Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Criticizing neo-Darwinism
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5798 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 266 of 309 (463866)
04-21-2008 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by bertvan
04-21-2008 2:01 PM


Re: A general response
bertvan writes
quote:
NeoDarwinism argues that biological innovation “just happens, accidentally, for no particular reason”. Then, according to NeoDarwinism, the only known materialistic theory of evolution, “natural selection” somehow turns a collection of these random genetic accidents into biological adaptations. However, no one has come up with even a hint at how natural selection might accomplish such a feat.
Does agnosticism also tells you to use a strawman argument against natural selection?
quote:
Intelligent design proposes that intelligence exists as an aspect of reality. We know humans have the ability to make reasoned, purposeful choices. The same ability to a more limited degree can be deduced in animals. Even single cultured cells display an ability to make simple choices. Swarm intelligence has been observed. Intelligent Design argues that living organisms adapt responsively, intelligently and purposefully. Random accidents in their genomes are defects, some of which are corrected by purposeful genomic mechanisms, but none turn into biological features.
As an agnostic, I don’t speculate about the origin of an organizing intelligence of nature, any more than I speculate about the origin of matter and energy. Only atheists fear the recognition of intelligence as an organizing force of living systems, because they cannot deny the possible involvement of some god in a non material process such as intelligent organization.
This is little better, if better at all, than "goddidit." It's an intellectual dead-end.
By the way, using strawman against an argument will never get you very far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by bertvan, posted 04-21-2008 2:01 PM bertvan has not replied

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5798 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 267 of 309 (463867)
04-21-2008 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Percy
04-21-2008 3:14 PM


Re: A general response
Percy writse
quote:
Ignoring the errors (for example, "random accidents in their genomes" turn into "biological features" all the time, a famous example being Down Syndrome), to make a scientific claim you need an observable mechanism by which your intelligence operates.
Forget down syndrome. Think sickle cell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Percy, posted 04-21-2008 3:14 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024