In my last post I was accused of misrepresenting Richard Dawkins’ for his statements on Darwinian evolution being non-random and yet not having purpose and foresight.
Here is the gist of my post:
“What I’ve found really interesting was Dawkins’ public statements that Darwinian evolution and its main mechanism–natural selection–are non-random.
Really? Why didn’t he say so 40 years ago?”
Apparently when Dawkins refers to Darwinian evolution he does’t include the random genetic drift, which modern evolutionists, like Larry Moran and others view as necessary as natural selection has been viewed by many as impotent when if comes to building new body plans and organs etc…or whatever evolutionists now belive…
However, as you may notice, my main theme of the post was not the non-randomness of Darwinian evolution preached by Dawkins but the implications of its non-randomness:
“But this is not the best part of the video I’ve linked.Watch carefully how Dawkins is treading lightly to avoid the obvious connection that can be and should be made between non-random process and purpose of evolution, because that could implicate that life could have been intelligently designed…
So as you can see above, I was more focused on Dawkins’ deliberate avoidance of the implications of non-randomness of Darwinian evolution that could be linked with Intelligent Design.
Same idea continues:
“So, this must be one of those mysteries of evolution where (Darwinian) evolution, although being non-random, lacking purpose, foresight and forethought, is still mysteriously able to create beautiful living things Dawkins can’t doubt anymore they are and reluctantly acknowledges it…”
I don’t see any misrepresentation here either…
Same continues…
However, by Dawkins claiming that unintelligent and yet on-random processes with no purpose are able to design and create living organisms that intelligent humans can’t even dream about replicating, he ascribes god-like-creative powers (much, much superior to humans) to nature.
It’s mind boggling how devious this man is. If there was a hell, he would be burning his ass there for his deceit.
Now, if you still think I’ve misrepresented Dawkins by questioning the non-randomness of Darwinian evolution and him being deceitful about it, watch the next video.
Pay special attention to Dawkins’s statements about the possibility “…that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution…”
So, if Dawkins accepts the “…possibility that some form of Intelligent Designer (s) that could have designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet… that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer…”
why would questioning his deliberate avoidance of these very statements be view as a misrepresentation?
If Dawkins accepts that some kind of intelligent designer could have designed life on earth, why would he insist that the evolution of that life be without any purpose or foresight? He already accepted that it is non-random….Isn’t it what design is? Purposeful?
J-mac writes:
I and others pointed out that Richard Dawkins has always emphasized the non-random element of (natural, artificial, sexual) selection in the evolutionary process. I have no qualms about substituting “environmental design” for “selection” because the niche provides the non-random bias. You could call the niche the the environmental designer. You could suggest (though it would be a non-disprovable claim) that the design capabilities of the niche were built in to our Universe by a creator. I’d rather stick with what we know , admit what we don’t and leave speculation about God as the prime mover to those who find it convinces them.
ETA, it should have gone without saying, but perhaps I need to mention it, that non-random processes do not also necessarily possess foresight or purpose.
Are we to be treated to a whole series of posts in which you mix up multiple meanings of ‘random’ and its presumed antithesis? That sounds like fun.
This OP simply prompts me to ask once again, if you believe whatever created extant biology has purpose and foresight how do you explain the parts of biology that appear to be problematic if everything was created for a purpose?
What is the purpose of the parasites that blind children? Why, to blind children of course!
And your worship that being? Disgusting.
J-Mac,
About those parasites….
The only comment on that second video is this
Case closed. No need for any further OPs on this. I, like Dawkins, admit such a possibility. It’s called having an open mind. There are many other possibilities. Perhaps there really is a monolith on the moon.
However it’s your job to come up with evidence for the possibility of Intelligent Design. Nobody elses. You phoodoo and Mung seem to think that you divide sufficiently you’ll eventually conquer. How’s that working out for you?
J-Mac,
Don’t you have anything interesting you want to say? Even if Dawkins came out as a secret ID supporter it would still not change the level of evidence of a signature of some sort of designer at precisely zero.
Many people don’t give a shit about what Dawkins has to say, and many others say he is wrong on many things he thinks. I expect you think he’s like the atheist pope however, hence these pointless OPs.
Looks that way. And a whole series of posts in which a lot of people attempt to correct J-Mac’s confusions, all of which are repeated in the next post. Fun times.
Nice point.
Clearly he doesn’t insist that it’s without purpose or foresight. He merely wants actual evidence that it is with purpose or foresight if he is to accept that it actually is–evidence which people like J-Mac consistently fail to provide.
How dumb is that? Non-random non-designed processes are extremely common, like weather, geology, cosmology, etc.
You don’t even know the difference between “non-random” and “purposeful”?
You need to learn what words mean, and the differences of concepts.
Glen Davidson
Shorter Thread Titles Please.
Well, he’s certainly not going to learn what he so badly fails to understand.
Glen Davidson
Erosion is a non random process with no foresight and purpose yet it creates complex and beautiful structures. Grand Canyon. The Mississippi delta.
Plate tectonics is a non random process without foresight and purpose that produces complex and beautiful structures. Rockies, ocean trenches.
I don’t really see what the problem is here.
Alan Fox,
Do you claim that the entire diversity of life on this planet was the result of processes that do not posses foresight or purpose?
I attribute the diversity of life on Earth, after the origin of the first life on Earth to evolutionary processes, yes. Apart from the explanatory power of evolutionary theory, there doesn’t seem to be any alternative to consider.
Alan Fox,
If you restrict the explanations to only materialistic ones I agree with you, however with this we are only left with bad explanations.
If you just try to reconcile how the first eukaryotic cell evolved, and you are restricted to blind processes, the explanations lack believability and detail right from the start.
But if you bring in a unicorn…
Glen Davidson
Offer me an alternative and maybe I can agree with you. I like to talk in terms of reality and imagination. A real explanation is one that can be tested by observation and experiment. Sure, we only have bits of the whole. But those bits don’t contradict. There’s a (strong, in my view) suggestion of an overall pattern. What would be a difficulty is a bit that bucks the pattern “rabbits in the Cambrian”. Find an anomaly and you will have my attention.
Don’t derail me with a discussion of what is good or bad! 🙂 Can we agree on inadequate? Not that it matters until there are other explanations that bear comparison – in which case we could talk of better or worse.
Couldn’t an omnipotent God have created the entire diversity of life on this planet through random processes that do not posses foresight or purpose?
my god is better then yours, my god can make a universe that creates life without me interfering whereas yours has to constantly tinker around and even had to directly get life going by intervening. Your god is puny in comparison.
;P
Glen’s unicorn is prettier than either of them.
And it has a spiral horn!!
BTW, I really love the idea of J-mac straightening Dawkins out about evolution.
Classic stuff. Really.
A left-hand spiral or a right-hand spiral?
Or the rarest of all, the left to right hand spiral showing the transition between… No, wait now…