|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
It's quite interesting that you proclaim yourself to be a determinist in the context of creation vs evolution, because I think indeterminacy vs determinacy is the underlying problem in creation vs evolution.
That things may act freely is not an established fact in science. In the billions of scientific texts there is not a single case which stands out as proof of any free behaviour. Like indeterminacy is unproven, so is anything spiritual unproven within science. The two denials are related in my opinion. It is actually hardly avoidable to say everything is causally bound, including people, when you aren't capable of describing things in terms of acting freely, in the same way all of science isn't capable of describing free behaviour. So I am not impressed with your personal awareness of causality in human behaviour, unless you can also describe human behaviour in terms of acting freely, with choices made in heart and soul, and God who can freely judge over the choices people make. regards,Mohammad Nur Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Well maybe if you were actually capable of describing any free behaviour scientifically, you would understand your own theory of the prescribed evolution hypothesis better.
Saying evolution is proscribed is the opposite of saying evolution is free. So one possible falsification of your theory would be if it were found that evolution is free. But I don't think you are capable of describing any free behaviour scientifically in the first place. regards,Mohammad Nur Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
prescribed evolution vs evolution by Darwinian chance
twins fated by their genes vs people deciding freely semimeiotic sexless reproduction vs sexual selection by female choice As before, you seem to be consistently avoiding any explanation that has several possible outcomes, any explanation in terms of free behaviour. Then you at last acknowledge God, who can act freely, but then you also basically leave God out of your theory. I'm sorry, I don't have a labrotory, so I can't test your semi-meiotic hypothesis. That is basically the only possibly real science you offer IMO. The rest of your theories being more revealing of your personal dislike of any concept of free behaviour whatsoever. I don't think Einstein is on the side of ultra-predeterminism, because actually Bohr was on that side, and Einstein argued against Bohr. I've seen another old scientist similar like you on TV some years ago. There the accomplished scientist was, happily talking to the interviewer about his outstanding career, and the way the universe is. Then he wandered of to the subject of determinism, and all of a sudden about 20 creases appeared on his face all at once. With his face looking like that, he went to talk about how we must admit that maybe there isn't any free behaviour at all, maybe we can't choose at all, maybe every single one of the zillions of atoms is predetermined without a possible alternative etc. etc. Obviously this scientist for decades had disciplined himself to solely and efficiently think in terms of cause and effect for his job, and neglected to think in terms of free behaviour. regards,Mohammad Nur Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
From your paper:
"Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped. We believe that there is no reason for being forced to choose between ?either randomness or the supernatural,? a choice into which the advocates of randomness in biology strive vainly to back their opponents. It is neither randomness nor supernatural power, but laws which govern living things; to determine these laws is the aim and goal of science, which should have the final say. (Grasse, page 107)." So don't accuse me of bringing up a philosphical irrellevancy. This issue between determinacy and indeterminacy your bring up yourself explicitly in your paper. In the words of Richard Dawkins "Chance is the enemy of science." (The Blind Watchmaker). Isn't Dawkins quite on your side of things mr Davison? You have misaprehended what atheists such as ultra-darwinist Dawkins like about Darwinism. Natural selection theory represents a mechanization of the choice concept, and this is what any atheist appreciates much. They can basically use the language of choices, but not have to admit any actual choice with a spiritual owner at all, since it is all mechanical. Especially in regards to natural selection fashioning social behaviour or morality atheists appreciate Darwinism. It allows them to chuck religion by concocting some just so story about the evolution of social behaviour, and decide about their own values in the context of that just-so story. So I will simply charge again that you simply don't understand how to describe any free behaviour scientifically. Quite clearly you have excluded any free behaviour as per definition from science. regards,Mohammad Nur Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Then cut all reference to philosophy from your paper, if you don't want it to be adressed.
Darwinism is currently moving towards naive predeterminism again. For instance I saw some paper which argues that natural selection theory is consistent with saltationism in relation to findings about controlgenes, also Dawkins recently talks a lot about isolated populations having highly similar evolutions independently. So it may well be that in some time the Darwinist discipline simply co-opts your postion to such a large extent, so to make your weak reference to God on the side of your theory meaningless. Obviously you are just refusing any evidence of any free behaviour whatsoever beforehand, so it's not credible to me that you come to your position by just following the evidence reasonably. regards,Mohammad Nur Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Well Einstein was obviously just engaging some bigotry of his own. If or not Jesus is God, may be concluded by relating your spirit to the spirit of Jesus by investigating the choices Jesus made. For Einstein, or you to say that science disproves Jesus is God, that there is no personal God such as Jesus, is merely pseudoscience.
I for one, do not believe that Jesus is God, but I don't pretend that science forces me to this conclusion. The impersonal vs personal is just an issue that rages within religion, not between science and religion. As before, and as is quite plain from your own writing, the issue that rages between science and religion is one of behaviour by law vs free behaviour. Science has yet to fully acknowledge any free behaviour at all, be it of God, or of man, or anything. regards,Mohammad Nur Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Perhaps you want to look into Dawkinis "work" on what he calls "evolvability", which is basically also predetermination of evolution by genetics.
regards,Mohammad Nur Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
You talk somewhere about performing semi-meiotic experiments on frogs. Performing experiments on living beings to produce macro-evolutionary saltationist changes. Tell me, what distinguishes your attitude in this matter from a smalltime Dr. Frankenstein?
Perhaps if you found the belief in free behaviour, to respect free will of creatures such as the frogs, and respect God as the spiritual owner of their choices and yours in His final judgement, perhaps then you might come to new insights about your theory. Just get with the attitudes of the population in general about free behaviour, and not listen to scientists in general who obviously are ignorant about free behaviour. It's the context of your consistent denial of any kind of free behaviour that matters here. Sure one can be dismissive somewhat of the value of the life of a frog when other things are more important. But it is this consistency in dismissing any kind of free behaviour anywhere that takes it to a darker level. regards,Mohammad Nur Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Indeed, you seem to have multiple layers of denail about free behaviour.
It means that even if you were succesful with your hypothesis in successfully transforming a frog, you would become known as Doctor Frankenfrog, and would become a symbolfigure to every creationist about all that is wrong with science. regards,Mohammad Nur Syamsu
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024