Question for Burk

[Ray Martinez]

Science does in fact accept an unguided selection process. That said, where did Alvin Plantinga obtain the idea that selection is not unguided?

Ray

[jillery]

Why only Burk?

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> Science does in fact accept an unguided selection process. That said, where did Alvin Plantinga obtain the idea that selection is not unguided?
>
> Ray
>

From the Bible. Interesting book, you should read it some time.

[raven1]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 07:51:54 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

ROTFLMAO! You win Usenet!

[Ray Martinez]

You said he got it from textbooks. And your answer above is a funny way of saying you don't want to talk about this.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

You can answer, by all means. It's just that Burk once said he obtained the idea from scientific text books.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 6:19:57 AM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 10:34:53 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:

Posting a reply to Sean here because it doesn't post in the proper topic.


[big snip....]

> > >
> > > No, I did not botch my question. You stated that "no effect can be described or identified as designed if produced by an unintelligent material agent." And I am saying that in order to make that argument, you have to establish that there IS no possible alternative explanation. Which you haven't. In fact, I have presented you with an alternative explanation, and your only reponse was to once again repeat your claim, without backing it up with anything.
> > >
> > >
> > You've misunderstood the issue, which is about logic. When I said no effect can be identified as designed if produced by an unintelligent agent, I'm reminding the debate of the problem faced by evolutionary theory. Since the theory posits undirected agency the same does not and cannot explain an observation or appearance of design, which is logically invalid because the cause and effect contradict.
>
> I have not misunderstood the issue. There is neither a logical nor an evidentiary basis for the claim that undirected causes cannot produce organized effects. If you think I'm wrong, I'd very much like you to point me to a reputable source on logic that states such a logical law.
>
> The notion of a cause and effect "condradicting" each other isn't sensical. After all, effects are OFTEN different -- or even diametrically opposite -- to their causes. That doesn't mean they "contradict."
>

Imagine that; antonyms do not contradict; laughable; good example of evolutionary "thinking."

> For instance, in physics - Newton's 3rd Law: every action shall have an equal and opposite reaction.
>
> Or in psychology - The Backfire Effect: Presenting people with evidence that disproves their closely held beliefs will only cause them to further dig in their heels.
>
> Of course, both of the above are very different from the question of complexity from unguided causes, but they illustrate the general principle that there is no logical principle preventing a cause from having effects that are different from or even if opposition to that cause.
>
> So your claim that it is "logically invalid" is made up bullshit with no basis in actual logic. Want to prove me wrong? Again: show me a reputable source that states the law of logic you are citing in your claim. Until then, it is just private madeup Ray-logic which has nothing to do with the real world.
>

I said design, not organized complexity.

So your outburst has nothing to do with what I said.

It's illogical to say unintelligent cause produced an effect of design because the effect and cause contradict.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 5:59:53 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 6:19:57 AM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 10:34:53 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> Posting a reply to Sean here because it doesn't post in the proper topic.
>
>
> [big snip....]
>
> > > >
> > > > No, I did not botch my question. You stated that "no effect can be described or identified as designed if produced by an unintelligent material agent." And I am saying that in order to make that argument, you have to establish that there IS no possible alternative explanation. Which you haven't. In fact, I have presented you with an alternative explanation, and your only reponse was to once again repeat your claim, without backing it up with anything.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > You've misunderstood the issue, which is about logic. When I said no effect can be identified as designed if produced by an unintelligent agent, I'm reminding the debate of the problem faced by evolutionary theory. Since the theory posits undirected agency the same does not and cannot explain an observation or appearance of design, which is logically invalid because the cause and effect contradict.
> >
> > I have not misunderstood the issue. There is neither a logical nor an evidentiary basis for the claim that undirected causes cannot produce organized effects. If you think I'm wrong, I'd very much like you to point me to a reputable source on logic that states such a logical law.
> >
> > The notion of a cause and effect "condradicting" each other isn't sensical. After all, effects are OFTEN different -- or even diametrically opposite -- to their causes. That doesn't mean they "contradict."
> >
>
> Imagine that; antonyms do not contradict; laughable; good example of evolutionary "thinking."

You have yet to demonstrate how unguided causes contradict with organisedly complexy (aka "designed-looking") effects. Until you do, your position is pure bullshit. Claiming it don't make it so.

Put up or shut up.

>
> > For instance, in physics - Newton's 3rd Law: every action shall have an equal and opposite reaction.
> >
> > Or in psychology - The Backfire Effect: Presenting people with evidence that disproves their closely held beliefs will only cause them to further dig in their heels.
> >
> > Of course, both of the above are very different from the question of complexity from unguided causes, but they illustrate the general principle that there is no logical principle preventing a cause from having effects that are different from or even if opposition to that cause.
> >
> > So your claim that it is "logically invalid" is made up bullshit with no basis in actual logic. Want to prove me wrong? Again: show me a reputable source that states the law of logic you are citing in your claim. Until then, it is just private madeup Ray-logic which has nothing to do with the real world.
> >
>
> I said design, not organized complexity.

You previously cited organized complexity as the marker of design. Make up your mind.

>
> So your outburst has nothing to do with what I said.
>
> It's illogical to say unintelligent cause produced an effect of design because the effect and cause contradict.

The effect isn't necessarily actual design. The effect is the SUBJECTIVE RESEMBLANCE *TO* design.

Yes, Virginia... things that AREN'T designed may still LOOK designed to a naive viewer.

[Burkhard]

Nope. When you asked it last time, my answer was, and I quote:

"[...] the broad answer is from the bible and the theological literature
that followed it."

Same as this time. Here the link to the answer then:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/spDbOC6RrYo/FAvOfXNWAgAJ

Now, you once also asked me where he gets his ideas of evolutionary
theory from. To that my answer was indeed that it's probably from
standard textbooks, like everyone else.

Unlike you, he distinguishes between theological and metaphysical
theories, for which he gets his inspirations from the theological and
philosophical literature, and scientific theories, for which he gets his
ideas from the scientific literature.

The former can be "about" the latter, but they are not "the same as" the
latter.

More specifically, he tries to show that what on the scientific level of
physical processes is best described as an undirected process can
nonetheless be understood as being ultimately a directed process on the
theological or philosophical meta-level (meta-physics).

The two ways of thinking have different methodological rules, and
different sources of ideas.

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 11:30:19 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 10:19:53 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 20:06:23 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Science does in fact accept an unguided selection process. That said, where did Alvin Plantinga obtain the idea that selection is not unguided?
>>>>
>>>> Ray
>>>
>>>
>>> Why only Burk?
>>>
>>

>> You can answer, by all means. It's just that Burk once said he obtained the idea from scientific text books.
>>
>> Ray
>>
>Nope. When you asked it last time, my answer was, and I quote:
>
>"[...] the broad answer is from the bible and the theological literature
>that followed it."
>
>Same as this time. Here the link to the answer then:
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/spDbOC6RrYo/FAvOfXNWAgAJ
>
>Now, you once also asked me where he gets his ideas of evolutionary
>theory from. To that my answer was indeed that it's probably from
>standard textbooks, like everyone else.
>
>Unlike you, he distinguishes between theological and metaphysical
>theories, for which he gets his inspirations from the theological and
>philosophical literature, and scientific theories, for which he gets his
>ideas from the scientific literature.
>
>The former can be "about" the latter, but they are not "the same as" the
>latter.
>
>More specifically, he tries to show that what on the scientific level of
>physical processes is best described as an undirected process can
>nonetheless be understood as being ultimately a directed process on the
>theological or philosophical meta-level (meta-physics).
>
>The two ways of thinking have different methodological rules, and
>different sources of ideas.

IIUC two bases to Ray's line of reasoning are his assumptions that 1)
appearance of design necessarily means design, and 2) design
necessarily means guided by intelligent agency. Ray incorporates
these assumptions into his distinctive definitions, which is his
privilege, but then he refuses to accept that most people, apparently
including Plantinga, don't use Ray's definitions in normal
conversation. More to the point, unless Ray believes all events are
guided by intelligent agency, ie there are no coincidences, then Ray
doesn't always use those definitions either.

AIUI a flaw in Ray's line of reasoning is his refusal to recognize
that a sufficiently omnipotent intelligent agent would be capable of
arranging events to appear as if they were unguided. For Ray to tell
God how to run His Universe shows remarkable hubris.

As an ironic aside, since said appearance of unguided processes is
observed, then by Ray's "reasoning" said unguided processes
necessarily exist.

[Ernest Major]

Ray has on several occasions stated that there are no natural causes. I
am not convinced that Ray has a coherent position, but he may well
believe that all events are guided by intelligent agency.

>
> AIUI a flaw in Ray's line of reasoning is his refusal to recognize
> that a sufficiently omnipotent intelligent agent would be capable of
> arranging events to appear as if they were unguided. For Ray to tell
> God how to run His Universe shows remarkable hubris.
>
> As an ironic aside, since said appearance of unguided processes is
> observed, then by Ray's "reasoning" said unguided processes
> necessarily exist.
>
>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ray Martinez]

You said natural selection was Agnostic in textbooks and that was Plantinga's source for a guided selection process. You can change, clarify, or retract, but you did say that.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 7:04:53 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 5:59:53 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 6:19:57 AM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 10:34:53 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >
> > Posting a reply to Sean here because it doesn't post in the proper topic.
> >
> >
> > [big snip....]
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I did not botch my question. You stated that "no effect can be described or identified as designed if produced by an unintelligent material agent." And I am saying that in order to make that argument, you have to establish that there IS no possible alternative explanation. Which you haven't. In fact, I have presented you with an alternative explanation, and your only reponse was to once again repeat your claim, without backing it up with anything.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > You've misunderstood the issue, which is about logic. When I said no effect can be identified as designed if produced by an unintelligent agent, I'm reminding the debate of the problem faced by evolutionary theory. Since the theory posits undirected agency the same does not and cannot explain an observation or appearance of design, which is logically invalid because the cause and effect contradict.
> > >
> > > I have not misunderstood the issue. There is neither a logical nor an evidentiary basis for the claim that undirected causes cannot produce organized effects. If you think I'm wrong, I'd very much like you to point me to a reputable source on logic that states such a logical law.
> > >
> > > The notion of a cause and effect "condradicting" each other isn't sensical. After all, effects are OFTEN different -- or even diametrically opposite -- to their causes. That doesn't mean they "contradict."
> > >
> >
> > Imagine that; antonyms do not contradict; laughable; good example of evolutionary "thinking."
>
> You have yet to demonstrate how unguided causes contradict with organisedly complexy (aka "designed-looking") effects. Until you do, your position is pure bullshit. Claiming it don't make it so.
>
> Put up or shut up.
>
>

Unguidedness producing organization is the main claim of natural selection. The same is illogical because the effect isn't a logical expectation of the cause. To disagree is to say guidedness producing organization is illogical, which is not true.

>
> > > For instance, in physics - Newton's 3rd Law: every action shall have an equal and opposite reaction.
> > >
> > > Or in psychology - The Backfire Effect: Presenting people with evidence that disproves their closely held beliefs will only cause them to further dig in their heels.
> > >
> > > Of course, both of the above are very different from the question of complexity from unguided causes, but they illustrate the general principle that there is no logical principle preventing a cause from having effects that are different from or even if opposition to that cause.
> > >
> > > So your claim that it is "logically invalid" is made up bullshit with no basis in actual logic. Want to prove me wrong? Again: show me a reputable source that states the law of logic you are citing in your claim. Until then, it is just private madeup Ray-logic which has nothing to do with the real world.
> > >
> >
> > I said design, not organized complexity.
>
> You previously cited organized complexity as the marker of design. Make up your mind.
> >
> > So your outburst has nothing to do with what I said.
> >
> > It's illogical to say unintelligent cause produced an effect of design because the effect and cause contradict.
>
> The effect isn't necessarily actual design. The effect is the SUBJECTIVE RESEMBLANCE *TO* design.
>
> Yes, Virginia... things that AREN'T designed may still LOOK designed to a naive viewer.

Your usages of phrases that include the word design is not how design authorities use these phrases so you aren't talking about design.

Ray

[Burkhard]

If textbooks are agnostic towards the (ultimate) guidedness of
selection, i.e. do not talk about it at all, then it can't be a source
for a guided selection process, can it now?

As I said quite explicitly in the quote above:

Plantinga gets the idea that the process is ultimately guided, or
designed, from theology - it is a theological position.

He gets his understanding of biology from (one would hope/presume)
standard and up to date textbooks in biology. That was the question you
asked (and I think you expected "Darwin as answer), this and only this
is what I replied to.

He then has to see if this position can be made consistent with the
scientific view. Note: merely "consistent with", not "supported by".
That one he gets from biology textbooks. From that he gets,
unsurprisingly, as this is the case for all science, that the theory as
formulated does not pronounce on ultimate sources, it does not talk
about deities in particular. (and neither does Newtonian physics, or the
germ theory of disease)

That opens up a whole raft of possible reconciliations of the positions:

a) traditional deism: God puts the laws and initial conditions into
place (being omniscient knowing what the result will be)

b) atemporalism A more interesting variation of a): God, existing
outside time and space, sees all possible universes before his eyes,
from their beginning to their end all in one frozen block, and speaks
the one into existence he likes best.

c) immersiveness: God as ultimate reality is the laws of nature in one
of his aspects. Versions of this can be forms of pantheism or panentheism.

d) occasionalism: god is direct cause of all events, there are no
unguided events ever (which ultimately is what your position collapses
into, even if you don't understand it yourself)

There can be others I suppose. But all 4 are consistent with the ToE,
and indeed all science. They are designed in such a way that there is no
possible scientific observation that contradicts them, they do not add a
single different prediction and all preserve exactly the empirical
content of our theories So as far as science is concerned, none of them
is prohibited, but also none of them is scientifically speaking of any
particular interest.

[Ray Martinez]

Burk: Your answers are unsatisfactory. I'm now forced to return to the original topic and dredge up your quotations on the matter.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

On 6/24/17 10:42 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 7:04:53 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 5:59:53 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 6:19:57 AM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 10:34:53 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez
>>>> wrote:

<snip>

>>>> I have not misunderstood the issue. There is neither a logical
>>>> nor an evidentiary basis for the claim that undirected causes
>>>> cannot produce organized effects. If you think I'm wrong, I'd
>>>> very much like you to point me to a reputable source on logic
>>>> that states such a logical law.
>>>>
>>>> The notion of a cause and effect "condradicting" each other
>>>> isn't sensical. After all, effects are OFTEN different -- or
>>>> even diametrically opposite -- to their causes. That doesn't
>>>> mean they "contradict."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Imagine that; antonyms do not contradict; laughable; good example
>>> of evolutionary "thinking."
>>
>> You have yet to demonstrate how unguided causes contradict with
>> organisedly complexy (aka "designed-looking") effects. Until you
>> do, your position is pure bullshit. Claiming it don't make it so.
>>
>> Put up or shut up.
>>
>>
> Unguidedness producing organization is the main claim of natural
> selection. The same is illogical because the effect isn't a logical
> expectation of the cause.

It *is* a logical expectation of the cause - because we see unguided
causes producing organization all of the time in nature.

If you're going to use "logical" informally - which is what you do just
above - you're going to have to accept that the truth value of informal
logic (i.e., observation based inference) is not to be found in
semantics. No matter the lengths you take to seed the argument with
linguistic tensions or inconsistencies (e.g., "unguided" and
"organized"), it validity will be determined by observation and experience.

It is utterly rational to conclude, after seeing evidence for
innumerable instances of unguided natural processes producing
organization and order, that such a thing could be a reasonable (i.e.,
"logical") expectation of some heretofore unknown process.

When you offer a semantic argument against this position by misusing the
word "logical," all you are doing is demonstrating a naive reliance on
word magic.

> To disagree is to say guidedness producing
> organization is illogical, which is not true.

No, it's not to say that at all. There is nothing in the previous
observation which obligates this very silly inference.

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 6:19:57 AM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 10:34:53 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> Posting a reply to Sean here because it doesn't post in the proper topic.
>
>
> [big snip....]
>
>>>>
>>>> No, I did not botch my question. You stated that "no effect can be described or identified as designed if produced by an unintelligent material agent." And I am saying that in order to make that argument, you have to establish that there IS no possible alternative explanation. Which you haven't. In fact, I have presented you with an alternative explanation, and your only reponse was to once again repeat your claim, without backing it up with anything.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You've misunderstood the issue, which is about logic. When I said no effect can be identified as designed if produced by an unintelligent agent, I'm reminding the debate of the problem faced by evolutionary theory. Since the theory posits undirected agency the same does not and cannot explain an observation or appearance of design,

Of course it can, and it does. One explanation from evolutionary
psychology is that when we developed the ability to make tools, our mind
learned to project purpose and design into nature.

If you are a sculptor, you already "see" the person in the marble (the
famous bonmot, reportted in various, hereone with angles:

“There is a beautiful angel in that block of marble, and I am going to
find it? All I have to do is to knock off the outside pieces of marble,
and be very careful not to cut into the angel with my chisel"

If the marble appears ot be already in angel form, scupting it is easier
Same with tools: if you already see in your mind eye how the stone can
become an arrowhead, it is easier to make the arrow.

which is logically invalid because the cause and effect contradict.

That might be true for a certain everyday meaning of "logical", that is
"intuitive to me", but not in the sense of logic proper.

There is no law of logic, or semantics, that prohibits two things that
are in a causal connection to have contradictory properties.

Small things can have big effects: the famous butterfly effect. Love can
cause hate (if it is unrequited). Heat can cause cold (that's why your
fridge works) etc etc. Absolutely no reason to think that that a cause
and its effect must not have contradictory properties, and no law known
to logicians, ever, that would claim it did. And of course you never
provided any evidence for it, or a cite.

>>
>> I have not misunderstood the issue. There is neither a logical nor an evidentiary basis for the claim that undirected causes cannot produce organized effects. If you think I'm wrong, I'd very much like you to point me to a reputable source on logic that states such a logical law.
>>
>> The notion of a cause and effect "condradicting" each other isn't sensical. After all, effects are OFTEN different -- or even diametrically opposite -- to their causes. That doesn't mean they "contradict."
>>
>
> Imagine that; antonyms do not contradict; laughable; good example of evolutionary "thinking."

You misunderstand what he says. Of cause antonyms are contradictory -
that is one and the same thing cannot have at the same time and in the
same respect two antonym properties But cause and effect are not the
same thing, so they having antonymic properties doesn't mean that the
causal relation is contradictory.

>
>> For instance, in physics - Newton's 3rd Law: every action shall have an equal and opposite reaction.
>>
>> Or in psychology - The Backfire Effect: Presenting people with evidence that disproves their closely held beliefs will only cause them to further dig in their heels.
>>
>> Of course, both of the above are very different from the question of complexity from unguided causes, but they illustrate the general principle that there is no logical principle preventing a cause from having effects that are different from or even if opposition to that cause.
>>
>> So your claim that it is "logically invalid" is made up bullshit with no basis in actual logic. Want to prove me wrong? Again: show me a reputable source that states the law of logic you are citing in your claim. Until then, it is just private madeup Ray-logic which has nothing to do with the real world.
>>
>
> I said design, not organized complexity.

And why does that matter? His examples show that your claim of logic,
the general premise, that cause and effect must not have contradictory
properties, is flat wrong ad made up by you.

>
> So your outburst has nothing to do with what I said.

More specifically, it falsifies the major premise on which your argument
is based.

>
> It's illogical to say unintelligent cause produced an effect of design because the effect and cause contradict.

It is maybe "counterintuitive for Ray", but nothing in the laws of logic
prohibits it.

>
> Ray
>

[Burkhard]

Oh, but he does. His position is ultimately a form of occasionalism:
there are no unguided processes in his world.

What he does not realize is that this means the ToE is just as true as
Newtonian physics, or the germ theory of disease, the theory of
electromagnetism, the oxygen theory of combustion or the valence bond
theory. Or for that matter any other scientific theory.

They all account for the observations in the same degree, and all leave
out that in each individual instance of causation, something
supernatural is additionally involved.

[Bill]

You assume that logic is sufficient to answer any question,
I see it as one way to answer one kind of question. Logic is
a useful tool to understand machinery but not all "things"
are machines. Other forms of thought exist and will require
other forms of analysis.

Bill

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> Burk: Your answers are unsatisfactory.

I can help you with any long words you struggled with?

I'm now forced to return to the original topic and dredge up your
quotations on the matter.
>
> Ray
>

You are not forced to do anything, I gave you the verbatim quote, with a
link helpfully supplied bey me.

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 19:30:55 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

I don't see how Ray's assumptions support his conclusion. If there
were no unguided processes, then everything would be designed, and his
assumptions would identify a nonexistent distinction, which would make
said distinction utterly meaningless.

[Burkhard]

No, it is sufficient to refute the claim made by Ray that a specific
argument or theory is illogical

> I see it as one way to answer one kind of question. Logic is
> a useful tool to understand machinery but not all "things"
> are machines. Other forms of thought exist and will require
> other forms of analysis.

And if you had read the above exchange with a modicum of understanding,
you'd have seen that nothing there contradicts this notion.

>
> Bill
>
>

[Burkhard]

Yup. Me and others have raised this point with him several times, but he
does not get it. "Designed" becomes co-extensional with "exist" and
hence scientifically irrelevant and can be dropped without loss of
information.

But the alternatives are worse for him. Paley contrasted the watch with
a stone. So presumably the stone does at the very least not appear
designed (according to Paley). But since for Ray, if something appears
in a way, it is that way (assuming at least the perception of appearance
is shared by many people and persistent) it means the stone and things
like it are not designed.

Which in turn means God did not create them - with means God did not
create everything. And it also means that contra Ray, there are indeed
undirected processes, the ones that make the stone.

[Ray Martinez]

Logically invalid: unguided action producing organized results.

Logically valid: guided action producing organized results.

Precisely WHY Richard Dawkins is famous for popularizing the selection process to be non-random, which extricates the logical invalidity between unguidedness and organization, but creates another contradiction between unguided or undirected or unintelligence and non-random, which he doesn't address.

> If you're going to use "logical" informally - which is what you do just
> above - you're going to have to accept that the truth value of informal
> logic (i.e., observation based inference) is not to be found in
> semantics. No matter the lengths you take to seed the argument with
> linguistic tensions or inconsistencies (e.g., "unguided" and
> "organized"), it validity will be determined by observation and experience.

Logic is about what can or cannot exist via the identification of contradiction or extrication from contradiction. You seem to think that these simple rules don't apply to your claims about nature.

All you said was to repeat the well known claim of the ToE: unguidedness can produce organization. WE (= anti-evolutionaries) don't see it because it's illogical, which means a contradiction exists, which means the same is impossible, cannot exist----that's why we don't see it; and neither do you since evolution is wholly dependent on inference.

>
> It is utterly rational to conclude, after seeing evidence for
> innumerable instances of unguided natural processes producing
> organization and order, that such a thing could be a reasonable (i.e.,
> "logical") expectation of some heretofore unknown process.

You keep assuming your conclusion----that which is in dispute. Again, you repeat the claim which is under attack by me. Sound logic says organization and guidedness correspond. Unguidedness and organization do not correspond. Nobody looks at organization and concludes "Unguidedness did it." So the ToE is illogical. No wonder a majority of the public rejects.

>
> When you offer a semantic argument against this position by misusing the
> word "logical," all you are doing is demonstrating a naive reliance on
> word magic.

I am talking about correspondence and contradiction. You seem to be arguing that the ToE is exempt from the normal rules of logic, which supports everything I'm saying.

[Ray Martinez]

Absolutely correct! All living things are designed, evolution says the exact opposite, no living things are designed. And in this context I make no assumptions. We have an observation of design followex by an inference or conclusion that what is seen is the work of God.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

What point?

> "Designed" becomes co-extensional with "exist" and
> hence scientifically irrelevant and can be dropped without loss of
> information.

If that is your point, then you're right I don't get it. Of course we were never discussing information, but organized complexity.

>
> But the alternatives are worse for him. Paley contrasted the watch with
> a stone. So presumably the stone does at the very least not appear
> designed (according to Paley).

Nor to anyone else when contrasted against his watch. I've never seen any scholar reject this point.

> But since for Ray, if something appears
> in a way, it is that way (assuming at least the perception of appearance
> is shared by many people and persistent) it means the stone and things
> like it are not designed.
>
> Which in turn means God did not create them - with means God did not
> create everything. And it also means that contra Ray, there are indeed
> undirected processes, the ones that make the stone.
>

Ridiculous! I've explained this before and you didn't get it. If the watch is designed, and in Paley's argument it is, then the less complex thing, the stone, must be created (note I didn't say designed).

Ray

[Burkhard]

But Jillery talks about all things, not just all living things. Making
"being designed" and empty and unnecessary term.

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 21:27:55 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>

I am one of those others who also points out that Ray's line of
reasoning contradicts Paley's analogy.

So IIUC you now agree with what I said in the previous post, that Ray
doesn't always use his own distinctive definitions, but instead on
occasion conveniently ignores them.

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 18:52:16 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

You conveniently ignored this part of my paragraph, which is the point
I made.

Also, you flip-flop between referring to design of life and design of
all things. Do you think all nonliving things are designed?

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 19:06:34 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

Since you say Paley's stone was created, do you think it was created
by an intelligent agent?

[Burkhard]

The one in th every next sentence, d'uh.

>
>> "Designed" becomes co-extensional with "exist" and
>> hence scientifically irrelevant and can be dropped without loss of
>> information.
>
> If that is your point, then you're right I don't get it. Of course we were never discussing information, but organized complexity.

You indeed don't get it. The point is that the term "is designed" gets
empty and can be dropped from any theory without changing the content of
the theory (so without loss of information of the theory). We do not
say: Mount Everest exists and is higher than the equally existing Mount
Eiger", we coney that information simply by saying "Mt Everest is higher
than the Eiger". We do not say: Washington DC exists and is the capitol
of the US", we simply say : "Washington DC is the Capitol of the US" etc
etc. Short, if a term appears i every expression, it becomes redundant
and can be dropped. Which is why "exists" is not best analyzed as a
property, but as a quantifier. Coincidentally something first realized
by Aristotle, then forgotten for a while, before being rediscovered by
Kant, Hume, and later Frege.

One consequence of this then is that all scientific theories, including
the ToE, are correct as stated, since adding "is designed" does not add
anything.

>
>>
>> But the alternatives are worse for him. Paley contrasted the watch with
>> a stone. So presumably the stone does at the very least not appear
>> designed (according to Paley).
>
> Nor to anyone else when contrasted against his watch. I've never seen any scholar reject this point.

Indeed. Which is why it is a problem for you.

>
>
>> But since for Ray, if something appears
>> in a way, it is that way (assuming at least the perception of appearance
>> is shared by many people and persistent) it means the stone and things
>> like it are not designed.
>>
>> Which in turn means God did not create them - with means God did not
>> create everything. And it also means that contra Ray, there are indeed
>> undirected processes, the ones that make the stone.
>>
>
> Ridiculous! I've explained this before and you didn't get it.

Oh, I did get that you tried to salvage your argument this way. But it
doesn't work, at least not for you, for the reasons stated. Might just
work for someone with a more sensible epistemology, but in your mind
perception of appearance trumps inferences all the time.

And here, we have the appearance of non-design, which you try to refute
by an inference: The inference that because some things are designed,
all are designed. Which contradicts your own stated position.

Now, if you had a more sensible epistemology, in which inferences can
trump appearances "even if" these are held by everyone and are
persistent (the point above, that all scholars agree etc...), then it
would at least not be inconsistent.

Mind you, even then it would still be utterly unconvincing, because
there is no justification given for the premise that "if something is
supernaturally designed, everything is supernaturally designed". There
are lots of theological systems where god(s) design some, but not all
things - the Olympian gods of Greece e.g.And as long as such an account
is at least possible (and that means simply internally consistent) the
argument fails as a logical deduction.

>If the watch is designed, and in Paley's argument it is, then the
less complex thing, the stone, must be created (note I didn't say designed).

And what difference does this make exactly? How does god create without
designing?

[Stevet]

“476. Children do not learn that books exist, that armchairs exist,
etc.,etc. - they learn to fetch books, sit in armchairs, etc.,etc.
Later, questions about the existence of things do of course arise, "Is
there such a thing as a unicorn?" and so on. But such a question is
possible only because as a rule no corresponding question presents itself.
For how does one know how to set about satisfying oneself of the existence
of unicorns? How did one learn the method for determining whether something
exists or not?
477. "So one must know that the objects whose names one teaches a child by
an ostensive definition exist." - Why must one know they do? Isn't it
enough that experience doesn't later show the opposite?
For why should the language-game rest on some kind of knowledge?
478. Does a child believe that milk exists? Or does it know that milk
exists? Does a cat know that a mouse exists?
479. Are we to say that the knowledge that there are physical objects comes
very early or very late?”
― Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty

De

--
Stevet

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:52f6e15f-1af4-4c40...@googlegroups.com...

> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 6:19:57 AM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 10:34:53 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>

> Posting a reply to Sean here because it doesn't post in the proper topic.
>
>
> [big snip....]
>
>> > >
>> > > No, I did not botch my question. You stated that "no effect can be
>> > > described or identified as designed if produced by an unintelligent
>> > > material agent." And I am saying that in order to make that argument,
>> > > you have to establish that there IS no possible alternative
>> > > explanation. Which you haven't. In fact, I have presented you with an
>> > > alternative explanation, and your only reponse was to once again
>> > > repeat your claim, without backing it up with anything.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > You've misunderstood the issue, which is about logic. When I said no
>> > effect can be identified as designed if produced by an unintelligent
>> > agent, I'm reminding the debate of the problem faced by evolutionary
>> > theory. Since the theory posits undirected agency the same does not and

>> > cannot explain an observation or appearance of design, which is

>> > logically invalid because the cause and effect contradict.
>>

>> I have not misunderstood the issue. There is neither a logical nor an
>> evidentiary basis for the claim that undirected causes cannot produce
>> organized effects. If you think I'm wrong, I'd very much like you to
>> point me to a reputable source on logic that states such a logical law.
>>
>> The notion of a cause and effect "condradicting" each other isn't
>> sensical. After all, effects are OFTEN different -- or even diametrically
>> opposite -- to their causes. That doesn't mean they "contradict."
>>
>
> Imagine that; antonyms do not contradict; laughable; good example of
> evolutionary "thinking."
>

>> For instance, in physics - Newton's 3rd Law: every action shall have an
>> equal and opposite reaction.
>>
>> Or in psychology - The Backfire Effect: Presenting people with evidence
>> that disproves their closely held beliefs will only cause them to further
>> dig in their heels.
>>
>> Of course, both of the above are very different from the question of
>> complexity from unguided causes, but they illustrate the general
>> principle that there is no logical principle preventing a cause from
>> having effects that are different from or even if opposition to that
>> cause.
>>
>> So your claim that it is "logically invalid" is made up bullshit with no
>> basis in actual logic. Want to prove me wrong? Again: show me a reputable
>> source that states the law of logic you are citing in your claim. Until
>> then, it is just private madeup Ray-logic which has nothing to do with
>> the real world.
>>
>
> I said design, not organized complexity.
>

> So your outburst has nothing to do with what I said.
>

> It's illogical to say unintelligent cause produced an effect of design
> because the effect and cause contradict.
>

An interesting statement. Do a cause always reduce to a specific outcome? My
position is that a (singular) cause is not always (or ever?) the sole cause.

You can't create yur own 'facts' by making for instance "effect" and "cause"
subjects in a designed dichotomy of synonym vs. antonym.

Please define "unintelligent cause". Strictly natural causes may of course
result in appearance of design.

> Ray
>

[Rolf]

"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oimanp$gic$1...@dont-email.me...

Friedrich Schiller: Against stupidity even the gods contend in vain.

Tentative interpretation:
Stupidity: Creationists.
Gods: We.

[Rolf]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:oinkcp$h5f$1...@dont-email.me...

Because he just says "let there be ...", and nature just complies.

[Robert Camp]

It's neither invalid from a formal logic perspective nor from an
observation-based inference (informal "logic") perspective.

There is no accepted principle based upon which we should not expect to
see such a thing. And there is voluminous observation-based evidence for
just such inferences.

You argument is simply, and unquestionably, wrong.

You don't get to make up your own psuedo-axiom (based upon silly
linguistic contrivances no less), call it "logic", and reason from it as
if it constitutes some kind of dictum - you're not a child trying to get
out of taking a bath. You're presumably an adult who, again presumably,
values reason to the degree you want your assertions to be supported.
Finding "contradictions" in your own phrasing and acting as if that
supports a counterargument is just juvenile.

The paths available to bolster your position are,

a) empirical - marshal the *evidence* required to prove either that all
organization comes from guided processes or that the organization we see
is an illusion, or,

b) theoretical - argue persuasively, based upon accepted and coherent
rationale, why organization could not result from non-purposive action.


I recognize that you have chosen "b)", but what I've been trying to tell
you for years now is that your conception of how to accomplish that task
is so artless and uneducated it actually boggles the mind.

Declaring something to be impossible because you interpret the semantics
to preclude it is, simply, word magic.


<snip>

[ernobe]

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> writes:

>>
>> I don't see how Ray's assumptions support his conclusion. If there
>> were no unguided processes, then everything would be designed, and his
>> assumptions would identify a nonexistent distinction, which would make
>> said distinction utterly meaningless.
>
> Yup. Me and others have raised this point with him several times, but he does

> not get it. "Designed" becomes co-extensional with "exist" and hence

> scientifically irrelevant and can be dropped without loss of information.
>

> But the alternatives are worse for him. Paley contrasted the watch with a
> stone. So presumably the stone does at the very least not appear designed

> (according to Paley). But since for Ray, if something appears in a way, it is

> that way (assuming at least the perception of appearance is shared by many
> people and persistent) it means the stone and things like it are not designed.
>
> Which in turn means God did not create them - with means God did not create
> everything. And it also means that contra Ray, there are indeed undirected
> processes, the ones that make the stone.
>

The stone, like the watch, are subject to physical laws, the existence
of which cannot be explained away as part of the observers' imagination.

Such vain thoughts are prompted by the supposed need of the observer to
stay within the confines of what has been determined to be
scientifically relevant. And such needs are usually determined by the
materialistic objectives of politicians and their cohorts.

Which tells you something about the source of the "undirected processes"
of government, which leave out the vast majority of people from enjoying
the economic benefits of science.


--
https://archive.org/services/purl/bahai

[ernobe]

Stevet <stol...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:

>
>
> “476. Children do not learn that books exist, that armchairs exist,
> etc.,etc. - they learn to fetch books, sit in armchairs, etc.,etc.
> Later, questions about the existence of things do of course arise, "Is
> there such a thing as a unicorn?" and so on. But such a question is
> possible only because as a rule no corresponding question presents itself.
> For how does one know how to set about satisfying oneself of the existence
> of unicorns? How did one learn the method for determining whether something
> exists or not?
> 477. "So one must know that the objects whose names one teaches a child by
> an ostensive definition exist." - Why must one know they do? Isn't it
> enough that experience doesn't later show the opposite?
> For why should the language-game rest on some kind of knowledge?
> 478. Does a child believe that milk exists? Or does it know that milk
> exists? Does a cat know that a mouse exists?
> 479. Are we to say that the knowledge that there are physical objects comes
> very early or very late?”
> ― Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty

He is talking about the impossibility of making a precise distinction
between physical and nonphysical objects, not that such distinctions
don't exist.


--
https://archive.org/services/purl/bahai

[ernobe]

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> writes:

>>
>> IIUC two bases to Ray's line of reasoning are his assumptions that 1)
>> appearance of design necessarily means design, and 2) design
>> necessarily means guided by intelligent agency. Ray incorporates
>> these assumptions into his distinctive definitions, which is his
>> privilege, but then he refuses to accept that most people, apparently
>> including Plantinga, don't use Ray's definitions in normal
>> conversation. More to the point, unless Ray believes all events are
>> guided by intelligent agency, ie there are no coincidences, then Ray
>> doesn't always use those definitions either.
>
> Oh, but he does. His position is ultimately a form of occasionalism: there are
> no unguided processes in his world.
>
> What he does not realize is that this means the ToE is just as true as Newtonian
> physics, or the germ theory of disease, the theory of electromagnetism, the
> oxygen theory of combustion or the valence bond theory. Or for that matter any
> other scientific theory.
>
> They all account for the observations in the same degree, and all leave out that
> in each individual instance of causation, something supernatural is additionally
> involved.
>

Theories of causation are themselves supernatural. Where is the science
of electricity itself, or of magnetism? They exist as intellectual
realities, not subject to alteration by natural processes.


--
https://archive.org/services/purl/bahai

[ernobe]

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> writes:

>>>> You've misunderstood the issue, which is about logic. When I said no effect
>>>> can be identified as designed if produced by an unintelligent agent, I'm
>>>> reminding the debate of the problem faced by evolutionary theory. Since the
>>>> theory posits undirected agency the same does not and cannot explain an
>>>> observation or appearance of design,
>

> Of course it can, and it does. One explanation from evolutionary psychology is
> that when we developed the ability to make tools, our mind learned to project
> purpose and design into nature.
>
> If you are a sculptor, you already "see" the person in the marble (the famous
> bonmot, reportted in various, hereone with angles:
>
> “There is a beautiful angel in that block of marble, and I am going to find it?
> All I have to do is to knock off the outside pieces of marble, and be very
> careful not to cut into the angel with my chisel"
>
> If the marble appears ot be already in angel form, scupting it is easier Same
> with tools: if you already see in your mind eye how the stone can become an
> arrowhead, it is easier to make the arrow.
>
>

> which is logically invalid because the cause and effect contradict.
>

> That might be true for a certain everyday meaning of "logical", that is
> "intuitive to me", but not in the sense of logic proper.
>
> There is no law of logic, or semantics, that prohibits two things that are in a
> causal connection to have contradictory properties.
>
> Small things can have big effects: the famous butterfly effect. Love can cause
> hate (if it is unrequited). Heat can cause cold (that's why your fridge works)
> etc etc. Absolutely no reason to think that that a cause and its effect must not
> have contradictory properties, and no law known to logicians, ever, that would
> claim it did. And of course you never provided any evidence for it, or a cite.
>

Heat being the opposite of cold, or love of hate, are laws. An apparent
freedom from a law, in which one term is seen as the same as the other,
does not prove the nonexistence or non applicability of the law. To
think so would be to ignore that our subjective appreciations of things
are derived from objects, the existence of which is unquestionable.


--
https://archive.org/services/purl/bahai

[Burkhard]

wow, that is, like, so deep, man

[Stevet]

No he is not, he is talking about no such thing, the opposite in fact.. He
is talking about how the philosophical use of language, in this case use of
the term " exists" creates pseudo- problems such as questions as to the "
existence" of unicorns compared to the "existence" of, say, lions. We know
lions "exist" because we know they can bite our heads off not from pseudo-
philosophising about the nature and meaning of the term "existence"

This pseudo-problem is epitomised by your saying " the impossibility of
distinguishing between physical and non-physical objects". The "
impossibility" only arises if you are befuddled by the purely linguistic
fact that is grammatically correct to talk about the " existence" of both
lions and unicorns. In real day to day life distinguishing between physical
and non- physical objects is not a problem.

--
Stevet

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Once again, Robert assumes his conclusion----that which is under challenge by me. He simply re-states the CLAIM of fact that unguidedness can and does produce organization. Yet in real life one does not observe organization and conclude the work of unguidedness or any synonym. One does not observe the mechanism of a pocket watch, or a printed circuit board, or even a book of matches, and conclude the work of unguidedness. But Robert would have us believe that it is just so when it comes to living things----that we suspend all that we know about the production of organization and say nature behaves contrary to the rules of logic.

Logic of course tells us what can or cannot exist. When a contradiction is identified the same means "cannot exist." I, and others, have identified a contradiction in the Darwinian cause-and-effect scheme: unguidedness producing organization. The latter is NOT a logical expectation of the former. One cannot infer unguidedness from organization. But one can infer guidedness from organization.

No wonder we don't see any natural selection phenomenon going on in nature. The rules of logic explain why.

Yes, a delusion is at work, but its working on believers in evolution, not believers in God.

2 Thess. 2:11 (KJV):

"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."

Ray

[Burkhard]

Yah, sort of disappointing. I mean, it was clear of course that his
"great refutation" of Darwinism wasn't going to work, but I had hoped it
would fail in a more original way.

But this is just the equivalent of stomping his foot on the ground and
yelling " this looks implausible to me".

One mildly interesting (or funny) thing though. His invented axiom, that
terms with antonymous properties must not stand in a causal relation, is
not just contradicted by the myriad of everyday counterexamples that he
has been given.

It also is incompatible with the core tenet of Christianity. After all,
that is that the death of one person (Christ) caused life everlasting
(for many, maybe all) . And you can't get more antonymic than death and
everlasting life.

So Ray has just "proven" that Christianity is self-contradictory, I
mean, bravo that man!.

[Ray Martinez]

Burk ignores everything argued, including the fact that Dawkins popularized a non-random selection process in order to alleviate the contradiction seen between chance and complex organization.

By alluding to non-existing counterexamples, Burk is simply comforting himself.

>
> It also is incompatible with the core tenet of Christianity. After all,
> that is that the death of one person (Christ) caused life everlasting
> (for many, maybe all) . And you can't get more antonymic than death and
> everlasting life.
>
> So Ray has just "proven" that Christianity is self-contradictory, I
> mean, bravo that man!.

Not the death of one Man, but also the Resurrection of that Man. Burk has misunderstood the context of the death of one causing the life of many scripture.

Moreover, what Burk doesn't understand as well is the fact that in a supernatural frame, which is most certainly the frame of the Bible, the concept of paradox runs rampant. The supernatural isn't under the confines of Aristotelian logic. In the Bible, for example, it says humble yourself in the sight of God and He will lift you up. In other words, go down without any thought of going up, God will then automatically lift you up. And the prime example of a paradox is seen in the Incarnation: Jesus was all man and all God, at the same time, every moment of His life.

Now Burk and other Evolutionists would have us believe that unguided producing organization is a true natural proposition. It is altogether super-natural because it's impossible, a paradox. Blind persons cannot be watchmakers.

Like I've been saying: no such thing as natural causation exists in the wild. Nature is designed and supervised hands-on by God.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

> >Absolutely correct! All living things are designed, evolution says the exact opposite, no living things are designed. And in this context I make no assumptions. We have an observation of design followed by an inference or conclusion that what is seen is the work of God.

> >
> >Ray
> >
> >> and his
> >> assumptions would identify a nonexistent distinction, which would make
> >> said distinction utterly meaningless.
>
>
> You conveniently ignored this part of my paragraph, which is the point
> I made.

I ignored because I don't understand your point.

>
> Also, you flip-flop between referring to design of life and design of
> all things. Do you think all nonliving things are designed?
>

Unless specified otherwise, I write and argue in the context of topic. So you most likely have not kept track of this fact and thus misinterpreted what I said.

Almost all scholars, including Richard Dawkins, have said Paley's contrast between stone and "watch" is quite sound.

Paley argued if the most complex, the watch, is designed, and it is, then the same implies the less complex, the stone, must be created as well (didn't say designed).

Ray

[Robert Camp]

On 6/26/17 2:41 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 8:24:53 AM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 6/24/17 3:57 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 24, 2017 at 11:29:56 AM UTC-7, Robert Camp
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/17 10:42 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 7:04:53 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 5:59:53 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 6:19:57 AM UTC-7, Sean Dillon
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 10:34:53 PM UTC-5, Ray
>>>>>>>> Martinez wrote:

<snip>

This is an "assumed conclusion" in the same way that "the sun will rise
tomorrow" is an assumed conclusion. It's not a deductive truth, but the
induction is so strong that, as Gould would say about "facts," it would
be perverse not to believe it. All - *all* - of the burden for arguing
that undirected processes cannot produce organization falls upon the
shoulders of someone, like yourself, who believes an unseen mover is
required. Mine is not an assumed conclusion, Ray, it is an
overwhelmingly observationally-justified default position.

As usual you don't understand even the rudiments of logical thought well
enough to apply it's most basic concepts (in this case, logical fallacies).

Your "challenge" is nominal at best - there is no substance to it. You
have offered no logical or empirical challenge to the evidence of
millennia of human observation. That evidence tells us that unguided
processes produce organization and order quite often. You've been given
many examples in the past, some by me, and I've no desire to tread that
ground once again so that you can repeat your incoherent protests - most
of which reduce to mindless ideological nonsense (such as your comments
below about delusion).

You may continue chanting your mantra from here on without further
contribution from me.

[Robert Camp]

I do the same thing. Ray's misunderstandings have always been epic, but
they used to have a bit more meat on the bones. These days, there's
precious little to chew on. Maybe because he's settled on the ideas he
wants to flesh out for his refutation.

Anyone else hungry for barbecue?

> But this is just the equivalent of stomping his foot on the ground and
> yelling " this looks implausible to me".
>
> One mildly interesting (or funny) thing though. His invented axiom, that
> terms with antonymous properties must not stand in a causal relation, is
> not just contradicted by the myriad of everyday counterexamples that he
> has been given.
>
> It also is incompatible with the core tenet of Christianity. After all,
> that is that the death of one person (Christ) caused life everlasting
> (for many, maybe all) . And you can't get more antonymic than death and
> everlasting life.
>
> So Ray has just "proven" that Christianity is self-contradictory, I
> mean, bravo that man!.

Well, his usual get-out-of-jail-free card is to argue "but I wasn't
talking about (X)!", as if that invalidates the rebuttal. But maybe
he'll surprise me with something new.

[Ray Martinez]

It's already been posted, scroll upthread two or three messages, but first put your glasses on.

Ray

[Mark Isaak]

I'm writing this post because I wonder what you mean. That means this
post is a theory of causation, and is therefore supernatural. I was not
under the impression that it is so easy for a lowly mortal to create
supernatural entities. And I'm not so sure that it is not subject to
alteration by natural processes. I have altered it myself in the course
of writing it. Does that mean I am supernatural?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Ray Martinez]

Once AGAIN, Robert restates the claim while insisting that it is true----that's all he essentially says. When a claim of fact is under challenge one cannot allude to the claim as supporting the fact. In this context I observed that Robert assumed his conclusion as just explained. Moreover, his conclusion is, at no time, observed, but inferred. And when he says his conclusion is true by default all he is saying is that no evidence of guided causation exists in biological nature, yet as we both agree, the effect of organization exists abundantly, which said effect has logical correspomdence to the concept of guidedness or directedness. So where does Robert obtain the idea that organization corresponds to unguidedness as opposed to guidedness? Does anyone observe organization and then conclude the wind did it?

> As usual you don't understand even the rudiments of logical thought well
> enough to apply it's most basic concepts (in this case, logical fallacies).
>

I have said countless times in the past that Evolutionists are almost completely ignorant or even stupid when it comes to logic. So Robert's comment above, which says the same thing, concerning myself, is of no surprise.

Evolutionary theory says unguided cause producing an effect of complex organization is logical----it isn't. Organization is not an expectation of unguidedness, neither have any correspondence. The fact that Robert thinks otherwise clearly supports the claim of fact that his mind, like all Evolutionists, cannot think logically. In short: What Robert said about me, unable to grasp the rudiments of logical fallacies, is entirely expected based on my observations and arguments showing fundamental illogical thought by the minds of evolutionary theorists.

> Your "challenge" is nominal at best - there is no substance to it. You
> have offered no logical or empirical challenge to the evidence of
> millennia of human observation. That evidence tells us that unguided
> processes produce organization and order quite often. You've been given
> many examples in the past, some by me, and I've no desire to tread that
> ground once again so that you can repeat your incoherent protests - most
> of which reduce to mindless ideological nonsense (such as your comments
> below about delusion).
>
> You may continue chanting your mantra from here on without further
> contribution from me.

Robert ends the exact same way he started: restating the claim as supporting the claim. I invoked delusion because Richard Dawkins wrote a book that said God was a delusion. His claim is based primarily on the belief that unguided causation exists and produces organization. Since very many people reject the claim as clearly illogical, the delusion is working on those who believe in evolution. The rules of logic explain why we see no evidence of unguided causation in nature. Organization indicates a like cause, the work of invisible Guide.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Delusion also explains why evolutionary theorists like Robert and Burk actually think unguided producing organization is logical. So the relevance of why I invoked delusion is explained. I simply agreed with Richard Dawkins that a delusion is at work. The fact that the Darwinists think unguided producing organization is logical clearly supports the claim of fact that the delusion is working on Darwinists----that's why they are unable to see the illogical nature of unguided producing organization.

Ray

[Burkhard]

No, he points out that the alleged law of logic tat you evoke is your
won invention, and that you failed so far to give an justification for
it - and that in the light of all the counterexamples that you have been
given.

>When a claim of fact is under challenge one cannot allude to the
claim as supporting the fact.

The challenge is to you to support your claim. You have failed abysmally
to do so, which is all he is saying

>In this context I observed that Robert assumed his conclusion as just
explained. Moreover, his conclusion is, at no time, observed, but
inferred. And when he says his conclusion is true by default all he is
saying is that no evidence of guided causation exists in biological
nature, yet as we both agree, the effect of organization exists
abundantly, which said effect has logical correspomdence to the concept
of guidedness or directedness.

And that is exactly the issue. You make this claim, but it is your own
invention and not supported by anything but your say so - and
contradicts both everyday experience, logic and epistemology

>So where does Robert obtain the idea that organization corresponds to unguidedness as opposed to guidedness? Does anyone observe organization and then conclude the wind did it?

Sometimes, yes - there are highly regular sand patterns on dunes e.g.
https://www.wired.com/2011/07/sand-patterns-gallery/

anyhow, since in your world no unguided processes exist, everything,
where organized or unorganized is the result of guided action anyway,
which makes counterexamples impossible by definition, and hence your
claim empirically empty and meaningless.

>
>> As usual you don't understand even the rudiments of logical thought well
>> enough to apply it's most basic concepts (in this case, logical fallacies).
>>
>
> I have said countless times in the past that Evolutionists are almost completely ignorant or even stupid when it comes to logic. So Robert's comment above, which says the same thing, concerning myself, is of no surprise.

Only of course that Robert and others, including me, have detailed your
logical mistakes, in ways everybody can check them.

>
> Evolutionary theory says unguided cause producing an effect of complex organization is logical----it isn't.

First,no, that is not what biology says. It says it is an empirical
fact: that is our observations are best described without reference to a
guiding factor. That is not a claim of logic, but an empirical claim.

Second, it is exactly your bare assertion that there is anything in
there that is not logical. If you understood the logic of your own
argument (and this does not seem to be the case) you would realize that
it requires a major (in the technical sense) premise: That cause and
effect must not have antonymic properties.

But there is absolutely no reason to belief that this premise, on which
your argument depends, is true. It is not a law of logic (if you
disagree, give a cite to any logic textbook, or any philosopher of logic
of you choosing), and neither is it an empirical fact (if you disagree,
give a cite to an appropriate science text).

Not only do you persistently fail to back up this premise of yours, you
also fail to address the numerous counterexamples that were given tot
you (e.g that loves sometimes causes hate, heat can cause cold, or a
small pebble trigger an avalanche)

> Organization is not an expectation of unguidedness, neither have any correspondence.

so you claim, but this is merely your bare assertion.

>The fact that Robert thinks otherwise clearly supports the claim of fact that his mind, like all Evolutionists, cannot think logically. In short: What Robert said about me, unable to grasp the rudiments of logical fallacies, is entirely expected based on my observations and arguments showing fundamental illogical thought by the minds of evolutionary theorists.

Well, your observation is hat everybody laughs at your "arguments". From
this you strangely infer everybody else must be wrong. That is at least
consistent, just not very convincing.

>
>> Your "challenge" is nominal at best - there is no substance to it. You
>> have offered no logical or empirical challenge to the evidence of
>> millennia of human observation. That evidence tells us that unguided
>> processes produce organization and order quite often. You've been given
>> many examples in the past, some by me, and I've no desire to tread that
>> ground once again so that you can repeat your incoherent protests - most
>> of which reduce to mindless ideological nonsense (such as your comments
>> below about delusion).
>>
>> You may continue chanting your mantra from here on without further
>> contribution from me.
>
> Robert ends the exact same way he started: restating the claim as supporting the claim. I invoked delusion because Richard Dawkins wrote a book that said God was a delusion. His claim is based primarily on the belief that unguided causation exists and produces organization. Since very many people reject the claim as clearly illogical, the delusion is working on those who believe in evolution. The rules of logic explain why we see no evidence of unguided causation in nature.

No they don't. There is no single law of logic that prohibits this

[jillery]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 15:57:35 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

Perhaps it would have helped if you left my paragraph in one coherent
piece. But then you likely still wouldn't admit it.

It's not that hard to understand, even you should be able to figure it
out. To rephrase, either you think there are unguided processes or
you don't. If you do, then you need to identify which processes you
think are unguided. If you don't, then your claimed distinction
between them is meaningless.

>> Also, you flip-flop between referring to design of life and design of
>> all things. Do you think all nonliving things are designed?
>>
>
>Unless specified otherwise, I write and argue in the context of topic. So you most likely have not kept track of this fact and thus misinterpreted what I said.
>
>Almost all scholars, including Richard Dawkins, have said Paley's contrast between stone and "watch" is quite sound.

And how 'bout them Mets.

>Paley argued if the most complex, the watch, is designed, and it is, then the same implies the less complex, the stone, must be created as well (didn't say designed).
>
>Ray

You conveniently forgot to answer my question. So do you think all
nonliving things are designed?

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1b8edc69-bf66-4751...@googlegroups.com...

What parts, if any, within the universe are not in the hands of God, 24/7?
Your decisions, your beliefs, your logic, do you have any responsibility at
all for your own life and actions or is God in the drivers seat?

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:658b1794-15a8-4fd5...@googlegroups.com...

How can anything be created unless you have a design to begin with?
You mean like a carpenter doesn't need a plan, sketch, or drawings, he just
grab a saw, hammer nails, screws, and presto, there is your new table?

Is every grain of sand at the bottom of the sea designed, or the result of
natural forces at play all by themselves with no effort expended by God
himself on the job? You knows the mind of God, mind telling us what his
thougths are?
> Ray
>
>

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:9679f743-d9f6-4d5b...@googlegroups.com...

Aha, we are deceived by God himself, no wonder we believe Him!
That's why all your arguments are in vain, we are doomed to believe in
evolution and you are helpless against the work of God, he just doesn't
approve of your involvement in his affairs. About time for you to cease and
desist lest God gets angry with you. Funny that he's not already taken
action against you.

I recommend you return to your faith in godless Ayn Rand, the pair of you
together is a powerful liniment.

>
>

[Burkhard]

Well, as this was a reply to Robert, not you, I merely refer in this
post to all the arguments I made in other posts - you know, those you
ran away from

>including the fact that Dawkins popularized a non-random selection process in order to alleviate the contradiction seen between chance and complex organization.

So far we had discussed guided vs non-guided, not random vs non-random.
Are you now equating the two? It is always difficult to say when yu are
genuinely confused, simply badly expressing yourself, or using your
private vocabulary.

>
> By alluding to non-existing counterexamples, Burk is simply comforting himself.

I and others have given you plenty of counterexamples in the posts in
direct reply to you, you just keep running away from them. Examples
included love causing hate, heat causing cold (in a fridge) , a small
pebble causing a huge avalanche, or the butterfly effect. They all prove
conclusively that your idea, that cause and effect must not have
antonymic properties, is not just made up by you, but badly so and
lacking even a smidgen of prima facie plausibility.

>
>>
>> It also is incompatible with the core tenet of Christianity. After all,
>> that is that the death of one person (Christ) caused life everlasting
>> (for many, maybe all) . And you can't get more antonymic than death and
>> everlasting life.
>>
>> So Ray has just "proven" that Christianity is self-contradictory, I
>> mean, bravo that man!.
>
> Not the death of one Man, but also the Resurrection of that Man.
Burk has misunderstood the context of the death of one causing the
life of many scripture.

Nope. At best your argument would show that it is dependent on the
arbitrarily chosen description of the process if your "rule" applies -
my description of the causal claim is perfectly sound and in this form a
mainstay in theology. That there are other, expanded ways to describe
the same process where your rule would not apply just shows how vacuous
your rule is.

Secondly, above you seem to equate "guided" with "non-random". Since as
you say, according to evolutionary theory selection is non-random, In
that case, the same extension of context could be made for the
evolutionary argument as well. So you fail either way

>
> Moreover, what Burk doesn't understand as well is the fact that in a supernatural frame, which is most certainly the frame of the Bible, the concept of paradox runs rampant. The supernatural isn't under the confines of Aristotelian logic.


In the Bible, for example, it says humble yourself in the sight of God
and He will lift you up. In other words, go down without any thought of
going up, God will then automatically lift you up. And the prime example
of a paradox is seen in the Incarnation: Jesus was all man and all God,
at the same time, every moment of His life.

At best, this would be a example of the fallacy of "special pleading" -
that is without giving good reasons, you exempt your favorite theory
from otherwise applicable rules.

But things are rather worse for you. First, contradictions can't that
easily be contained to one field. There is a very simple logical proof
in classical propositional logic that once you accept one contradiction,
every arbitrary conclusion also follows. This is known as "logical
explosion" or "ex falso sequitur quodlibet". As a historical aside, this
principle was first formulated by the medieval theologian Duns Scotus,
and rediscovered and given its modern name by the Dominican polish
theologian and logician Józef Maria Bocheński.

So admitting contradictions is much more far-reaching than you imagine,
and once you admit one, you can prove everything - including the truth
of the ToE.

A consequence of this is that inconsistencies can't be meaningfully
communicated. Logic describes structural features of language that
constitute the limits of what is intelligible to humans. To say that
theology permits contradictory attributes of god or the supernatural
simply means it cannot be communicated in human language.

From a theological perspective, this means that you have just proven
Genesis 1.1 wrong - in your approach, God can't possible be logos
(logos, logic, get it?)

This means essentially that statements about the supernatural are not
descriptive sentences, but at best something similar to a mantra or
chant. Mysticism is of course a perfectly fine theological position, and
also had followers in Christianity, though there it was always less
mainstream. But what you lose is any room to do NATURAL theology.

Again, I'd say that is a great idea anyway. Rather than badly imitating
science, religion should be all about ecstatic mystical experience that
can only inadequate expressed if at all, in words. But it is of course
the diametric opposite of what you have been trying to do here over the
years.

>
> Now Burk and other Evolutionists would have us believe that unguided producing organization is a true natural proposition. It is altogether super-natural because it's impossible, a paradox. Blind persons cannot be watchmakers.
>

of course they can, silly:
http://lighthouse-sf.org/blog/apple-wants-blind-people-to-buy-apple-watches/

> Like I've been saying: no such thing as natural causation exists in the wild.

and you still fail to understand that if this is your position, the
empirical content of the ToE is just as true as that of any other
scientific theory. So you end up with a metaphysical position similar to
occasionalism, but ultimately a form of theist evolutionsim.

Nature is designed and supervised hands-on by God.

As may be - just means that the ToE accurately describes how he is doing
this.
>
> Ray
>

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:d71cfe86-bcce-4874...@googlegroups.com...

Pure BS from a delusional mind, as always. No need to waste words on poining
at facts, or arguments of any kind.

Rolf

[Ray Martinez]

You don't understand because the issues are centered on the illogical nature of evolutionary theory, which you think is logical. Thus is why it's so hard to get Darwinists to understand criticism.

Richard Dawkins has popularized and emphasized a non-random selection process because he admittedly is attempting to extricate the process from being seen as chance-driven producing organization, which he agrees is manifestly impossible. While mutation is largely by chance, according to Dawkins, selection is the antithesis of chance, non-random. But selection is also described as unguided, which has no correspondence to non-random. These two concepts do not agree, but contradict. Moreover, where does Dawkins obtain the idea of a non-random selection process? The answer is the effects of organization. So he infers a non-random selection process from organized results, which leaves the unguided description of the cause unharmed and still producing its antonym, organization.

Evolutionary theorists cannot have it both ways. Selection cannot be unguided and non-random at the same time. These concepts contradict. Since, technically, non-random is obtained from the effects side of the equation there is no contradiction. But since evolutionary theorists insist on both concepts to describe the action of natural selection a contradiction does indeed exist. Because non-random obtained from organization, and NOT from the causation side of the equation, the original illogical cause-and-effect proposition remains intact: unguidedness producing non-random or organized effects regularly, which is impossible. Non-random selection, therefore, does not extricate the process from contradiction.

>
> >
> > By alluding to non-existing counterexamples, Burk is simply comforting himself.
>
> I and others have given you plenty of counterexamples in the posts in
> direct reply to you, you just keep running away from them. Examples
> included love causing hate, heat causing cold (in a fridge) , a small
> pebble causing a huge avalanche, or the butterfly effect. They all prove
> conclusively that your idea, that cause and effect must not have
> antonymic properties, is not just made up by you, but badly so and
> lacking even a smidgen of prima facie plausibility.
>

Kooky, laughable, amateurish, and most of all non-scientific. Each "example" is exactly what I just said. No one could ever imagine any of these "examples" appearing in a scientific text or journal. You've just admitted that you have no genuine scientific example of an antonymic, paradoxical, cause-and-effect scheme. The ToE conveys a unique claim.

> >
> >>
> >> It also is incompatible with the core tenet of Christianity. After all,
> >> that is that the death of one person (Christ) caused life everlasting
> >> (for many, maybe all) . And you can't get more antonymic than death and
> >> everlasting life.
> >>
> >> So Ray has just "proven" that Christianity is self-contradictory, I
> >> mean, bravo that man!.
> >
> > Not the death of one Man, but also the Resurrection of that Man.
> Burk has misunderstood the context of the death of one causing the
> life of many scripture.
>
> Nope. At best your argument would show that it is dependent on the
> arbitrarily chosen description of the process if your "rule" applies -
> my description of the causal claim is perfectly sound and in this form a
> mainstay in theology. That there are other, expanded ways to describe
> the same process where your rule would not apply just shows how vacuous
> your rule is.
>

Non-sequitur noted.

> Secondly, above you seem to equate "guided" with "non-random". Since as
> you say, according to evolutionary theory selection is non-random, In
> that case, the same extension of context could be made for the
> evolutionary argument as well. So you fail either way
>
>
>
> >
> > Moreover, what Burk doesn't understand as well is the fact that in a supernatural frame, which is most certainly the frame of the Bible, the concept of paradox runs rampant. The supernatural isn't under the confines of Aristotelian logic.
> >
> >
> In the Bible, for example, it says humble yourself in the sight of God
> and He will lift you up. In other words, go down without any thought of
> going up, God will then automatically lift you up. And the prime example
> of a paradox is seen in the Incarnation: Jesus was all man and all God,
> at the same time, every moment of His life.
> >
> At best, this would be a example of the fallacy of "special pleading" -
> that is without giving good reasons, you exempt your favorite theory
> from otherwise applicable rules.
>

Another non-sequitur.

> But things are rather worse for you. First, contradictions can't that
> easily be contained to one field. There is a very simple logical proof
> in classical propositional logic that once you accept one contradiction,
> every arbitrary conclusion also follows. This is known as "logical
> explosion" or "ex falso sequitur quodlibet". As a historical aside, this
> principle was first formulated by the medieval theologian Duns Scotus,
> and rediscovered and given its modern name by the Dominican polish
> theologian and logician Józef Maria Bocheński.
>
> So admitting contradictions is much more far-reaching than you imagine,
> and once you admit one, you can prove everything - including the truth
> of the ToE.
>
> A consequence of this is that inconsistencies can't be meaningfully
> communicated. Logic describes structural features of language that
> constitute the limits of what is intelligible to humans. To say that
> theology permits contradictory attributes of god or the supernatural
> simply means it cannot be communicated in human language.
>
> From a theological perspective, this means that you have just proven
> Genesis 1.1 wrong - in your approach, God can't possible be logos
> (logos, logic, get it?)
>

Non-sequitur continues along with convoluted theology that I am not the least bit obligated to entertain....and logos means word.

> This means essentially that statements about the supernatural are not
> descriptive sentences, but at best something similar to a mantra or
> chant. Mysticism is of course a perfectly fine theological position, and
> also had followers in Christianity, though there it was always less
> mainstream. But what you lose is any room to do NATURAL theology.
>
> Again, I'd say that is a great idea anyway. Rather than badly imitating
> science, religion should be all about ecstatic mystical experience that
> can only inadequate expressed if at all, in words. But it is of course
> the diametric opposite of what you have been trying to do here over the
> years.
>
>
> >
> > Now Burk and other Evolutionists would have us believe that unguided producing organization is a true natural proposition. It is altogether super-natural because it's impossible, a paradox. Blind persons cannot be watchmakers.
> >
>
> of course they can, silly:
> http://lighthouse-sf.org/blog/apple-wants-blind-people-to-buy-apple-watches/
>
> > Like I've been saying: no such thing as natural causation exists in the wild.
>
> and you still fail to understand that if this is your position, the
> empirical content of the ToE is just as true as that of any other
> scientific theory. So you end up with a metaphysical position similar to
> occasionalism, but ultimately a form of theist evolutionsim.
>
>
> Nature is designed and supervised hands-on by God.
>
> As may be - just means that the ToE accurately describes how he is doing
> this.
> >
> > Ray
> >

Burk argues strenuously for unguided causation, then he says the same might be the work of invisible Guide. Once again, Burk proves my on-going point: Minds immersed in evolution are unable to think logically, and they have no awareness of the fact.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 8:05:07 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:

<snip>

>>>
>>> Burk ignores everything argued,
>>
>> Well, as this was a reply to Robert, not you, I merely refer in this
>> post to all the arguments I made in other posts - you know, those you
>> ran away from
>>
>>> including the fact that Dawkins popularized a non-random selection process in order to alleviate the contradiction seen between chance and complex organization.
>>>
>> So far we had discussed guided vs non-guided, not random vs non-random.
>> Are you now equating the two? It is always difficult to say when yu are
>> genuinely confused, simply badly expressing yourself, or using your
>> private vocabulary.
>
> You don't understand because the issues are centered on the illogical nature of evolutionary theory, which you think is logical. Thus is why it's so hard to get Darwinists to understand criticism.
>
> Richard Dawkins has popularized and emphasized a non-random selection process because he admittedly is attempting to extricate the process from being seen as chance-driven producing organization, which he agrees is manifestly impossible.

Or to say it differently: educationally challenged creationists often
claim selection is random, and he corrects that mistake. Natural
selection always was and always will be a non-random process.

> While mutation is largely by chance, according to Dawkins, selection is the antithesis of chance, non-random. But selection is also described as unguided, which has no correspondence to non-random. These two concepts do not agree, but contradict.

That is your claim, it just happens to be just as false as last time you
claimed it and were corrected. In standard physical theory, ever since
Newton the latest, gravity is also described as unguided. Yet it
epitomizes also non-randomness, and allows us to predict lots of things,
from planetary movements to where my keys will end up on the floor when
I drop them. "Non-random simply means: we can give a causal explanation
for something, and on that basis make predictions for the future

> Moreover, where does Dawkins obtain the idea of a non-random selection process? The answer is the effects of organization.

Nope, simply from the fact that we can predict how environmental
factors will influence what traits are selected for. That is it allows
us a specific causal explanation. Why did in the peppered moth
population those with dark colour increase? Because environmental
pollution increased dark surfaces, on which they were more difficult to
spot by predators.

Why did snakes lose their lizard-like limbs: because those without them
were better able to fit into small underground holes, and at that time
snakes rarely ventured to the surface etc etc.

Contrast this with mutation: why did the snake genome show a mutation in
some snakes that prevented their legs from growing? Well, every DNA
strand also has some mutations when passed on to the next generation,
and s luck would have it, in some individuals the ability to grow legs
was knocked out.

>So he infers a non-random selection process from organized results, which leaves the unguided description of the cause unharmed and still producing its antonym, organization.

No, this is not how the inference runs. We simply observe in our
environment that different traits influence systematically, in a
patterned and predictable way, the chance that the genes for that trait
are passed on.

And once we know that this process exists, we can ask what else it is
responsible for - in our case, it allows small changes to accumulate
over time, and as a result leads to species diversity.

>
> Evolutionary theorists cannot have it both ways. Selection cannot be unguided and non-random at the same time.

sure it can. Lots and lots of processes are unguided and non-random. All
of classical physics for starters.

>These concepts contradict.

So you say, only that that's plain wrong. The wind blew over a tree in
my garden last night. When it fell, it hit another smaller tree, which
in turn ended in my flower bed. Physics describes these processes as
unguided, and yet, from the moment I saw the tree fall I knew (and with
enough time would have been abel to precisely predict) where it would
end, what would happen to tree 2, and to my flowers.

Non-random, the way science uses the term, and yet unguided, the way
science uses that term.

>Since, technically, non-random is obtained from the effects side of the equation there is no contradiction. But since evolutionary theorists insist on both concepts to describe the action of natural selection a contradiction does indeed exist. Because non-random obtained from organization, and NOT from the causation side of the equation, the original illogical cause-and-effect proposition remains intact: unguidedness producing non-random or organized effects regularly, which is impossible. Non-random selection, therefore, does not extricate the process from contradiction.

Non of this makes any sense, scientifically speaking, or from the
position of methodology. Non-randomness is simply a property of the way
in which NS is described to operate. It gives us answers to why
questions that are of a different quality to those that evoke chance.

Ultimately though, with the possible exception of quantum physics, they
express differences in our knowledge (epistemological difference), not
the world (ontological difference)

If we knew much more about all the factors that cause mutations, and had
the computational power to model the resulting extremely complex system,
we could in theory also give non-random explanations for mutations.

Why did the mutation happen in this snake? Because this particle hit the
DNA and interrupted the bond etc etc.

These would still be unguided, and in particular, for all we know, be
not influenced by what the organism needs most at the time, but would
not be any longer descried as random.

This is quite typical for science: some complex systems we can only
describe on the probabilistic level and using randomness, even though we
know that deep down, the actions are all deterministic caused (movement
of molecules in a gas, for instance).

And sometimes we even describe as random systems were individual actions
are not only deterministically caused, but indeed guided and
intentionally planned - movement of a crowd for instance for traffic
planning purposes, We know that every individual makes goal driven
decisions on where to walk, if to walk past the next person on the left
or right etc. But as we can't know what the goals, reasons etc are for
any of them if we just see the crowd via cctv, the best way to model it
and make predictions about the flow of the crowd is to assign random
variables to the things we do not know. Not perfect, but good enough .

>
>>
>>>
>>> By alluding to non-existing counterexamples, Burk is simply comforting himself.
>>
>> I and others have given you plenty of counterexamples in the posts in
>> direct reply to you, you just keep running away from them. Examples
>> included love causing hate, heat causing cold (in a fridge) , a small
>> pebble causing a huge avalanche, or the butterfly effect. They all prove
>> conclusively that your idea, that cause and effect must not have
>> antonymic properties, is not just made up by you, but badly so and
>> lacking even a smidgen of prima facie plausibility.
>>
>
> Kooky, laughable, amateurish, and most of all non-scientific. Each "example" is exactly what I just said. No one could ever imagine any of these "examples" appearing in a scientific text or journal.

Of course they wouldn't. That is because scientific articles deal with
real and serious problems and challenges to a theory.

But because your challenge is anything but, and as Robert said
disappointingly stupid, the only thing that is indeed are indeed simple
counterexamples like the ones I gave.

They are totally sufficient to strictly falsify your major premise, and
with that show the flaws in your argument.

>You've just admitted that you have no genuine scientific example of an antonymic, paradoxical, cause-and-effect scheme. The ToE conveys a unique claim.

I don't need them - everyday examples are all around us. And two of the
examples I gave do come directly from science - if you study how
avalanches are formed and can be prevented, you'll see pretty
persistently that very small events, the throw of a pebble, can cause
the massive avalanche (Dumke, W. P. "Theory of avalanche breakdown in
InSb and InAs." Physical Review 167.3 (1968): 783.)

And in climate science, we have the iconic "butterfly effect: that in a
complex system, the smallest changes in one pace can cause massive
changes in another. (Shinbrot, Troy, et al. "Using the sensitive
dependence of chaos (the ‘‘butterfly effect’’) to direct trajectories in
an experimental chaotic system." Physical review letters 68.19 (1992): 28630

Your entire premise, that things in causal relation must not have
contradictory properties is simply something you made up.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It also is incompatible with the core tenet of Christianity. After all,
>>>> that is that the death of one person (Christ) caused life everlasting
>>>> (for many, maybe all) . And you can't get more antonymic than death and
>>>> everlasting life.
>>>>
>>>> So Ray has just "proven" that Christianity is self-contradictory, I
>>>> mean, bravo that man!.
>>>
>>> Not the death of one Man, but also the Resurrection of that Man.
>> Burk has misunderstood the context of the death of one causing the
>> life of many scripture.
>>
>> Nope. At best your argument would show that it is dependent on the
>> arbitrarily chosen description of the process if your "rule" applies -
>> my description of the causal claim is perfectly sound and in this form a
>> mainstay in theology. That there are other, expanded ways to describe
>> the same process where your rule would not apply just shows how vacuous
>> your rule is.
>>
>
> Non-sequitur noted.

Non-sequitur" does not mean "I'm too stupid to understand the argument",
really.

What I show in the above is that "Ray's law", your invented claim that
cause and caused must not have antonymic properties, is description
dependent (unsurprisingly, rally, as "being antonymic" is a relation
between words) That is under one perfectly correct description, we have
here an antonymic cause, under a different, equally correct one, we
don't. Which gives us another reason why "Ray's law" is just made up
nonsense.

>
>> Secondly, above you seem to equate "guided" with "non-random". Since as
>> you say, according to evolutionary theory selection is non-random, In
>> that case, the same extension of context could be made for the
>> evolutionary argument as well. So you fail either way
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Moreover, what Burk doesn't understand as well is the fact that in a supernatural frame, which is most certainly the frame of the Bible, the concept of paradox runs rampant. The supernatural isn't under the confines of Aristotelian logic.
>>>
>>>
>> In the Bible, for example, it says humble yourself in the sight of God
>> and He will lift you up. In other words, go down without any thought of
>> going up, God will then automatically lift you up. And the prime example
>> of a paradox is seen in the Incarnation: Jesus was all man and all God,
>> at the same time, every moment of His life.
>>>
>> At best, this would be a example of the fallacy of "special pleading" -
>> that is without giving good reasons, you exempt your favorite theory
>> from otherwise applicable rules.
>>
>
> Another non-sequitur.

Nope, an accurate description of the fallacy that you commit. You claim
an ad hoc (note the correct use of the term) exception to a general rule
without giving reasons, even though there are good reasons not to expect
an exception (fallacy of special pleading)

>
>> But things are rather worse for you. First, contradictions can't that
>> easily be contained to one field. There is a very simple logical proof
>> in classical propositional logic that once you accept one contradiction,
>> every arbitrary conclusion also follows. This is known as "logical
>> explosion" or "ex falso sequitur quodlibet". As a historical aside, this
>> principle was first formulated by the medieval theologian Duns Scotus,
>> and rediscovered and given its modern name by the Dominican polish
>> theologian and logician Józef Maria Bocheński.
>>
>> So admitting contradictions is much more far-reaching than you imagine,
>> and once you admit one, you can prove everything - including the truth
>> of the ToE.
>>
>> A consequence of this is that inconsistencies can't be meaningfully
>> communicated. Logic describes structural features of language that
>> constitute the limits of what is intelligible to humans. To say that
>> theology permits contradictory attributes of god or the supernatural
>> simply means it cannot be communicated in human language.
>>
>> From a theological perspective, this means that you have just proven
>> Genesis 1.1 wrong - in your approach, God can't possible be logos
>> (logos, logic, get it?)
>>
>
> Non-sequitur continues along with convoluted theology that I am not the least bit obligated to entertain....and logos means word.

For heavens sake, where do you get your theology from, a cereal package?
The Greek word that uniquely means "word" is "lexis". Logos by contrast
connotates strongly "order", "reason", "reasoned dialogue" and indeed
"logic". This is how Aristotle e.g. uses it in 'on rhetoric'. We
persuade people using 'logos' (logic), 'pathos' (emotion) and 'ethos'
(our reputation). The modern word logic is derived from logos, and this
is why Gordon Clark translated Logos as "Logic" as : "In the beginning
was the Logic, and the Logic was with God and the Logic was God."

And for the catholic side, this underlies this sermon by Ratzinger:
(aka Pope Benedict XVI) :

"From the beginning, Christianity has understood itself as the religion
of the Logos, as the religion according to reason. […] Today, this
should be precisely [Christianity's] philosophical strength, in so far
as the problem is whether the world comes from the irrational, and
reason is not other than a "sub-product," on occasion even harmful of
its development—or whether the world comes from reason, and is, as a
consequence, its criterion and goal. … In the so necessary dialogue
between secularists and Catholics, we Christians must be very careful to
remain faithful to this fundamental line: To live a faith that comes
from the Logos, from creative reason, and that, because of this, is also
open to all that is truly rational"

That was of course also the underlying idea behind the natural (not:
natural, not supernatural?) philosophy you are so fond to misuse: the
idea that nature is intelligible and rule bound , precisely because God,
as logos, is also intelligible and rule bound.

As I said there are other strands in Christianity that downplay this
(Master Eckhard, Hildggard of Bingen) and I very much would prefer them
if I had to chose, but for mainstream christian theology, and in
particular for the school that you claim to follow , there is no doubt
that logos is indeed logical.

No contradiction there, just your inability to distinguish between
descriptions o the physical level, and the meta-physical one. Apparent
contradictions often disappear if we distinguish levels of description
more carefully, for the logical paradoxes (the liar etc) this was
exactly the solution found by Russel and Frege in the theory of types.

Secondly, you also continue to confuse epistemical and ontological
issues - the example I gave above about crowd prediction shows that even
for perfectly natural phenomena, like people choosing how to walk in a
crowd, we often use as a description randomness eve if we know that "in
reality" the decisions are goal driven and guided.

Randomness is an epistemic property that describes limits of our
knowledge, nothing more. Describing systems as random often works best,
even if the system on closer inspection isn't
>
> Ray
>

[Rolf]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:oivlhk$376$1...@dont-email.me...

>>> theologian and logician Józef Maria Bochenski.

>>>
>>> So admitting contradictions is much more far-reaching than you imagine,
>>> and once you admit one, you can prove everything - including the truth
>>> of the ToE.
>>>
>>> A consequence of this is that inconsistencies can't be meaningfully
>>> communicated. Logic describes structural features of language that
>>> constitute the limits of what is intelligible to humans. To say that
>>> theology permits contradictory attributes of god or the supernatural
>>> simply means it cannot be communicated in human language.
>>>
>>> From a theological perspective, this means that you have just proven
>>> Genesis 1.1 wrong - in your approach, God can't possible be logos
>>> (logos, logic, get it?)
>>>
>>
>> Non-sequitur continues along with convoluted theology that I am not the
>> least bit obligated to entertain....and logos means word.
>
> For heavens sake, where do you get your theology from, a cereal package?
> The Greek word that uniquely means "word" is "lexis". Logos by contrast
> connotates strongly "order", "reason", "reasoned dialogue" and indeed
> "logic". This is how Aristotle e.g. uses it in 'on rhetoric'. We persuade
> people using 'logos' (logic), 'pathos' (emotion) and 'ethos' (our
> reputation). The modern word logic is derived from logos, and this is why
> Gordon Clark translated Logos as "Logic" as : "In the beginning was the
> Logic, and the Logic was with God and the Logic was God."
>
> And for the catholic side, this underlies this sermon by Ratzinger:
> (aka Pope Benedict XVI) :
>
> "From the beginning, Christianity has understood itself as the religion of

> the Logos, as the religion according to reason. [.] Today, this should be

> precisely [Christianity's] philosophical strength, in so far as the
> problem is whether the world comes from the irrational, and reason is not

> other than a "sub-product," on occasion even harmful of its development-or

> whether the world comes from reason, and is, as a consequence, its

> criterion and goal. . In the so necessary dialogue between secularists and

Sigh.

Against stupidity even the gods contend in vain.

All together now:

Against stupidity even the gods contend in vain.

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 8:05:07 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:

[big snip....]

> >
> > Now Burk and other Evolutionists would have us believe that unguided producing organization is a true natural proposition. It is altogether super-natural because it's impossible, a paradox. Blind persons cannot be watchmakers.
> >
>
> of course they can, silly:
> http://lighthouse-sf.org/blog/apple-wants-blind-people-to-buy-apple-watches/
>

Your link is a sales pitch by Apple aimed at blind persons, wanting them to try their watches, buy their watches.

Like I said: Blind persons cannot be watchmakers. Your inability to comprehend the logic of the foregoing sentence once again supports my on-going point. Evolutionary thinking is illogical with no awareness of the fact----yes a delusion is at work, but its working on persons who believe in evolution, not believers in God, as Richard Dawkins contends.

Ray

[Burkhard]

ah, sorry, wrong link. That one did not explain that the designer was
also blind

Here is her TED talk (though fromthe tome she was with IBM),
https://www.ted.com/talks/chieko_asakawa_how_new_technology_helps_blind_people_explore_the_world

[Pro Plyd]

Burkhard wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:

>> Science does in fact accept an unguided selection process. That said,
>> where did Alvin Plantinga obtain the idea that selection is not unguided?
>>
>> Ray
>>

> From the Bible. Interesting book, you should read it some time.
>

I like the list of crimes for which the death sentence is mandated.

[Sean Dillon]

I'm sorry, Ray, but this is just the dumbest piece of illogic. Your notion of "correspondence" carries no weight. Natural selection means that individuals in a population whose features are more favorable within the current environment will tend to out-breed and out-survive individuals with less favorable features.

This process is manifestly unguided, since the thing doing the "selection" is whether an individual survives and breeds, or dies. There is no "guiding hand" needed there.

And the process is also manifestly non-random, since survival is determined (at least on a statistical level) by the possession or lack of favorable traits, not by a "roll of the dice."

So the process is manifestly unguided AND non-random. You can claim otherwise, but the proof is in the pudding, above. That being true, it is evident that the "logic" you are applying is faulty. And of course it is... this nonsense about "correspondence" carries no logical weight. There is no rule in logic that guided and non-random always go together, and unguided and random always go together. Not only is there no such rule, but reality obviously contradicts it.

>
> Evolutionary theorists cannot have it both ways. Selection cannot be unguided and non-random at the same time.

Yes they can. See above.

> These concepts contradict.

No they don't. See above.

> Since, technically, non-random is obtained from the effects side of the equation there is no contradiction. But since evolutionary theorists insist on both concepts to describe the action of natural selection a contradiction does indeed exist. Because non-random obtained from organization, and NOT from the causation side of the equation, the original illogical cause-and-effect proposition remains intact: unguidedness producing non-random or organized effects regularly, which is impossible.

No, it isn't. See above.

[Bill]

Sean Dillon wrote:

...

>
> I'm sorry, Ray, but this is just the dumbest piece of
> illogic. Your notion of "correspondence" carries no
> weight. Natural selection means that individuals in a

> population whose features are more favlatestorable within

the
> current environment will tend to out-breed and out-survive
> individuals with less favorable features.

This really isn't very useful since really doesn't contain
any information. Things live and die, too obvious to be
wroth stating.

>
> This process is manifestly unguided, since the thing doing
> the "selection" is whether an individual survives and
> breeds, or dies. There is no "guiding hand" needed there.
>
> And the process is also manifestly non-random, since
> survival is determined (at least on a statistical level)
> by the possession or lack of favorable traits, not by a
> "roll of the dice."

This isn't helpful either since it is, like life itself, a
precondition for evolution. Only living things reproduce,
mature and die. The only way this can be relevant to
evolution is if there is some process guiding it and natural
selection is only about who lives and who dies.

We need more. We need some kind of genetic change to alter
the organism, changes that are heritable. This has to be
some genetic mutation that modifies the germ cells. These
modifications have to be both ignorant of the environment
while producing changes that have to adapt to it. Natural
selection is the last step in the process.

The fact that an organism adapts at all suggests some
awareness of the environment being adapted to and how the
adaptation will affect the organism. All we ever see are
successful adaptations making the notion of random or
unguided seem pretty unlikely. In fact, successful
adaptation seems contrary to the notion of genetic mutation
since we see no failed examples.

The theory needs work ...

Bill

[Sean Dillon]

On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 4:15:02 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> Sean Dillon wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >
> > I'm sorry, Ray, but this is just the dumbest piece of
> > illogic. Your notion of "correspondence" carries no
> > weight. Natural selection means that individuals in a
> > population whose features are more favlatestorable within
> the
> > current environment will tend to out-breed and out-survive
> > individuals with less favorable features.
>
> This really isn't very useful since really doesn't contain
> any information. Things live and die, too obvious to be
> wroth stating.

I didn't merely say that things live and die. I said (though not in so many words) that there is a differential probability of surviving long enough to breed, based on how well adapted an individual is to the population's current environment.

And while that may seem trivially obvious, it is also true, and necessarily true for evolution to occur.

>
> >
> > This process is manifestly unguided, since the thing doing
> > the "selection" is whether an individual survives and
> > breeds, or dies. There is no "guiding hand" needed there.
> >
> > And the process is also manifestly non-random, since
> > survival is determined (at least on a statistical level)
> > by the possession or lack of favorable traits, not by a
> > "roll of the dice."
>
> This isn't helpful either since it is, like life itself, a
> precondition for evolution. Only living things reproduce,
> mature and die. The only way this can be relevant to
> evolution is if there is some process guiding it and natural
> selection is only about who lives and who dies.

"Who lives and who dies" IS the process "guiding" evolution, though that guidance is passive rather than active.

>
> We need more. We need some kind of genetic change to alter
> the organism, changes that are heritable. This has to be
> some genetic mutation that modifies the germ cells. These
> modifications have to be both ignorant of the environment
> while producing changes that have to adapt to it. Natural
> selection is the last step in the process.

Yes, I agree. But I was specifically addressing Ray's claims about natural selection, not evolution writ large.

>
> The fact that an organism adapts at all suggests some
> awareness of the environment being adapted to and how the
> adaptation will affect the organism. All we ever see are
> successful adaptations making the notion of random or
> unguided seem pretty unlikely. In fact, successful
> adaptation seems contrary to the notion of genetic mutation
> since we see no failed examples.

Of course we see unsuccessful adaptation. Every branch of the tree of life that has gone extinct represents a failure to adapt. On a smaller scale, every harmful mutation is an example of unsuccessful adaptation. "Failed" adaptations die off, which is why the successes are so much more visible.

The elegance of the theory of evolution is that it does not demand an awareness or intent on the behalf of an organism or population to function.

>
> The theory needs work ...
>
> Bill

No theory is above refinement and revision, but not in the way you seem to think.

[Ernest Major]

On 11/09/2017 22:14, Bill wrote:
> The fact that an organism adapts at all suggests some
> awareness of the environment being adapted to and how the
> adaptation will affect the organism. All we ever see are
> successful adaptations making the notion of random or
> unguided seem pretty unlikely. In fact, successful
> adaptation seems contrary to the notion of genetic mutation
> since we see no failed examples.

Your ignorance does not an argument make, though I suppose it's a change
from creationists claiming that all mutations are detrimental.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 16:14:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Sean Dillon wrote:
>
>...
>
>>
>> I'm sorry, Ray, but this is just the dumbest piece of
>> illogic. Your notion of "correspondence" carries no
>> weight. Natural selection means that individuals in a
>> population whose features are more favlatestorable within
>the
>> current environment will tend to out-breed and out-survive
>> individuals with less favorable features.
>
>This really isn't very useful since really doesn't contain
>any information. Things live and die, too obvious to be
>wroth stating.

Do you intentionally ignore the point, or do you just fail
to understand it?

>> This process is manifestly unguided, since the thing doing
>> the "selection" is whether an individual survives and
>> breeds, or dies. There is no "guiding hand" needed there.
>>
>> And the process is also manifestly non-random, since
>> survival is determined (at least on a statistical level)
>> by the possession or lack of favorable traits, not by a
>> "roll of the dice."
>
>This isn't helpful either since it is, like life itself, a
>precondition for evolution. Only living things reproduce,
>mature and die. The only way this can be relevant to
>evolution is if there is some process guiding it and natural
>selection is only about who lives and who dies.

The "process guiding it" *is* differential reproductive
success (IOW, "natural selection"). Since this is *not*
rocket science I can only surmise that it's willful
rejection of fact on your part.

>We need more. We need some kind of genetic change to alter
>the organism, changes that are heritable. This has to be
>some genetic mutation that modifies the germ cells. These
>modifications have to be both ignorant of the environment
>while producing changes that have to adapt to it. Natural
>selection is the last step in the process.

Yes. So?

>The fact that an organism adapts at all suggests some
>awareness of the environment being adapted to and how the
>adaptation will affect the organism.

No, it doesn't. Selection happens to the individual *after*
that individual exists; no foreknowledge required.

> All we ever see are
>successful adaptations making the notion of random or
>unguided seem pretty unlikely.

See above. Changes are random; how those changes affect the
individual' survival is anything *but* random. And the
process provides the guidance.

> In fact, successful
>adaptation seems contrary to the notion of genetic mutation
>since we see no failed examples.

We see plenty of failed examples. But since the most
egregious failures don't survive to breed we have to look
quickly; they only last a single generation.

>The theory needs work ...

Being worked on constantly; thanks for your concern.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bill]

Other than fatal birth defects, what examples are there of
failed mutations?

Bill

[Bill]

Sean Dillon wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 1:30:05 PM UTC-5, Bill

> Birth defects aren't a sufficient example?

No. A birth defect is an error in the genetic coding and
will, most likely, prevent it being propagated. In natural
selection any defect will be eliminated in a few generations
so examples will be exceedingly rare or even non-existent.
It is argued that such failures occur because theory
requires it but is there any unambiguous example? What we
see are innumerable successful organisms which suggests that
evolution knows what it's doing.

Bill

[Sean Dillon]

You aren't making a lot of sense, Bill.

Mutations ARE "an error in genetic coding"... that's literally what a mutation is. Mutations that are harmful will trend toward self-elimination from the population over time, by merit of the fact that they decrease the odds of survival and breeding. Thus, harmful mutations ARE "failed adaptations." Examples of harmful mutations abound. As I noted above, a few examples include albinism, dwarfism, and triple X syndrome, but the list is near-endless.

Evolution doesn't HAVE to "know what it is doing," which is the elegance of evolutionary theory. The direction of evolution is "guided" only by which individuals are better adapted to survive and breed in the population's environment.

[Bill]

Any extant living entity is a successful organism. Even
albinism,dwarfism, and triple X syndrome or they would not
exist long enough to become examples. There's a paradox in
there somewhere but it's subtle.

>
> Evolution doesn't HAVE to "know what it is doing," which
> is the elegance of evolutionary theory. The direction of
> evolution is "guided" only by which individuals are better
> adapted to survive and breed in the population's
> environment.

Better adapted may not mean anything without something to
compare it with. Dinosaurs are not an example of natural
selection or adaptation since evolution had nothing to with
their extinction. What followed offers no examples since we
have no examples of failures in the genetic coding. There's
lots of fossils of course but that just means the ancient
animals died.

Bill

[Sean Dillon]

Bill, you're demanding something self-contradictory here. Do you see that? You've define "success" as survival, but that means that the only "failures" ARE fatal birth defects, since anything else is potentially survivable, at least in the short term. And you've rejected fatal birth defects a sufficient example of "failure."

You can't have it both ways.

[Öö Tiib]

For humans these problems and some more serious congenital diseases
that can be compensated with something are often not selective
pressure anymore. Interesting example is perhaps the nation of Deaf people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_culture Hearing defect genes are
the feature of members of that culture, heritage from father to son.

>
> >
> > Evolution doesn't HAVE to "know what it is doing," which
> > is the elegance of evolutionary theory. The direction of
> > evolution is "guided" only by which individuals are better
> > adapted to survive and breed in the population's
> > environment.
>
> Better adapted may not mean anything without something to
> compare it with. Dinosaurs are not an example of natural
> selection or adaptation since evolution had nothing to with
> their extinction. What followed offers no examples since we
> have no examples of failures in the genetic coding. There's
> lots of fossils of course but that just means the ancient
> animals died.

You think that evolution evolved only single lifeforms? No, most
single beings would die quite soon alone. Evolution has evolved whole
complex interrelated biomes. Populations of different animals are the
components of it like your cells (and billions of symbiotes and
parasites of you) are the components of you.

Lot of such biomes have disappeared and species gone extinct during last
few decades. That is because Ape is stupid. Willfully so. Likely screws
it all up and goes itself extinct too. So ... lets hope that something,
for example tardigrades, survives and evolves into something less stupid.

[jillery]

First, not all, or even most, birth defects are genetic, but
developmental, a consequence of poor maternal nutrition or prenalat
disease or exposure to drugs in utero. None of these defects are
heritable.

Second, not all, or even most, birth defects are fatal, even if left
untreated. The affected individual may be additionally challenged, but
can lead full and productive lives.

Not sure why you don't know these things.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 13:26 -0500, the following appeared in

Any mutation which reduces the ability of its possessors to
compete for resources, and thus causes those possessors to
die out, whether quickly or slowly. GIYF.

[Burkhard]

Eh, no? Why on earth would you think that? The environment interacts
causally with the organism. that is all that it takes. Pebbles in a
stream get smooth and round, reducing their water resistance in the
process. Are you claiming that this works only if stones are aware of
their environment and the ability to have a vision of themselves as
smooth and round?