Concept of "blindwatchmaking"
david ford
I define "spontaneous generation" as "the
non-intelligence-directed-at-any-level appearance of life
from non-life." "Spontaneous generation" can be envisioned
as occurring quickly, or gradually and slowly.
If an intelligent entity (say the Judeo-Christian God of
theism) created physics such that physics could give rise to
life, and if life appeared from non-life, that life's appearance
would not be "spontaneous generation."
If an intelligent entity (say the Judeo-Christian God of
theism) created physics in the Big Bang
creation-out-of-nothing event (see my essay at
http://tinyurl.com/ygqj ) such that physics could give rise to
life, and if life appeared from non-life, that life's appearance
would not be "spontaneous generation."
I introduce the term "blindwatchmaking," which is needed
because the word "evolution" has many meanings, and
blindwatchmakingists frequently shift the meaning of the
word "evolution" in their writings without notifying readers
of the shifts in meanings. Numerous claims in the creation
versus evolution debate have been made that rely on shifting
meanings of the word or concept of "evolution" for the
claims' illusory effectiveness. Should you engage someone
in a debate, it is a good practice to ask them to define the
slippery term "evolution" if he or she uses the word, and
keep a sharp eye on their later use of the word in order to
spot and point out any shifts in meaning/any commissions of
the fallacy of equivocation. I further suggest that you
yourself not use the word "evolution" or its derivatives as
much as possible.
I define "blindwatchmaking" as "the
non-intelligence-directed-at-any-level arrival of new
biological structures having new functions."
"Blindwatchmaking processes" are
"non-intelligence-directed-at-any-level processes that result
in the arrival of new biological structures having new
functions."
The phrase "new biological structures having new functions"
is inspired by these comments:
Mayr, Ernst. 1960. "The Emergence of Evolutionary
Novelties" in _The Evolution of Life: Its Origin, History and
Future_, ed. Sol Tax (Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press), 629pp., 349-80. On 351:
What particular changes of the phenotype, then, would
qualify [as an "evolutionary novelty"]? Certainly any
change that would permit an organism to perform a new
function. Tentatively, one might restrict the designation
"evolutionary novelty" to any newly acquired structure
or property which permits the assumption of a new
function.
Examples of "novel biological structures having novel
functions" include the appearance of an eye (eyes are alleged
to have blindwatchmaked independently 40 to 60+ times), a
limb, and an internal organ, where before there was no eye,
no limb, and no internal organ. [obtain some more examples
from Dawkins]
As a side note, Mayr also observes that
There are fashionable problems and there are neglected
problems in any field of research. The problem of the
emergence of evolutionary novelties has undoubtedly
been greatly neglected during the past two or three
decades, in spite of its importance in the theory of
evolution. No more auspicious occasion can be
envisioned for a renewed consideration of this problem
than the centenary of the publication of Darwin's
_Origin of Species_. ....the problem of the emergence
of evolutionary novelties has been almost completely
neglected during the past two or three decades.
However, with the advances in evolutionary theory that
were being made during that same period, it is profitable
to consider this question once again. .... The treatment
in a new attack on this problem will have to be
somewhat exploratory at this stage, in view of the recent
neglect of this area. I hope that my discussion will
encourage more work and more thought on the problem
of the origin of evolutionary novelties, permitting
eventually a more balanced and definitive
treatment.[Mayr, 349, 350]
Question: Is anyone aware of a post-1960 [Mayr]"definitive
treatment" of [Mayr]"the problem of the origin of
evolutionary novelties"? There must be someone in
talk.origins that knows of such. I would like to look at it,
should it exist.
The term "blindwatchmaking" is inspired by Dawkins's book
of a similar name,[Phillip E. Johnson, _Darwin on Trial_
(Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 220pp., 167-8.] with this
illustrative passage:
Dawkins, Richard. 1987. _The Blind Watchmaker: Why the
evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design_
(New York: W.W. Norton & Company), 332pp. A
paragraph on 5:
Paley's argument [for the hypothesis that intelligent
design was responsible for biology] is made with
passionate sincerity and is informed by the best
biological scholarship of his day, but it is wrong,
gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between
telescope and eye, between watch and living organism,
is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only
watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics,
albeit deployed in a very special way. A true
watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and
springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future
purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind,
unconscious, automatic process which Darwin
discovered, and which we now know [sic] is the
explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful
form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind
and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has
no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said
to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the
_blind_ watchmaker.
If an intelligent entity (say the Judeo-Christian God of
theism) direct a process, that process isn't a
blindwatchmaking process.
If an intelligent entity (say the Judeo-Christian God of
theism) sets up a process such that that process leads to the
appearance of new biological structures having new
functions, that process isn't a blindwatchmaking process.
If an intelligent entity creates the first lifeform, and creates it
such that that first lifeform will give rise to all the plants and
animals of which we are aware, then those plants and animals
are not the product of blindwatchmaking processes.
The following circumstances are not even remotely instances
of blindwatchmaking:
a change in the proportion of light-colored moths to
dark-colored moths
a change in finch beak size and shape
a change in the proportion of a housefly or fruit fly
population resistant to the pesticide DDT
a change in the proportion of bacteria in a bacterial colony
becoming resistant to a certain antibiotic
a change in the average size of cows, or change in the daily
average volume of cow milk production
a change in the average size of cows, or change in the daily
average volume of cow milk production, as a result of
the efforts of intelligent human breeders to obtain
larger-sized cows or higher volumes of cow milk
production
a change in the average number of eggs laid by chickens, or
change in the average size of chickens
a change in the average number of eggs laid by chickens, or
change in the average size of chickens, as a result of the
efforts of intelligent human breeders to obtain
larger-sized chickens or higher numbers of chicken egg
production
a change in the amount of oil present in corn
a change in barley plant yield
a change in barley plant yield as a result of man-induced
mutation through giving doses of radiation
a change in corn plants such that more plant resources are
devoted to the main stem and less plant resources are
devoted to the minor branches
a genetic change that results in a genetic disease, for example
sickle cell anemia
a change in average height or a change in average weight
over the course of 30 years of a population of
individuals originally from Japan and now living in the U.S.
a fruit fly that instead of the usual eyes has legs protruding
from its eyes
a fruit fly that has 4 wings instead of the usual 2 wings (the 2
extra wings are not "new," but rather "more of the
same")
a spider that has 10 legs instead of the usual 8 legs (the 2
extra legs are not "new," but rather "more of the same)
[quote Dawkins on DC8 mutations]
the appearance of reproductive isolation in fruit fly
populations
a change in the proportion of a plant population that is able
to thrive on heavy-metal-rich soil
changes in the average size of birds in certain bird
populations following a sequence of major storms
a wolf-like population becoming populations of Chihuahuas
and St. Bernards, with the Chihuahuas and St. Bernards
being unable to produce viable offspring when attempts
at interbreeding occur
computer simulations in which intelligent computer
programmers set up populations of "virtual"/ electronic
organisms
better and better (or: varying) cars appearing over the course
of the last 50 years, the cars being designed by
intelligent human engineers
The following phrasings are equivalent:
creationist
intelligent designist
adherent of intelligent design
acceptor of the intelligent design hypothesis/thesis
seeingwatchmakingist
The "blindwatchmaking hypothesis"/ "blindwatchmaking
thesis" holds that intelligence/ mind is not needed to account
for:
1) the appearance of the first lifeforms,
2) the subsequent arrival of the biological world/ the plants
and animals of which we are aware, and
3) physics.
For blindwatchmaking to possibly have occurred,
"spontaneous generation" _must_ have occurred
(spontaneous generation being the
non-intelligence-directed-at-any-level appearance of life
from non-life.) The reason for this is that if an intelligent
entity created the first lifeform (say a bacterium) which then
transformed into all of biology, either
1) that first lifeform was intelligently designed in order to
transform into all of biology, or
2) that first intelligently-designed lifeform just happened to
be capable of undergoing transformations such that all of
biology would arise.
If 1) happened, blindwatchmaking is clearly not responsible
for biology.
If 2) happened, the parameters of blindwatchmaking aren't
met, blindwatchmaking being the
non-intelligence-directed-at-any-level arrival of new
biological structures having new functions. If an
intelligently-designed bacterium just happens to have the
ability to transform into all of biology apart from the
intelligent designer's intending that it has that capability, then
that bacterium was still intelligently-designed _with_ that
capability. Moreover, 2) is exceedingly unlikely to have
happened: if an intelligence is smart enough to have created
the bacterium, it should have been smart enough to know
whether the bacterium-- which it created-- had the capability
of transforming into all of biology.
If an intelligence was smart enough to have created physics
(namely, in the Big Bang creation-out-of-nothing event-- see
my essay at http://tinyurl.com/ygqj ), the intelligence should
have been smart enough to know whether physics-- which it
created-- had the capability of giving rise to life, and had the
capability of allowing for that life to transform into all of
biology.
Elements of the blindwatchmaking hypothesis appear within
the above Dawkins statement about a blind watchmaker, and
in the quotes below.
This argument introduces the quotes that follow:
Premise 1: If an intelligence (perhaps the Judeo-Christian
God of theism) created all lifeforms, whether indirectly (for
example, by designing the genetic systems of organisms and
designing organisms' environments so that over the course of
the earth's existence, eyes could appear multitudinous times,
reptiles could become mammals, etc.), or directly (for
example, by saying "Let cows, horses, and bluebirds appear,"
whereupon as a consequence they do), then the appearance of
those lifeforms involved a purposeful process, that purpose
being to create life.
Premise 2: Lifeforms' appearance was devoid of purpose.
Conclusion: An intelligence did not create all lifeforms.
To summarize this modus tollens syllogism,
P1 if created, then purpose; P2 no purpose; C no created.
These Stebbins, Simpson, and Sagan statements are in
support of P2:
Stebbins, G. Ledyard. 1982. _Darwin to DNA, Molecules to
Humanity_ (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company),
491pp., 4:
The evolutionist's [i.e. blindwatchmakingist's] answer is
that all these millions of different kinds of organisms
evolved [i.e. blindwatchmaked] from common ancestors
during the thousands of millions of years since the first
appearance of life. Their evolution [i.e.
blindwatchmaking] was opportunistic and devoid of
purpose.
Simpson, George Gaylord. 1949. _The Meaning of
Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its
Significance for Man_ (New Haven: Yale University Press),
364pp., from the chapter "Epilogue and Summary" on 344:
Man is the result of a purposeless materialistic process
that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He
is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a
species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to
all of life and indeed to all that is material.
On 343:
Although many details remain to be worked out, it is
already evident that all the objective phenomena of the
history of life can be explained by purely materialistic
factors.
Sagan, Carl. 1996. _The Demon-Haunted World: Science
as a Candle in the Dark_ (New York: Random House), 327.
Cited in Phillip E. Johnson, _Defeating Darwinism by
Opening Minds_ (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 131pp.,
47.
I meet many people who are offended by evolution, who
passionately prefer to be the personal handicraft of God
than to arise by blind physical and chemical forces over
aeons from slime. They also tend to be less than
assiduous in exposing themselves to the evidence.
Evidence has little to do with it. What they wish to be
true, they believe is true. Only nine percent of
Americans accept the central finding of modern biology
that human beings (and all the other species) have
slowly evolved by natural processes from a succession
of more ancient beings with no divine intervention
needed along the way.
To summarize, the "blindwatchmaking hypothesis"/
"blindwatchmaking thesis" holds that intelligence/ mind is
not needed to account for:
1) the appearance of the first lifeforms,
2) the subsequent arrival of the biological world/ the plants
and animals of which we are aware, and
3) physics.
Elements of the blindwatchmaking hypothesis appear within
the above Dawkins statement about a blind watchmaker, and
in the statements presented of Stebbins, Simpson, and Sagan.
Incidentally, I am aware of similar statements from over 10
other individuals through the years starting in 1860.
david ford
johac
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
> Concept of "blindwatchmaking"
>
> I define "spontaneous generation" as "the
> non-intelligence-directed-at-any-level appearance of life
> from non-life." "Spontaneous generation" can be envisioned
> as occurring quickly, or gradually and slowly.
>
> If an intelligent entity (say the Judeo-Christian God of
> theism) created physics such that physics could give rise to
> life, and if life appeared from non-life, that life's appearance
> would not be "spontaneous generation."
>
Hold it right there. Do you have evidence for your "intelligent
entity"? In the absence of the supernatural, the universe, life, and
the diversity of species which we see today could only have come about
by natural means. Science has some excellent, well supported theories
to explain some of these phenomena, some will require futher study.
If you wish to argue for creationism, the place to start is showing us
evidence for a creator.
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
- Question authority. Now more than ever. -
PeteM
>To summarize, the "blindwatchmaking hypothesis"/ "blindwatchmaking thesis"
>holds that
>intelligence/ mind is
>not needed to account for:
>1) the appearance of the first lifeforms,
>2) the subsequent arrival of the biological world/ the plants
>and animals of which we are aware, and
>3) physics.
>Elements of the blindwatchmaking hypothesis appear within the above Dawkins
>statement about a
>blind watchmaker, and in the statements presented of Stebbins, Simpson, and
>Sagan. Incidentally, I
>am aware of similar statements from over 10 other individuals through the years
>starting in 1860.
So what is your point?
--
PeteM
Demigouge
[...]
16000 characters, 0 worth reading
Al Klein
<foo.de...@lexicon.net.foo> posted to alt.atheism:
>You talk a WHOLE lotta crap
>[...]
>16000 characters, 0 worth reading
Only in that post. Dave makes many posts just as long and just as
worthless.
--
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
david ford
david ford:
The point of the post was mainly to define a term, blindwatchmaking,
that I frequently use and that John W. asked for a definition of.
PeteM
>PeteM <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<J+3W+XAjFYAAFwZL@p
>rivacy.net>:
>david ford:
>
>> >To summarize, the "blindwatchmaking hypothesis"/ "blindwatchmaking thesis"
>> >holds that
>>
>
>The point of the post was mainly to define a term, blindwatchmaking,
>that I frequently use and that John W. asked for a definition of.
In that case, why not post your definition on the thread where John
asked for it, so that the rest of us know what is going on?
--
PeteM
David Schwartz
"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.04011...@posting.google.com...
> I define "spontaneous generation" as "the
> non-intelligence-directed-at-any-level appearance of life
> from non-life." "Spontaneous generation" can be envisioned
> as occurring quickly, or gradually and slowly.
> If an intelligent entity (say the Judeo-Christian God of
> theism) created physics such that physics could give rise to
> life, and if life appeared from non-life, that life's appearance
> would not be "spontaneous generation."
Umm, no. My wife and I can create life from non-life, except we're
living. If god is living, he cannot create life from non-life either. So
your definition only works if god is not living.
> If an intelligent entity (say the Judeo-Christian God of
> theism) created physics in the Big Bang
> creation-out-of-nothing event (see my essay at
> http://tinyurl.com/ygqj ) such that physics could give rise to
> life, and if life appeared from non-life, that life's appearance
> would not be "spontaneous generation."
Except that a god can't create anything out of nothing because a god is
not nothing.
> If an intelligent entity creates the first lifeform, and creates it
> such that that first lifeform will give rise to all the plants and
> animals of which we are aware, then those plants and animals
> are not the product of blindwatchmaking processes.
How can an intelligent entity create a first lifeform? Isn't an
intelligent entity by definition a lifeform, thus it could at best create a
second lifeform.
You exempt god from the rules you place upon everything else.
DS
David Schwartz
> The point of the post was mainly to define a term, blindwatchmaking,
> that I frequently use and that John W. asked for a definition of.
In that case, it failed. The many contradictions in the explanation
likely convinced people that it doesn't mean anything at all.
By the way, if someone did find an instance of a structure in a living
thing that could not have possibly have arisen by a sequence of steps that
each conferred reproductive benefit, then evolution would be refuted. (I'm
being a bit imprecise here, because there's issues about the sizes of the
steps and about random small changes not having to have any benefit at all.)
Numerous people have alleged that they have found such structures and in
each case, in some cases after extensive detective work, plausible steps
have been discovered.
The absence of such structures, at least to date, is strong evidence
that random changes and differential survival are the correct explanatory
mechanisms for the 'design' found in living things.
DS
Michael Gray
<dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
>
>"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
>news:b1c67abe.04011...@posting.google.com...
>
>
>> The point of the post was mainly to define a term, blindwatchmaking,
>> that I frequently use and that John W. asked for a definition of.
>
> In that case, it failed. The many contradictions in the explanation
>likely convinced people that it doesn't mean anything at all.
>
> By the way, if someone did find an instance of a structure in a living
>thing that could not have possibly have arisen by a sequence of steps that
>each conferred reproductive benefit, then evolution would be refuted. (I'm
Evolution is a demonstrated and demonstrable fact, and so cannot be
refuted.
Special creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive, as you seem
to imply.
neepy
> Concept of "blindwatchmaking"
>
>
> I introduce the term "blindwatchmaking," which is needed
> because the word "evolution" has many meanings, and
> blindwatchmakingists frequently shift the meaning of the
> word "evolution" in their writings without notifying readers
> of the shifts in meanings. Numerous claims in the creation
> versus evolution debate have been made that rely on shifting
> meanings of the word or concept of "evolution" for the
> claims' illusory effectiveness. Should you engage someone
> in a debate, it is a good practice to ask them to define the
> slippery term "evolution" if he or she uses the word, and
> keep a sharp eye on their later use of the word in order to
> spot and point out any shifts in meaning/any commissions of
> the fallacy of equivocation. I further suggest that you
> yourself not use the word "evolution" or its derivatives as
> much as possible.
>
> I define "blindwatchmaking" as "the
> non-intelligence-directed-at-any-level arrival of new
> biological structures having new functions."
> "Blindwatchmaking processes" are
> "non-intelligence-directed-at-any-level processes that result
> in the arrival of new biological structures having new
> functions."
There are at least three problems with the term "blindwatchmaking"
that mean I for one won't be using it:
(1) It is a very clumsy and ugly word.
(2) It is very ambiguous, even dumb: Evolution does not produce
watches, or anything like a watch. Paley's assertion that if we found
a watch, we would assume a watchmaker is correct... because we know
for a fact that watches are made by watchmakers. We do not know, nor
have any evidence for, a "maker" of living things. Your use of the
term plays right into the hands of creationists and IDers: In fact, I
have great difficulty telling from your posts whether you are a
creationist, IDer, or evolutionist (and judging from other peoples
posts, I am not the only one).
(3) We already have a perfectly good phrase: "evolution by natural
selection".
It simply isn't true that the word "evolution" has "many meanings"...
It means only one thing: change over time. You fall into the usual
(but very basic) mistake of confusing the fact of biological evolution
(the characteristics of a population of organisms are not eternally
fixed, but change over time) with the theories put forward to explain
that fact (e.g. natural selection, sexual selection, Lamarckian
adaptation).
I am very suspicious of your attempts to get the word "evolution"
removed from the debate, and see absolutely no chance of you
succeeding in doing that. If I ever here someone using the term
"blindwatchmaking", THAT is what I will "ask them to define" and "keep
Al Klein
<dav...@webmaster.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>Umm, no. My wife and I can create life from non-life
WOW! How do you do that? I can only create life from live sperm, and
my wife can only (well, could, until a few years ago) create life from
live ova.
--
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human
concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot
begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has
been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Field
Michael Gray
wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:20:19 -0800, "David Schwartz"
><dav...@webmaster.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>
>>Umm, no. My wife and I can create life from non-life
>
>WOW! How do you do that? I can only create life from live sperm, and
>my wife can only (well, could, until a few years ago) create life from
>live ova.
So sperm and ova are alive eh?
Does that mean when a male Christian ejaculates, he commits murder a
million times or more?
VERY interested to your twisty-turny evasion on this one.
Samir Ribic
> refuted.
In history of science often occured that demonstrable facts later were
refuted. For example, Aristotle claimed that speed of falling object
depends of object weight. He probabbly got this conclussion by
throwing piece of paper and stone. It took about 1800 years until
Galilleo proved that speed does not depend from weight, but from air
resistance.
But, it was long time ago. Theory of evolution appeared quite late ,
when scientific methodes were well established. It is, however, still
enough old to be well tested and resistable to attacks.
Michael Gray
Ribic) wrote:
>> Evolution is a demonstrated and demonstrable fact, and so cannot be
>> refuted.
>
>In history of science often occured that demonstrable facts later were
>refuted. For example, Aristotle claimed that speed of falling object
>depends of object weight. He probabbly got this conclussion by
>throwing piece of paper and stone. It took about 1800 years until
>Galilleo proved that speed does not depend from weight, but from air
>resistance.
Wrong.
Aristotle almost never resorted to 'demonstrable facts', particularly
in the case you describe.
The proposition holds no weight because it is erroneous.
Evolution is not on demonstrable, but has been demonstrated
time-and-time again.
The breeding of dogs for certain characteristics is just one example.
It is a fact that anyone who cares to can evolve selected creatures
for certain characteristics.
It has nothing to do with the theory behind WHY this happens.
Evolution is a demonstrated fact.
>But, it was long time ago. Theory of evolution appeared quite late ,
>when scientific methodes were well established. It is, however, still
>enough old to be well tested and resistable to attacks.
Your talking about a theory of evolution.
I was talking about evolution itself.
Al Klein
<fle...@newsguy.spam.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 03:28:06 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid>
>wrote:
>>On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:20:19 -0800, "David Schwartz"
>><dav...@webmaster.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>>>Umm, no. My wife and I can create life from non-life
>>WOW! How do you do that? I can only create life from live sperm, and
>>my wife can only (well, could, until a few years ago) create life from
>>live ova.
>So sperm and ova are alive eh?
As alive as any other cell in your body. Are you saying that cells
aren't alive?
--
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
David Schwartz
"Michael Gray" <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:i16f10tbr4p621ro3...@4ax.com...
>> By the way, if someone did find an instance of a structure in a living
>>thing that could not have possibly have arisen by a sequence of steps that
>>each conferred reproductive benefit, then evolution would be refuted. (I'm
> Evolution is a demonstrated and demonstrable fact, and so cannot be
> refuted.
> Special creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive, as you seem
> to imply.
By "evolution", I mean that random mutation and differential survival
explain the appearance of design in living organisms. I am talking about the
*theory* of evolution, not the *mechanism* of evolution. Appearances of
design that could not be explained in this manner *would* refute this
theory.
DS
David Schwartz
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 03:28:06 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid>
> wrote:
>>Umm, no. My wife and I can create life from non-life
>WOW! How do you do that? I can only create life from live sperm, and
>my wife can only (well, could, until a few years ago) create life from
>live ova.
Go one step back. The spem and ova can be created from nothing but
non-living food sources. The only 'life' we need to create life is our own.
So if god is living, he cannot create life from non-life unless I can too.
DS
Michael Gray
Thankyou for being so clear.
So you admit that evolution is real.
But when you say 'the *theory* of evolution", which one are you
referring to as "the"?
There are many theories of evolution.
There are some theories that *would* be refuted by 'appearances' of
design.
Most theories would *not* be refuted in the slightest by an
"appearance" or resemblance to or of design.
david ford
david ford:
> > The point of the post was mainly to define a term, blindwatchmaking,
> > that I frequently use and that John W. asked for a definition of.
>
> In that case, it failed. The many contradictions in the explanation
> likely convinced people that it doesn't mean anything at all.
Please present 2 of the contradictions you have in mind.
Feel free to draw on
concept of "blindwatchmaking"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com
and John W.'s reply in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1g7i6bc.m1z0nj1i4xijkN%25john.wilkins%40bigpond.com
> By the way, if someone did find an instance of a structure in a living
> thing that could not have possibly have arisen by a sequence of steps that
> each conferred reproductive benefit, then evolution would be refuted. (I'm
> being a bit imprecise here, because there's issues about the sizes of the
> steps and about random small changes not having to have any benefit at all.)
> Numerous people have alleged that they have found such structures and in
> each case, in some cases after extensive detective work, plausible steps
> have been discovered.
[DS]"then evolution would be refuted"
Blindwatchmaking by Darwinian natural selection, for that
structure, yes.
Blindwatchmaking by Goldschmidtian mechanisms, or
mechanisms to-be-discovered, no.
[DS]"in each case... plausible steps have been discovered"
What [DS]"plausible steps have been discovered" for
Frazetta's snakes and Long's rodents?
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1982. "The Uses of Heresy: An
Introduction to Richard Goldschmidt's _The Material Basis
of Evolution_" in Richard Goldschmidt, _The Material Basis
of Evolution_ (New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 1940, 1982), at least 399pp., xiii-xlii.
A paragraph on xxxvi:
The classical argument for saltation, on the other hand,
requires a claim for the _inviability of conceivable
intermediate states_. The fact that a phenotype arises
discontinuously as a teratologous mutant in one species
does not prove that it cannot be built gradually in other
circumstances. Interesting claims for phenotypic
saltation have always invoked the inconceivability of
intermediary stages in an evolutionary sequence-- as in
the torsion of snails, Frazzetta's snakes with a split
maxillary (1970), and Long's rodents with inverted
cheek pouches (1976). Mivart's old argument (1871)
about the inviability of "incipient stages of useful
structures" seems as sound as ever, and Goldschmidt
fails to use it.
David Schwartz
> David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote in message
> news:<bv7v3i$qa5$1...@nntp.webmaster.com>...
> david ford:
>> > The point of the post was mainly to define a term, blindwatchmaking,
>> > that I frequently use and that John W. asked for a definition of.
>>
>> In that case, it failed. The many contradictions in the explanation
>> likely convinced people that it doesn't mean anything at all.
> Please present 2 of the contradictions you have in mind.
> Feel free to draw on
>
> concept of "blindwatchmaking"
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com
> and John W.'s reply in
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1g7i6bc.m1z0nj1i4xijkN%25john.wilkins%40bigpond.com
My reply explained several of them, they mostly involve giving god a
special status.
>> By the way, if someone did find an instance of a structure in a
>> living
>> thing that could not have possibly have arisen by a sequence of steps
>> that
>> each conferred reproductive benefit, then evolution would be refuted.
>> (I'm
>> being a bit imprecise here, because there's issues about the sizes of the
>> steps and about random small changes not having to have any benefit at
>> all.)
>> Numerous people have alleged that they have found such structures and in
>> each case, in some cases after extensive detective work, plausible steps
>> have been discovered.
> [DS]"then evolution would be refuted"
> Blindwatchmaking by Darwinian natural selection, for that
> structure, yes.
> Blindwatchmaking by Goldschmidtian mechanisms, or
> mechanisms to-be-discovered, no.
> [DS]"in each case... plausible steps have been discovered"
> What [DS]"plausible steps have been discovered" for
> Frazetta's snakes and Long's rodents?
I think you misunderstand my argument. I'm not saying that finding one
case that *has* *not* been explained as a sequence of plausible steps would
refute evolution. I said finding a case that "could not have possibly arisen
by a sequence of steps" would refute evolution.
So even if we assume, arguendo, that plausible steps have not been
discovered for Frazetta's snakes or Long's rodents, this would not be the
same as a demonstration that they could not plausibly have arisen out of a
sequence of steps. If you have any links to arguments that they could not
have arisen in this manner, feel free to post them.
DS
david ford
Concept of "blindwatchmaking"" on 28 Jan 2004:
david ford:
> > I define "spontaneous generation" as "the
> > non-intelligence-directed-at-any-level appearance of life
> > from non-life." "Spontaneous generation" can be envisioned
> > as occurring quickly, or gradually and slowly.
>
> > If an intelligent entity (say the Judeo-Christian God of
> > theism) created physics such that physics could give rise to
> > life, and if life appeared from non-life, that life's appearance
> > would not be "spontaneous generation."
>
> Umm, no. My wife and I can create life from non-life, except we're
> living.
I don't quite understand.
Are you saying that you and your wife (who are living) can create life
starting with: life? not-life?
Are you rejecting the proposition that you and your wife "creating"
life is actually a case of life coming from life, aka biogenesis?
Are you saying that when you and your wife "create" life, no
intelligence is involved at any level in the creating? If "yes," how
did the genetic recipe contained in your and your wife's genomes,
which allows for baby production, originate?
> If god is living, he cannot create life from non-life either. So
> your definition only works if god is not living.
My definition doesn't require a god to exist, or a god to not-exist,
or a god to be alive (whatever that means for an unspecified god), or
a god to not be alive, in order for the definition to be workable.
> > If an intelligent entity (say the Judeo-Christian God of
> > theism) created physics in the Big Bang
> > creation-out-of-nothing event (see my essay at
> > http://tinyurl.com/ygqj ) such that physics could give rise to
> > life, and if life appeared from non-life, that life's appearance
> > would not be "spontaneous generation."
>
> Except that a god can't create anything out of nothing because a god is
> not nothing.
I'm not saying that a god that creates a universe in a
creation-out-of-nothing Big Bang creation event is creating out of
itself.
> > If an intelligent entity creates the first lifeform, and creates it
> > such that that first lifeform will give rise to all the plants and
> > animals of which we are aware, then those plants and animals
> > are not the product of blindwatchmaking processes.
>
> How can an intelligent entity create a first lifeform? Isn't an
> intelligent entity by definition a lifeform, thus it could at best create a
> second lifeform.
An intelligent entity isn't by definition a lifeform. For example, an
artificial intelligence isn't a lifeform.
> You exempt god from the rules you place upon everything else.
Remind me, from what rules am I exempting the Beginner in say this
argument?:
The universe had a beginning in the Big Bang creation-out-of-nothing
event.
Since the universe had a beginning, the universe had a Beginner.
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>how did the genetic recipe contained in your and your wife's genomes,
>which allows for baby production, originate?
You want a 12 year biology lesson in a usenet post?
You aren't well enough educated to understand the answer that can be
given here.
>> If god is living, he cannot create life from non-life either. So
>> your definition only works if god is not living.
>My definition doesn't require a god to exist, or a god to not-exist,
>or a god to be alive (whatever that means for an unspecified god), or
>a god to not be alive, in order for the definition to be workable.
If you claim that only a god can make life from non-life, then the god
has to be non-living. Since intelligence is a property of life, your
god is non-intelligent, so intelligence is not required to create life
from non-life.
>>How can an intelligent entity create a first lifeform? Isn't an
>> intelligent entity by definition a lifeform, thus it could at best create a
>> second lifeform.
>An intelligent entity isn't by definition a lifeform.
Since intelligence is a property of life, it is. (It's defined that
way - as the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. Non-life can't
"acquire" or "apply".)
>For example, an artificial intelligence isn't a lifeform.
Nor is it intelligent. It's a concept held by intelligence.
>>You exempt god from the rules you place upon everything else.
>Remind me, from what rules am I exempting the Beginner in say this
>argument?:
>The universe had a beginning in the Big Bang creation-out-of-nothing
>event.
You're not, but you're still wrong. A state change isn't a beginning.
>Since the universe had a beginning, the universe had a Beginner.
No, since it had a beginning, it had a beginning. You haven't shown
evidence that, in the non-universe in which you claim it began, a
beginning needs a "beginner".
--
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand
why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen F. Roberts
Mike Lepore
> Since the universe had a beginning, the universe had a Beginner.
A major problem with that (the classical first cause argument) is that,
even if it's true, it's also the last remark that can be made about the
subject. There's no way to get from that to knowing any specific
characteristic of the Beginner; no way to know that it has a mind
(e.g., it doesn't "want" us to kill), no way to know it's "good", or that
it's all-knowing and/or all-powerful (perhaps the only thing it knows how
to do is initiate a universe if there was none before), no way to know
it's eternal. We surely can't get to any conclusion that's very
specific, e.g., this Beginner spoke to Moses, etc. Even if your
statement is true, it has no logical consequences beyond itself.
Mike Lepore - Email delete the 5 - http://www.crimsonbird.com/
Therion Ware
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 04:16:45 -0500 in alt.atheism, Mike Lepore ("Mike
Lepore" <lep...@bestweb.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
I think the assumption (that as David puts it "the beginning implies a
beginner") is questionable as well.
David's statement implicitly assumes that there must have been
a cause. This is to say that to ask "what caused the BB"
implicitly assumes that causality was somehow "pre-existent" to the
universe (whatever the hell "pre-existent" means in that context).
In this universe as far as we are able to tell, events have causes. We
can't always predict what effects given causes will have, but for the
most part x gives rise to y. And so on even if a small variation in x
may give rise to a y that is more of a z. And so on.
But is causality a property of the universe? I think that it very
probably is. This is why:
The physicists tell us, for example, that time, length, width and
height are properties of the universe. This is to say that these
things - that seem absolutely basic to us - are "artifacts" of the way
the universe is and did not exist "prior" to the universe.
Now what comes next may be a species of the argument from ignorance,
or incredulity, but I find it difficult to imagine, for example,
causality in the absence of time. What does "if this then that" mean
if "then" has no meaning?
Further, it appears that at a very fundamental level the universe is
acausal. This is to say that it has been rigourously shown [Bell] as
far as we are currently able to know that some events simply do not
have causes: they, like shit, just happen: there are no hidden
variables.
This suggests to me that causality is a *property* of the universe and
that there are no grounds for assuming causality was in some way
"pre-existent".
And think about it. If there was no causality "before" the universe,
anything can happen. And it did, as I demonstrate even as you read
this. Though personally I'd have been happier with digital watches and
lasers on day 1 as opposed to bleeding Hydrogen, slime, ugly bugs that
bite and so forth.
But there we go. And yes, I have to spend a lot more time thinking
about this, but I think there's the potential for a devastating
argument anti-theist there. ...
Well, probably not that devastating in so much as your adversary would
have to understand the argument in order to be devastated by it.
But then I would think that, wouldn't I?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
Matt Giwer
It is a variation on an old American saying.
The Cause stops here.
--
Now that even an imbecile can see the Bush administration
lied us into war, what are we going to do about it?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3001
David Schwartz
"Therion Ware" <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:ifme209v0oq51g589...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 04:16:45 -0500 in alt.atheism, Mike Lepore ("Mike
> Lepore" <lep...@bestweb.net>) said, directing the reply to
> alt.atheism
>>david ford wrote:
>>> Since the universe had a beginning, the universe had a Beginner.
If the universe had a beginner, then it had something prior to its
beginning. Hence, it didn't really have a beginning after all.
> I think the assumption (that as David puts it "the beginning implies a
> beginner") is questionable as well.
It's this simple -- either you have a problem with self-creation or you
don't. If you have a problem with self-creation, then you need an infinite
regress of creators, each needing a creator to explain its own creation. If
you have no problem with self-creation, then you can either say god created
himself or the universe created itself. You have no help one way or the
other positing some specific type of creator.
So what you wind up having to say is that while there could be things
that don't require creators, the universe is not that type of thing. Which
really is no different from just saying god exists.
> In this universe as far as we are able to tell, events have causes. We
> can't always predict what effects given causes will have, but for the
> most part x gives rise to y. And so on even if a small variation in x
> may give rise to a y that is more of a z. And so on.
Events are caused by huge complexes of properties of existent objects.
We don't see events having single distinct causes. My putting a match to a
piece of paper only causes it to burst into flame because oxygen is present,
because oxygen behaves the way it does, because the paper has the
composition it has, and so on. We don't see single causes for most events we
see.
> But is causality a property of the universe? I think that it very
> probably is. This is why:
That an object has the properties it does and that it has the affects it
does on other things is a property of that object. That things have definite
properties is a property of existence itself.
> Now what comes next may be a species of the argument from ignorance,
> or incredulity, but I find it difficult to imagine, for example,
> causality in the absence of time. What does "if this then that" mean
> if "then" has no meaning?
Causality cannot exist in the absence of at least successive states of
the universe.
> Further, it appears that at a very fundamental level the universe is
> acausal. This is to say that it has been rigourously shown [Bell] as
> far as we are currently able to know that some events simply do not
> have causes: they, like shit, just happen: there are no hidden
> variables.
I think you are saying this because you are using a bogus notion of
causality, that of some one specific thing that is both necessary and
sufficient to bring about a particular effect. The universe doesn't work
that way. Future states are the results of all of the properties of prior
states.
> And think about it. If there was no causality "before" the universe,
> anything can happen.
Actually, if there is no universe, nothing can happen. Something can
only happen *to* something.
DS
Mike Lepore
since experiments have backed up the relativistic effect that time
proceeds more slowly in greater gravitational fields. If all the
matter was barely out of the singularity, the passage of time
was extremely slow. As an asymptote, in the singularity, time
would be stopped. Therefore it seems correct to describe the
Big Bang as occurring an infinite duration of time in the past.
I'm aware of the common statements that the age of the universe
is on the order of 14 to 15 billion years, but I can't reconcile
any such statements with the experimental checks of Einstein's
calculation.
Michael Gray
Most scientists I know consider the question of what happened before
the universe started, as utterly meaningless.
A question that doesn't make any sense.
David Schwartz
"Mike Lepore" <lep...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
news:102junj...@corp.supernews.com...
To get around these issues, philosophers should avoid addressing time
directly and should just talk about successive states of the universe. IE,
first it was like this, then it was like that.
DS
com
The problem being the word 'then'. Maybe the use of language implies
time. . . I feel a headache coming on, the one I always get when I
read J L Borges' " A new refutation of time."
German
Johan van Zyl - JVZ Systems CC
Very interesting - and why would that be? Please elaborate.
Thx!
David Schwartz
<Ra-Ul@nospampipeline. com> wrote in message
news:hptl201kpaqcjn3pb...@4ax.com...
>> To get around these issues, philosophers should avoid addressing time
>>directly and should just talk about successive states of the universe. IE,
>>first it was like this, then it was like that.
> The problem being the word 'then'. Maybe the use of language implies
> time. . . I feel a headache coming on, the one I always get when I
> read J L Borges' " A new refutation of time."
Well, the point is that the "then" requires time but not a measurable
quantity of time. In principle, the universe could be first in one state and
then in another state without the quantity of time between those states
being measurable in units like seconds.
Discussing successive states rather than time allows us to avoid the
issues with how we measure time around events like the big bang. We don't
have to be able to measure time in order to talk about it anymore than we
need to know that colors are measurable frequencies in order to talk about
what flowers look like.
You can't discuss very much philosophy without a notion of successive
states. You can, however, get quite far without worrying about
physical/measurable time.
DS
Michael Gray
I'll try and put it as simply as I can, but I don't know how
successful I'll be.
Without a universe, and that means nothing, no clocks of any sort, no
thermodynamic slopes, no nothing, time cannot have any meaning at all.
The way we define time seems intuitively obvious, but when you
actually pin it down, it comes to the measurement of distances in
spacetime.
The concept of distance requires 'stuff' to measure, and 'stuff' to do
the measuring, and 'stuff' to observe the results.
As, by definition, there is no stuff where this is no universe, the
concept of measuring distances and therefore time doesn't exist, and
it is meaningless to even contemplate its potential.