Is evolution hanging on ?

[Xarog]

It is always about religion when we have the usual "random mutation" mantra.

Again, intelligent design is no longer a controversial theory. DNA is the designer; it is intelligent and represents an awareness.

http://phys.org/news/2015-12-evolution-intelligent-thought.html

 

[wayfarer]

My point was actually that this thread was not about religion, but that you, as a religious nut, is turning it into one.

No, you are doing that. The words in my reply demonstrated a view on the matter via a particular theistic religion. As some of the present-day "acceptable" language used in discussions of the Theory of Evolution actually includes concepts that derive from the "religion" of atheism, or at least they are explained in terms that clearly demonstrate that underlying assumption. I do not object to those atheist "religious" assumptions, neither do I see you objecting to it. But you spontaneously mock mine.

You could have ignored my reference, or accepted it to be part of the discourse, or challenged it in terms of the topic of the thread and the science being discussed. Instead, your need to be anti-religion or derogatory threatens to change the focus of the thread, and not my brief reply.

What you are correct in is that the thread is not "about religion". Note that no science is free from underlying philosophical notions, and I don't think it is fair to insist that we may only engage the science via the philosophical assumptions that you agree with. Please, do not censure me, and do not attempt to stifle my expression, or unceremoniously pass off my engagement in the topic from my own paradigm as being moronic. Ignore me or debate me, but do not stop me from engaging the topic from my own paradigm.

 

[Swa]

Again, intelligent design is no longer a controversial theory. DNA is the designer; it is intelligent and represents an awareness.

http://phys.org/news/2015-12-evolution-intelligent-thought.html

anthropomorphism

 

[OrbitalDawn]

My point was actually that this thread was not about religion, but that you, as a religious nut, is turning it into one.

wayfarer is as far from being a religious nut as any religious person can be.

 

[Xarog]

anthropomorphism

And with good reason, too. Umad?

 

[Swa]

And with good reason, too. Umad?

You get to that conclusion how?

 

[Xarog]

You get to that conclusion how?

You brought it up, it seems that you find the idea bothersome. Was I incorrect in my estimation?

 

[Monsta Graphics]

actually includes concepts that derive from the "religion" of atheism

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

 

[Xarog]

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

People who use atheism as a basis for their anti-theism turn it into a religion, filled with its own collection of dogmatic regalia.

 

[Swa]

You brought it up, it seems that you find the idea bothersome. Was I incorrect in my estimation?

I'm pointing out that you're describing inanimate matter as having a mind and awareness. So you're still making a judgment decision on the cause being random chance or intelligence.

 

[wayfarer]

Err, what? If objective science is silent on the matter, you can't then claim there's as much evidence for a creator as for a model that works without one. Where's the evidence that objectively points to God(s)-determined mutations?

Zero equals zero (in terms of direct, overt evidence).

And it only presents an 'atheistic' view if you consider everything sans deities as 'atheistic'. Is an internal combustion engine's manual an 'atheistic view' on heat engines? Is a Boeing 747's aerodynamics an 'atheistic view' on flight?

We're talking about the re/production of life here. Sans God doesn't have the same loaded implications in other areas as it would here. Also, some of the language used in the topic of the ToE (such as "random") is not only sans God, but implies that there isn't one - or at least, that there isn't an intelligent designer. That's atheistic "religion".

 

[Xarog]

I'm pointing out that you're describing inanimate matter as having a mind and awareness. So you're still making a judgment decision on the cause being random chance or intelligence.

You are incorrect. DNA is not inanimate matter. There are active processes mediating the mutation process. Those processes demonstrate the exact same physical characteristics that our neural networks express as an intrinsic part of their problem solving functions.

What we are talking about in the strictest terms is something that is sensitive to and reacting in a co-ordinated manner to information collected from its environment.

 

[Monsta Graphics]

We're talking about the re/production of life here. Sans God doesn't have the same loaded implications in other areas as it would here. Also, some of the language used in the topic of the ToE (such as "random") is not only sans God, but implies that there isn't one - or at least, that there isn't an intelligent designer. That's atheistic "religion".

Gravity also doesn't need God to work.

Is the theory of gravity also part of "atheistic religion"?

 

[Swa]

You are incorrect. DNA is not inanimate matter. There are active processes mediating the mutation process. Those processes demonstrate the exact same physical characteristics that our neural networks express as an intrinsic part of their problem solving functions.

What we are talking about in the strictest terms is something that is sensitive to and reacting in a co-ordinated manner to information collected from its environment.

A rock has active processes shaping it, doesn't make it animate all of a sudden. What you are describing would be reactionary and not actionary. I.e. you either have random events that shaped it or you have an actively guided process. Hint: both are indistinguishable from each other.

 

[Swa]

Gravity also doesn't need God to work.

Is the theory of gravity also part of "atheistic religion"?

I haven't seen any textbook describing any law of physics as something that exists by chance.

 

[Xarog]

A rock has active processes shaping it, doesn't make it animate all of a sudden. What you are describing would be reactionary and not actionary. I.e. you either have random events that shaped it or you have an actively guided process. Hint: both are indistinguishable from each other.

K, you don't have a mind then, and I don't have to bother engaging with you further.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Zero equals zero (in terms of direct, overt evidence).

So just as valid as giant space unicorn farts driving evolution then in your view?

wat.jpg

The randomness (or not, as the case may be) of mutations are based on direct observations and experiments. What exactly is god-driven mutations based on?

We're talking about the re/production of life here. Sans God doesn't have the same loaded implications in other areas as it would here. Also, some of the language used in the topic of the ToE (such as "random") is not only sans God, but implies that there isn't one - or at least, that there isn't an intelligent designer. That's atheistic "religion".

No, it isn't, and no it doesn't. It doesn't imply anything of the sort. Again, not without anything and everything sans deities being defined as atheistic 'religion'. So is this the view you hold?

What about the physics that enable life on earth in the first place - like the geomagnetic field? Also an 'atheistic religious view' to you?

This is a really silly line of thinking, that anything that is silent on gods inherently implies there aren't deities.

 

[wayfarer]

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

In theory, maybe, but in practice things are a bit different.

Extreme aversion and antagonism to stamp collecting may very well be a phobia. The belief-system that this phobia derives from is akin to a religion.

 

[Xarog]

What you are correct in is that the thread is not "about religion". Note that no science is free from underlying philosophical notions, and I don't think it is fair to insist that we may only engage the science via the philosophical assumptions that you agree with. Please, do not censure me, and do not attempt to stifle my expression, or unceremoniously pass off my engagement in the topic from my own paradigm as being moronic. Ignore me or debate me, but do not stop me from engaging the topic from my own paradigm.

Quoted for OD's benefit.

 

[wayfarer]

Gravity also doesn't need God to work.

Is the theory of gravity also part of "atheistic religion"?

Everything needs God to work. But that can neither be proven nor disproved, and that is not the point at all. I am referring to language constructions, not an actual physical phenomenon.