Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 10:29:57 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> Cc: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net>, dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <3D7CDA95.2D2EE45C@mindspring.com> References: <20020909091647.J9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > Evolution in this case is merely a useful theory, in that its > > application gives predictive results in the problem domain of > > *what* mutations will survive the ambient selection pressures. > = > So explain to me again what "selection" is in the context of a > non-theistic worldview. I guess I have to ask "why ``again'', wasn't ``once'' enough?". Natural selection: The process by which individuals=92 inherited needs and abilities are more or less closely matched to resources available in their environment, giving those with greater "fitness" a better chance of survival and reproduction. Note that that failing to find God under every rock is not the same thing as "rejecting God". Early man saw God (or _a_ god) everywhere there was some phenomenon that they could not explain rationally. That we now know the cause of "thunder" is not a rejection of God, any more than knowing the cause of speciation. > *Who* does the "selection"? If nobody does the selection, why keep > calling it selection? Because it's the technically correct word to use to describe the operation of a fitness function. > Why is the reification of nature justified in order to save > evolutionary theory? Nature *is* concrete, *not* abstract. There is no reifying of nature happening here. You can only reify an *abstract* thing. > "Selection" implies intentionality, To people without a complex vocabulary. Perhaps it was a bad choice to use the compound word "natural selection", since it permits those people to make this mistake. > something which according to evolutionists is not necessary to > explain the highly complex forms of life that have "arisen". It's not. > If we use Occam's razor to shave off all the philosophical and > religious baggage from evolution, what is left except an assertion > that life spontaneously arose "by chance"? With theologians still able to claim that God controls chance, of course. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D7CDA95.2D2EE45C>