already exist.
We just don't necessarily use the words literally.
When Dawkins, and others, write their books, they, erroneously in some cases, assume an
audience intelligent enough to recognise that, and honest enough not to play childish
semantic games with the words.
Christopher A. Lee
<dubh_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:25:48 +0000, John Jones <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>Puck Greenman wrote:
>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:43:29 +0000, John Jones <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:12:50 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
>>>>> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
>>>>> I would argue that life looks designed because design (that thing that
>>>>> humans do that we call design) is an evolutionary process. Design
>>>>> differs from creation in that design is used to solve problems of
>>>>> I have no idea how to make that fit your previous words. You really
>>>>> have a serious communication problem. And I do read modern
>>>>> professional philosophy works.
>>>>>
>>>> If nature gives us the blueprint for life, then nature is another name
>>>> for God. If nature does not give us the blueprint for life then Dawkins
>>>> needs to say where he gets his blueprint for life from.
>>>
>>> More to the point, you first have to show that there IS a "blue print for life". and
>>> explain how it can be recognised/identified.
>>
>>I'm not claiming that there is a blue-print or design for life. Dawkins
>>is claiming it.
>
>Can you say "metaphor"?
It's a sympton - explain things using dumbed down language, analogy
and metaphor so people can understand it.
But do that and too many idiots think it is the whole story.
>Because the origin of life is still unknown, we cannot give it technical words of it's
>own, so we use the words that already exist.
>
>We just don't necessarily use the words literally.
>
>When Dawkins, and others, write their books, they, erroneously in some cases, assume an
>audience intelligent enough to recognise that, and honest enough not to play childish
>semantic games with the words.
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be
accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into
something he can understand" - Bertrand Russell
Puck Greenman
>Puck Greenman wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:12:50 +0000, John Jones <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I want to know what Dawkins blueprint is. He needs a blueprint of some
>>> sort if he is to distinguish a life form from a non life form.
>>
>> You have not yet offered any evidence for a blue print.
>>
>> All that you are doing is committing the logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion, and
>> then demanding that someone else provides evidence for it.
>
>
>How does Dawkins distinguish a life-form from a non-life form?
The same way everybody else does.
Life forms have certain characteristics, that inanimate objects do not display.
Live things grow, and multiply.
They absorb nutrients, and convert them into the stuff they need to grow and multiply.
Inanimate things do not do that.
How do you think YOU tell the difference?
> Or is it
>a fortuitous accident that he picked them out?
>
>Don't you see? If Dawkins says that life is no more than a material
>accident, then he needs to say at what point the accident became
>recognisable as life.
No, he doesn't. He makes it very clear that the detail of the origin of life, is, as yet,
unknown.
> He can't do that.
I know it, you know it, Dawkins, and every other bio researcher, knows it.
Dawkins, and every other bio researcher, will tell you that they do not have all the
answers,that there is much which they don't understand, and you know that, so your
insistence that Dawkins supplies answers that no one has, is dishonest in the extreme.
However, your demands that Dawkins supplies answers, also infer that YOU, have answers, or
at least opinions on the subject.
So let us hear YOUR explanation of the origins of life.
Oh yeah; supply your evidence.
Dawkins, and everybody else involved in that research, has made their evidence available;
now let's see yours.
Christopher A. Lee
<dubh_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Dawkins, and every other bio researcher, will tell you that they do not have all the
>answers,that there is much which they don't understand, and you know that, so your
>insistence that Dawkins supplies answers that no one has, is dishonest in the extreme.
They think this is a deficiency of science, because they imagine
religion has given them the answers. They prefer an unjustified
certainty even if it's wrong to an honest...
... "we don't know yet but the evidence suggests that, here is what we
have found out and this is what we are doing to find out more".
Because the results of this conflict with what they think they know.
Which makes the process suspect in their eyes.
Their questions are meant to be silver bullets, a reflection of our
"put up or shut up" when they make god-claims outside their religion.
The're meant for us so we "realise" we can't answer them, not out of
any interest for themselves.
They're not even interested in the answer because they "know" in
advance that it will be wrong because it conflicts with what they
think they know.
In some ways there is a lot of similarity in the way they argue to the
way we do.
The difference is that we are in the real world not their fantasy one
with its own rules of logic etc. They think theirs is real and the
real world is a fantasy.
The word for this is insanity - and in their fantasy world they even
think we're the insane ones.
It is almost impossible to break through this barrier.
>However, your demands that Dawkins supplies answers, also infer
>that YOU, have answers, or at least opinions on the subject.
According to their rules he hasn't. Too bad they don't understand
these rules are only "virtually" valid in their own little virtual
reality, not outside it.
>So let us hear YOUR explanation of the origins of life.
Goddidit.
>Oh yeah; supply your evidence.
The Bible - that is valid under the rules of their alternate reality
and we are unreasonable if we don't accept it. Which is the cause of
all their lies about us "ignoring the evidence".
>Dawkins, and everybody else involved in that research, has made
>their evidence available; now let's see yours.
According to their own rules they have.
Matt Silberstein
<dubh_...@hotmail.com> in
<vo03f555t9h7rcoao...@4ax.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:31:32 +0000, John Jones <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>Puck Greenman wrote:
>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:12:50 +0000, John Jones <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I want to know what Dawkins blueprint is. He needs a blueprint of some
>>>> sort if he is to distinguish a life form from a non life form.
>>>
>>> You have not yet offered any evidence for a blue print.
>>>
>>> All that you are doing is committing the logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion, and
>>> then demanding that someone else provides evidence for it.
>>
>>
>>How does Dawkins distinguish a life-form from a non-life form?
>
>
>The same way everybody else does.
>
>Life forms have certain characteristics, that inanimate objects do not display.
>
>Live things grow, and multiply.
>
>They absorb nutrients, and convert them into the stuff they need to grow and multiply.
>
>Inanimate things do not do that.
>
>How do you think YOU tell the difference?
>
Apparently, at least from his argument, he can tell life from non-life
because he can look at the design documents.
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
Lee <ca...@optonline.net> in
<t143f5h19svq0nojt...@4ax.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:28:10 +0000, Puck Greenman
><dubh_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Dawkins, and every other bio researcher, will tell you that they do not have all the
>>answers,that there is much which they don't understand, and you know that, so your
>>insistence that Dawkins supplies answers that no one has, is dishonest in the extreme.
>
>They think this is a deficiency of science, because they imagine
>religion has given them the answers. They prefer an unjustified
>certainty even if it's wrong to an honest...
I don't think that Jones is religious at all. I think he is taking a
first year philosophy course and finds the material fascinating.
Puck Greenman
I can't fault your reasoning
>
>It is almost impossible to break through this barrier.
>
Tell me about it.
Terminal ignorance, seems to be a primary requirement for the god soaked.
>>However, your demands that Dawkins supplies answers, also infer
>>that YOU, have answers, or at least opinions on the subject.
>
>According to their rules he hasn't. Too bad they don't understand
>these rules are only "virtually" valid in their own little virtual
>reality, not outside it.
>
>>So let us hear YOUR explanation of the origins of life.
>
>Goddidit.
That is about what I am expecting.
>
>>Oh yeah; supply your evidence.
>
>The Bible - that is valid under the rules of their alternate reality
>and we are unreasonable if we don't accept it. Which is the cause of
>all their lies about us "ignoring the evidence".
>
>>Dawkins, and everybody else involved in that research, has made
>>their evidence available; now let's see yours.
>
>According to their own rules they have.
Yet they deny us the same rules, with out text books.
...Then deny their hypocrisy.
Hatunen
<RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:39:27 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
><jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
><hcpmbv$95k$4...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
>
>>Matt Silberstein wrote:
[...]
>>> If design requires a designer, then you have to show the existence of
>>> the designer.
>>>
>>>> Dawkins must say where he gets his
>>>> design for life from.
>>>
>>> Evolution. He says that quite clearly.
>>>
>>
>>Then he must say who or what the designer is.
>
>He did, I just did. It was the first word in that paragraph:
>evolution.
>
>Let me repeat it: evolution.
>
>Got it? Let me try again: evolution is the designer of life.
Calling evolution a "designer" implies that evolution is aimed at
some sort of goal. As Dawins makes clear in The Greatest Show on
Earth, there is no direction to evolution, and homo sapiens is
not the highest form of life, nor the direction evolution has
been pointing. Evolution is random in the sense that the outside
environment that changes adapt to are random.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Hatunen
<dubh_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:31:32 +0000, John Jones <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
[...]
>>How does Dawkins distinguish a life-form from a non-life form?
>
>
>The same way everybody else does.
>
>Life forms have certain characteristics, that inanimate objects do not display.
>
>Live things grow, and multiply.
Viruses do not really grow, but they do multiply.
>They absorb nutrients, and convert them into the stuff they need to grow and multiply.
Viruses don't do that either.
At bottom, life forms have DNA -- or at least RNA -- and exist to
create more of that DNA or RNA by replicating themselves.
Alex W.
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:31:32 +0000, John Jones <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>Puck Greenman wrote:
>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:12:50 +0000, John Jones <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I want to know what Dawkins blueprint is. He needs a blueprint of some
>>>> sort if he is to distinguish a life form from a non life form.
>>>
>>> You have not yet offered any evidence for a blue print.
>>>
>>> All that you are doing is committing the logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion, and
>>> then demanding that someone else provides evidence for it.
>>
>>
>>How does Dawkins distinguish a life-form from a non-life form?
>
>
> The same way everybody else does.
>
> Life forms have certain characteristics, that inanimate objects do not display.
>
> Live things grow, and multiply.
>
> They absorb nutrients, and convert them into the stuff they need to grow and multiply.
>
> Inanimate things do not do that.
>
> How do you think YOU tell the difference?
Do note that these characteristics are not quite universal.
Viruses and crystals might also qualify as either animate or
inanimate under those criteria.
>
John Jones
A physical description of a set of flowers in front of you do not make a
bouquet no matter how they are arranged. The manifestation of a bouquet
is not physical.
John Jones
That merely transfers the problem:
What design or blueprint does Dawkins use that allows him to distinguish
evolution from a completely random set of events?
John Jones
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:01:48 -0500, Matt Silberstein
> <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:39:27 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
>> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
>> <hcpmbv$95k$4...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> If design requires a designer, then you have to show the existence of
>>>> the designer.
>>>>
>>>>> Dawkins must say where he gets his
>>>>> design for life from.
>>>> Evolution. He says that quite clearly.
>>>>
>>> Then he must say who or what the designer is.
>> He did, I just did. It was the first word in that paragraph:
>> evolution.
>>
>> Let me repeat it: evolution.
>>
>> Got it? Let me try again: evolution is the designer of life.
>
> Calling evolution a "designer" implies that evolution is aimed at
> some sort of goal. As Dawins makes clear in The Greatest Show on
> Earth, there is no direction to evolution, and homo sapiens is
> not the highest form of life, nor the direction evolution has
> been pointing. Evolution is random in the sense that the outside
> environment that changes adapt to are random.
>
If evolution is random how does Dawkins distinguish it from all other
random events?
John Jones
Rather than admit that he, Dawkins, uses a design to distinguish life
from non-life, Dawkins evades the problem by defining life in terms of
processes.
But the problem still chases him. He still needs to say what design he
uses to distinguish the random process of evolution from any random
process whatever.
John Jones
Describing life in terms of processes and information suffers from the
same problem. Dawkins still needs to say what distinguishes the process
of evolution and the information of a life form from all other processes
and information.
John Jones
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:25:48 +0000, John Jones <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Puck Greenman wrote:
>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:43:29 +0000, John Jones <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:12:50 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
>>>>> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
>>>>> I would argue that life looks designed because design (that thing that
>>>>> humans do that we call design) is an evolutionary process. Design
>>>>> differs from creation in that design is used to solve problems of
>>>>> I have no idea how to make that fit your previous words. You really
>>>>> have a serious communication problem. And I do read modern
>>>>> professional philosophy works.
>>>>>
>>>> If nature gives us the blueprint for life, then nature is another name
>>>> for God. If nature does not give us the blueprint for life then Dawkins
>>>> needs to say where he gets his blueprint for life from.
>>>
>>> More to the point, you first have to show that there IS a "blue print for life". and
>>> explain how it can be recognised/identified.
>> I'm not claiming that there is a blue-print or design for life. Dawkins
>> is claiming it.
>
>
> Can you say "metaphor"?
>
> Because the origin of life is still unknown, we cannot give it technical words of it's
> own, so we use the words that already exist.
Dawkins knows exactly how life arose - it arose chemically like
everything else on this planet. There's no problem there. The problem is
to find the picture, design, or blue-print that allows us to
distinguish a bunch of chemicals from all other chemicals.
> We just don't necessarily use the words literally.
>
> When Dawkins, and others, write their books, they, erroneously in some cases, assume an
> audience intelligent enough to recognise that, and honest enough not to play childish
> semantic games with the words.
I don't mind authors using metaphors to show us the way. But his
metaphors - if they are metaphors - point us in the wrong direction.
Drafterman
> Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
>
> But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
> when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
I would suspect that he isn't.
>
> How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design?
The same way that all people do this: by using line that scientists
have drawn between life and non-life. Namely:
Homeostasis, Organization, Metabolism, Growth, Adaptation, Response to
stimuli, Reproduction.
That is the guideline for discerning life from non-life. No need to
invoke emotional appeals to design.
> Not
> even a life form makes the Dawkinian distinction between life and
> non-life. After all, life-forms can treat all life forms and non-life
> forms (including itself) as environmental, non-life, consumables.
>
> So is Dawkins going proxy for God when he, Dawkins, makes a distinction
> between life and non-life designs?
John Jones
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:43:29 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
> <hcpmjh$95k$5...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
>
>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:12:50 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
>>> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
>>> I would argue that life looks designed because design (that thing that
>>> humans do that we call design) is an evolutionary process. Design
>>> differs from creation in that design is used to solve problems of
>>> I have no idea how to make that fit your previous words. You really
>>> have a serious communication problem. And I do read modern
>>> professional philosophy works.
>>>
>> If nature gives us the blueprint for life,
>
> There is no blueprint for life.
>
>> then nature is another name
>> for God.
>
> And god another name for nature.
>
>> If nature does not give us the blueprint for life then Dawkins
>> needs to say where he gets his blueprint for life from.
>
> Evolution.
>
see new post
Nomen Publicus
Mutation is random, selection is dependent on the environment and is not
random.
--
Individuals mutate, populations evolve.
Nomen Publicus
>> In article <hcpmbv$95k$4...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> jonesc...@btinternet.com says...
>>
>>>>> Dawkins must say where he gets his
>>>>> design for life from.
>>>> Evolution. He says that quite clearly.
>>> Then he must say who or what the designer is.
>>
>> E - V - O - L - U - T - I - O - N.
>>
>>
>
> Rather than admit that he, Dawkins, uses a design to distinguish life
> from non-life, Dawkins evades the problem by defining life in terms of
> processes.
Every biologist does.
> But the problem still chases him. He still needs to say what design he
> uses to distinguish the random process of evolution from any random
> process whatever.
Learn something about evolution before attempting to argue about it.
--
Atheism is a disbelief in all gods. Everything else done or
claimed in the name of atheism is the work of man.
Puck Greenman
>If evolution is random how does Dawkins distinguish it from all other
>random events?
More ignorance, and childish semantics.
Dan Listermann
"Nomen Publicus" <zza...@buffy.sighup.org.uk> wrote in message
news:pn79s6-...@buffy.sighup.org.uk...
Careful, "not random," to fundies, means directed and you know who they
think does the direction.
Puck Greenman
>If evolution is random how does Dawkins distinguish it from all other
>random events?
James Burns
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:51:40 -0500, in alt.atheism , Christopher A.
> Lee <ca...@optonline.net> in
> <t143f5h19svq0nojt...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:28:10 +0000, Puck Greenman
>><dubh_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Dawkins, and every other bio researcher, will tell you that they do not have all the
>>>answers,that there is much which they don't understand, and you know that, so your
>>>insistence that Dawkins supplies answers that no one has, is dishonest in the extreme.
>>
>>They think this is a deficiency of science, because they imagine
>>religion has given them the answers. They prefer an unjustified
>>certainty even if it's wrong to an honest...
>
>
> I don't think that Jones is religious at all. I think he is taking a
> first year philosophy course and finds the material fascinating.
I had trouble finding this, so I will quote in full, below.
To judge by what he writes here, he seems to be a post-graduate
student in philosophy.
Jim Burns
-------------------------------------------------------
http://omgili.com/newsgroups/sci/logic/g36mfgg7t1aioeorg.html
(subject)
My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
(body)
<quote>
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:38:27 +0100, John Jones <...@aol.com
Each week at my Uni a postgrad is offered the chance to briefly talk
about a topic. For my turn, today, I talked about the significance of
Godel's theorems to issues outside arithmetic. I gave out a handout,
reproduced in its entirety toward the end of this post. But first I will
outline what I said which includes an objection I made in respect of
Godel's methodology:
My conclusion in the postgrad discussion I will present first: at the
end of the discussion I noted that my position was broadly similar to
Godel's in that both of us held that there were two ways of
understanding arithmetic - objective and subjective. The former is
understanding through syntax. The other, 'subjective', element that
Godel thought important in understanding arithmetic was about "seeing"
mathematics non-syntactically - a (syntactic) proof is not enough to
demonstrate arithmetical significance. I said that he did not have a
good grasp of the 'subjective' dimension to arithmetic and that my idea
of an emergent property would have suited him better. But on the idea
that proof was not sufficient to understand arithmetic (it leads to
incompleteness) and that a phenomenological element is also required, we
are agreed.
Godel's proofs of incompleteness in arithmetic were carried out in
arithmetic itself. He needed to do this because he saw arithmetic as a
model for nature, and nature, grounded in an arithmetical model, could
not be reduced to syntax - nature was not a machine, as Godel believed.
Where Godel and I diverged was this:
Godel thought that self-reference can be syntactically demonstrated,
whereas, I argued, self-reference is not a manoevure that can be
represented through syntax. The reason for this is that a claimed
statement of self-reference can either refer to itself or not - there
are no arithmetical syntactical devices that can distinguish one sort
from the other. For example, "this sentence .." either refers to itself
or to another sentence. If there are no other sentences then we could
equally claim that there is a missing sentence rather than a
self-referencing one. I argued that Godel requires the notion of an
emergent property if he wants to distinguish the one type of reference
from the other, for only an emergent property can distinguish which
syntax of reference we are actually operating with. Yet Godel claimed,
wrongly, to employ purely arithmetical syntax in his proofs without his
subjective conditions or my emergent properties.
My CONCLUSION was that Godel's proofs that were designed to show the
incompleteness of arithmetically translatable systems assumed what was
in question. In Godellian terms, Godel employed a subjective element to
show that syntax was inadequate to demonstrate the completeness of
systems. Therefore, he could not argue that the completeness of systems
can only be delivered through both syntax AND subjectivity.
Now here is the handout I gave to everyone. It's almost entirely in my
own words:
" Godel was a mathmatician whose theorems tackled issues in mechanist
determinism. Godel's theorem states that in any consistent system which
is strong enough to produce simple arithmetic there are (Godellian)
formula which cannot be proved-in-the-system, but which we can see to be
true.
First some other definitions:
An arithmetical system is consistent if no contradictions can be proven
in it.
An arithmetical system is complete if all its statements can be proved
or disproved.
An arithmetical system is computable if there are physical processes
that can yield every proof.
In 1928 Hilbert argued that mathematics was all three - consistent,
complete and computable. We commonly assume that we can cast the
language or syntax of mathematics into a physical form such as computers
and machines, and that mathematics models the world. If we follow
Hilbert, and if arithmetical systems are a model for nature (see Q.4
below) then it seems that nature, and minds dependent on nature, are
determined.
Q 1. Should we regard nature as a computer or machine?
Q 2. And if the mind is determined by natural objects, e.g. by the
brain, then can the mind be truly autonomous and entertain free-will?
Among other things, these questions depends on how far we take the
object behaviours or syntax of arithmetic to be a model for nature (see
Penrose, below). But if Hilbert was right, and nature can be modelled on
mathematics, then it looks as if we, as denizens of nature, are
machines, determined and without free-will.
Against this idea of a determined nature, Godel came along with an
arithmetical theorem that claimed to refute mechanism and the Hilbertian
position. Godel's position is that arithmetic is a model for nature and
precisely because it is a model for nature we are not mechanistically
determined. He did this by showing arithmetically (claimed) that in any
arithmetical system there are truths that cannot be proven: hence any
particular arithmetical system is inherently incomplete. If we want
completeness we must invoke a higher system if we want to prove all
possible statements within the lower system. However, that higher system
itself has statements that cannot be proven. We must then invoke a
higher system to prove them, ad infinitum. The incompleteness of
particular arithmetical systems allows us to say that if mechanical
nature is arithmetically translatable then we are not automata. This is
because for any particular arithmetical system, there are certain
statements that cannot be mechanically translated. It was important that
Godel's theorem was arithmetical because Godel could then claim that
arithmetic itself showed that an arithmetical system was incomplete and
not self-determined.
Godel also wanted to show that we can endorse those recalcitrant
statements that are made within a particular system but cannot,
according to his theorem, be proven within it. Godel took up Husserlian
phenomenology to show that we are aware of arithmetical facts in two
ways - objective and subjective. We can follow mathematical syntax, and
that syntax cannot prove certain statements within a particular system.
Nevertheless, we can subjectively see that those unprovable statements
make sense. The sort of statements in question are Godellian statements.
This subjective understanding of the Godellian statement is, or ought to
be, Godel suggests, part of a sound arithmetic. Crucially, machines do
not have this subjective component - they cannot entertain (prove)
certain problematic, Godellian, statements that can be created within a
particular arithmetical system. (As an aside here, the essence of the
Godellian formula is that it is self-referring. Godel employs
self-reference in his proofs, and my own view is that this scuppers the
Godellian project. See Q.4)
Penrose's idea might be of interest here. He wanted to keep the idea of
mechanism in nature and keep arithmetic as a model for nature. He
by-passed Godel's limitations on what is expressible ariithmetically by
claiming that arithmetic should be based on a new syntax grounded in
quantum laws. Such arithmetic is founded on a syntax or range of object
behaviours that is not merely Newtonian but includes quantum logic.
Q 3. How far should we take Godel's ideas? Are similar ideas mirrored
elsewhere, eg. Derrida's indeterminacy of signs?
Q 4. Maybe, with Godel, we don't want to be regarded as machines AND,
against Godel, maybe we don't want also an arithmetically determined
mind and nature. So couldn't we reject Godel's theorem as either wrong
or irrelevant and pick up the Kantian world-view instead? "
</quote>
polymer
Indeed.
Dawkins:
"Life results from the non-random survival
of randomly varying replicators."
Alex W.
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:01:48 -0500, Matt Silberstein
> <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:39:27 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
>><jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
>><hcpmbv$95k$4...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> If design requires a designer, then you have to show the existence of
>>>> the designer.
>>>>
>>>>> Dawkins must say where he gets his
>>>>> design for life from.
>>>>
>>>> Evolution. He says that quite clearly.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Then he must say who or what the designer is.
>>
>>He did, I just did. It was the first word in that paragraph:
>>evolution.
>>
>>Let me repeat it: evolution.
>>
>>Got it? Let me try again: evolution is the designer of life.
>
> Calling evolution a "designer" implies that evolution is aimed at
> some sort of goal. As Dawins makes clear in The Greatest Show on
> Earth, there is no direction to evolution, and homo sapiens is
> not the highest form of life, nor the direction evolution has
> been pointing. Evolution is random in the sense that the outside
> environment that changes adapt to are random.
IMHO, our language lets us down here. The term "design" does
imply purpose, motivation, goal -- none of which the theory of
evolution allows for. It sets us up for the follow-up questions
of "if there is design, who is the designer" and "what is the
purpose" by simple choice of terminology.
On the other hand, evolution does work according to rules, both
specific to evolution and general laws of nature. It is not
purely random in its action.
This is where human psychology comes into play: our minds are
preset to look for causes, links and patterns: if a sparrow
falls, our biology makes us ask how, why, who ... and often, to
what purpose. Randomness does not sit well with us, and we will
frequently go to incredible lengths to kludge up any sort of
explanation which avoids an admission that Weird Shit Happens.
In a way, rational thought plays into the hands of the
god-botherers and evolution-deniers: we have become conditioned
to seek rational explanations, to apply logic and trace it step
by step until the problem has been unravelled. It is only
natural for us to do the same with evolution or the supernatural.
Our ancestors had it easier: the ruthless dissection of events
and mechanisms was alien to their minds and so they were quite
happy to accept weird and inexplicable stuff....
Hatunen
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> Yep, descriptions are not the thing described, the map is not the
>> territory.
>>
>
>A physical description of a set of flowers in front of you do not make a
>bouquet no matter how they are arranged. The manifestation of a bouquet
>is not physical.
In other words, "ceci ne pas une pipe".
Hatunen
I doubt anyone has seen Dawkins running madly and crying, "the
problem stil chases me."
Hatunen
No, he doesn't. You're just claiming he does. Please elaborate on
just why Dawkins or anyone who accepts evolution has to do that.
John Stafford
thing, however he has not established a critical justification for how
the enormously complex thing called Life has come to be so in so few
years (geologically speaking).
It remains that he cannot rule out some kind of developmental vector,
some path that all the tiny, microscopic to macroscopic to grand scales
that have occurred to create Dawkins himself.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:02:27 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
>> Calling evolution a "designer" implies that evolution is aimed at
>> some sort of goal. As Dawins makes clear in The Greatest Show on
>> Earth, there is no direction to evolution, and homo sapiens is
>> not the highest form of life, nor the direction evolution has
>> been pointing. Evolution is random in the sense that the outside
>> environment that changes adapt to are random.
>
>IMHO, our language lets us down here. The term "design" does
>imply purpose, motivation, goal -- none of which the theory of
>evolution allows for. It sets us up for the follow-up questions
>of "if there is design, who is the designer" and "what is the
>purpose" by simple choice of terminology.
Which is why people who know it isn't what theists interpret as design
don't normally use the word around them. Or if they do they explain
how it is used as Dawkins did.
But...
Fundamentalists and creationists use dumbed down language and logic
which they use to replace more accurate unambiguous words with a
single ambiguous one, and then with the only meaning of that one which
the accept, especially if you that word yourself in any other sense.
It is impossible to communicate accurate explanations to them when
they do this. Almost Orwellian. Monty Python did a sketch of a
Hungarian phrase book with deliberately wrong translations so somebody
buying a packet of cigarettes said "please tweak my nipples".
Like other writers, Dawkins has difficulties breaking through this
self-imposed barrier.
>On the other hand, evolution does work according to rules, both
>specific to evolution and general laws of nature. It is not
>purely random in its action.
If they understood its mechanisms they would stop making their
mistakes.
But they have an incredibly short attention span with things that cast
doubt on their beliefs. Cognitive dissonance makes things go away.
So when they "natural selection doesn't produce mutations" which is
trivially true because it filters them, the rest of the mechanism
simply isn't there for them.
And when you explain how the genetic mutations are caused, the natural
selection part isn't there any more even a minute earlier.
>This is where human psychology comes into play: our minds are
>preset to look for causes, links and patterns: if a sparrow
>falls, our biology makes us ask how, why, who ... and often, to
>what purpose. Randomness does not sit well with us, and we will
>frequently go to incredible lengths to kludge up any sort of
>explanation which avoids an admission that Weird Shit Happens.
I don't think that's the problem. It's a consequence of dumbing down.
They were conditioned in childhood to believe what they do, to an
extent that it warped their thought processes. This includes denial of
the real world, letting somebody else they trust doing their thinking
for them. And it's constantly reinforced. When they get born again,
this becomes an order of magnitude worse, ie the "I became a
Christian" as though they weren't already one.
I think they understand randomness from playing cards, throwing dice
etc.
But they can't couple it with the rest of the mechanism because that
simply isn't there when they're talking about natural selection.
>In a way, rational thought plays into the hands of the
>god-botherers and evolution-deniers: we have become conditioned
>to seek rational explanations, to apply logic and trace it step
>by step until the problem has been unravelled. It is only
>natural for us to do the same with evolution or the supernatural.
>Our ancestors had it easier: the ruthless dissection of events
>and mechanisms was alien to their minds and so they were quite
>happy to accept weird and inexplicable stuff....
But it is impossible to communicate with them using their dumbed down
vocabulary. If the language to describe a concept isn't there, you
can't communicate it and eventually it no longer exists.
This is part and parcel of 1984, where the word "free" only meant "at
no monetary cost" in Newspeak. The concept of personal freedom was
eradicated.
George Orwell explains this in the appendix:
http://orwell.ru/library/novels/1984/english/en_app
It's basically what fundy language does.
And I haven't even started on doublethink. In the book it is explained
as...
Orwell:
The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind
simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies
while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become
inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it
back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the
existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of
the reality which one denies � all this is indispensably necessary.
Me again:
This describes fundamentalists and creationists to a tee.
A book I can thoroughly recommend is "The Mind of the Bible Believer"
by Edmund Cohen.
He is a secular Jew and a psychologist, who was sucked into
evangelical fundamentalism and when he recovered he analysed how he
got hooked, how it controlled his mind and what caused the doublethink
described above.
I don't remember him mentioning 1984 but it imposes the need to
believe two contradictory things at the same time, and he describes
several devices that led to it. This creates a mental discomfort due
to the disconnect which is fixed by unconsciously making the
contradictions vanish.
I don't always agree with what he says, eg he thinks Paul was a
brilliant psychologist to do all this. I think it just evolved that
way - it had a long time to reach this level of mind control.
Different denominations evolved in different directions and the ones
that survived, survived. A form of non-biological natural selection.
Immortalist
> Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
>
> But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
> when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
>
> even a life form makes the Dawkinian distinction between life and
> non-life. After all, life-forms can treat all life forms and non-life
> forms (including itself) as environmental, non-life, consumables.
>
> So is Dawkins going proxy for God when he, Dawkins, makes a distinction
> between life and non-life designs?
If something is designed it is merely something that has been acted up
in some way or change in some way gaining structures that are less
probable when such forces are not present.
Dawkins says:
One of the most famous arguments of the creationist theory of the
universe is the eighteenth-century theologian William Paley's: Just as
a watch is too complicated and too functional to have sprung into
existence by accident, so too must all living things, with their far
greater complexity, be purposefully designed. But as Richard Dawkins,
professor of zoology at Oxford University, demonstrates in this
brilliant and eloquent riposte to the Argument from Design, the
analogy is false. Natural selection, the unconscious, automatic, blind
yet essentially non-random process that Darwin discovered, has no
purpose in mind. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in
nature, it is the blind watchmaker.
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Books/blind.shtml
----------------------------------------
The only designer in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit
deployed in a very special way... it is the blind designer.
Contrasting the differences between human design and its potential for
planning with the workings of natural selection can lead to the
argument that evolutionary processes can achieve about any design
possible.
The complexity of living organisms may be sufficient evidence for the
existence of a divine creator but it is not a necessary condition
since the evidence for this theory does not make design by natural
selection an impossibility. These are both theories then because one
cannot eliminate the other completely.
Olrik
> Dawkins' credibility is based upon skepticism, which in itself is a good
> thing, however he has not established a critical justification for how
> the enormously complex thing called Life has come to be so in so few
> years (geologically speaking).
Even "geologically speaking", why do you say life came "... to be so in
so few years"?
How many years would satisfy you?
Olrik
Puck Greenman
If he does, he is keeping it a well hidden secret.
>- it arose chemically like everything else on this planet.
That is rather like spending a life time having agents search for a particular rare
antique, and when they eventually find it, and having arranged for it's delivery, an
admirer asks how you got it, you reply, "It came in the post".
You only know that you have your antique, you have no idea how you got it.
> There's no problem there.
But there is, we do NOT know *exactly*, how life came about.
To claim that we do, as some foundation for a silly theological, or philosophical
argument, is either ignorant, dishonest, or both.
> The problem is
> to find the picture, design, or blue-print that allows us to
>distinguish a bunch of chemicals from all other chemicals.
>
Try taking a course, biology 101, would be a good one.
But you won't, because you might learn something that contradicts what you think that you
know.
>> We just don't necessarily use the words literally.
>>
>> When Dawkins, and others, write their books, they, erroneously in some cases, assume an
>> audience intelligent enough to recognise that, and honest enough not to play childish
>> semantic games with the words.
>
>I don't mind authors using metaphors to show us the way.
Of course you don't, metaphors are so much easier to deliberately misunderstand.
> But his
>metaphors - if they are metaphors - point us in the wrong direction.
And your evidence for that would be what? Exactly/
Drafterman
With regards to "developmental vectors" we simply need to note that we
have no need of that hypothesis.