Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:26:34 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020909140623.W1838-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <20020909185717.GG28799@hades.hell.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On 2002-09-09 09:24, "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> wrote:
> > So explain to me again what "selection" is in the context of a
> > non-theistic worldview. *Who* does the "selection"? If nobody
> > does the selection, why keep calling it selection?
>
> Substitute "survival" for "selection" and you have an answer.
So then the mechanism for evolution is the survival of the fittest by
means of survival? 8-)
> The total sum of the components of a jungle is more than a "jungle".
> It is a "system". The entire system, which is the result of summing
> its parts, is the one that observes the results of the possibility
> experiments that sheer luck has attempted.
^^^^^^^^^^
So evolution is based on sheer luck. Have you ever been to Vegas?
Occasionally people leave with more money than they came with. On the
balance, however, the odds are stacked in such a way as that more money
will be lost than gained. This seems an apt analogy for evolution.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics suggests that, on the whole, the
universe is tending to disorder, which blatantly contradicts the theory
of evolution. The Second Law seems to imply that there was a time in
which the universe was in a perfect state. Hmmm....
> The survivors are those
> who "have been selected". This is because nobody "makes" the choise.
> It happens. Then, as the results become apparent, we can talk about a
> "choise". The word "selection" doesn't mean that some mythical,
> all-seeing entity, picks pawns on a huge chessboard and throws out
> those it doesn't like for some reason.
Why not just say "it happened", instead of referring to a "choice". The
notion of "choice" suggests a chooser, for making a choice requires a
will. I suspect the reason we don't want to be that honest is that the
phrase 'origin of species by means of "it happens"' would not sound very
scientific.
> > Why is the reification of nature justified in order to save
> > evolutionary theory? "Selection" implies intentionality, something
> > which according to evolutionists is not necessary to explain the
> > highly complex forms of life that have "arisen". 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"?
>
> There you go...
And an assertion remains nothing but an assertion...
Neal
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?20020909140623.W1838-100000>