Why is the process blind ?

Yay, I can post here. First off, I was totally unaware of this. Apparently, that means Bush represents all republicans, the Pope represents all catholics, and the poor blacks represent all blacks. Wow, way to stereotype, dude.
how does an athiest represent a theistic evolutionist?Second off, How do the adjectives contradict the results? And what are appearance of design and organized complexity the results of?Third off, What process produces these results? Certainly you don't mean evolution, which is what you are arguing against, but so far are implying that evolution does this.A blind process does not mean random. A blind man can find his way across the street, but not by making random choices as to where he will step. Natural selection is not unguided (though not necessarily guided by God), which I'm pretty certain Dawkins wouldn't say (that is, that the process is unguided and random). Natural selection has never been described as such by anyone who knows what the ToE actually means and how it works.However, it is mindless. You could say that natural selection is some abstract entity we describe for purposes of explaining how one organism is more "fit" than another to its environment, and why the "fit" one is selected for. Of course, it's not reallly an entity (rather, it needn't be one).Science does not reflect the bias of materialsim methodology. It is based off of methodological naturalism, which does not preclude the existence or non-existence of any God or gods or other supernatural entities, events, etc. What this means is that science is concerned with how the world around us can be explained using natural, observable, testable, processes. This does not mean that the ToE says there is no God. In fact, the theistic evolutionists believe that what is driving the natural process of natural selection is God.you see, God can't be tested. At least not yet, and he may never be able to be tested empirically. Which means, science is never going to say that there is no god. The only philosophy that says this is atheism (that I know of).So the only bias in science is that of no concern over whether or not God exists. It doesn't matter.Finally, how is it logical to state that we were designed by something just because everything appears to be designed? And how can you test for such a designer? By what scientific methods do you prescribe to to come up with the assertion that all this appearance of design reflects guideness, purpose, and Mind?

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

I don't know if he answered this yet, so I will.Natural selection is blind. It is not directed, which iswhy it is blind. Now then, how do we know it is not directed?Keep in mind, by directed I mean guided to a purpose, like specifically driving organisms to evolve into humans, or any other living thing today. In other words, the process does not have a pre-stated goal.Let's take a population of 100 organisms. Now then, this type of organism reaches sexual maturity at age X. This type of organism, like all organisms that have been observed, produce more offspring than the environment can support. Let's say these 100 produce 300 offspring. Let's also say that the environment can only support 100 units of this type of organism. Let's also say, that upon reproduction (when the offspring are now living) the parent(s) die. That leaves us with 300 organisms. Now then, which will survive until age X? The ones best adapted to the environment. This is what is known as being more "fit".Only 100 will survive to reproduce. There may be a few more, there may be a few less, but the population will stabilize around 100 units of this organism. As these hundred are the only ones alive at age X, they are the only ones to pass on their genes. This is how natural selection is directed. However, since the genetic code is altered by mutations, which ARE random, that means that the 100 who survived are randoml predetermined to survive (barring any unusual event, like volcanic eruptions, comets and asteroids blasting into the earth, stuff like that, which could kill all the units of this type of organism). It's not contradictory. There is no telling who will get the mutation that gives them an advantage that ultimately allows them to pass on their genes. however, those with the advantage will most likely survive.And voila, the process is blind, and guided at the same time. But NOT random.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

You do realize that Darwin, the dude who realized how evolution really operates, was a clergyman in training when he jotted his notes down on the HMS Beagle? And that he did infact believe in God for a good chunk of his life?And if you look closely at the quote box you are complaining about, you will see the EZ forgot the beginning bracket (

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

It's similar to me claiming I have won the war by just saying it."I won, I won, you guys didn't, I won, haha, checkmate!"Of course, the war hasn't even started, and then I look like a fool for doing it.What you are saying is that: because you cannot refute MY opinions, then I have won the scientific debate.You are, in this matter, dead wrong.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Guess that means you're in the wrong. I mean, you are the one that wrote: The bias you have here is that there IS a God. And you try to present it as the objective answer to the question. Tch,Tch, nothing but hypocrisy.ABE: who to youEdited by kuresu, : No reason given.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

I take it someone has actually observed the Designer in the process.We have, and do, observe natural selection in work.Can you say the same for the designer?ABE:oh, and athiests don't require Darwinism to reject genesis. Genesis assumes there is a god. Atheists assume there is none. That is all they need to reject it and all other holy works.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Further proof that you are in the wrong, with respect to one of my recent replies. The assumption of God's existence is a bias, therefore subjective, not objective. Science doesn't care whether there is a god or not. This is being objective--standing away from the issue and letting no bias (either assuming existence or assuming non-existence) interupt.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Maybe because they aren't blinded by some subjective need to believe in some fanciful creator. Maybe because they tend to be more objective. And I'm certain you can find an atheist who rejects evolution. Much like you can find a christian who accepts evolution. Your argument is a moot point. Why the hell would something dealing with natural processes attempt to confirm a supernatural explanation? Science will never confirm genesis, if anything, it will explain away the errors in genesis. Not that that means that no GOd exists, mind you. Even without genesis, you can still believe in God, esp. if you're a christian. Then all that's important is that you accept Jesus as your lord and savior.I'm so glad you see a "flip-flop", as this is apparently the only argument you can muster against my several posts to you. After all, 16 hours, and this is all you write? C'mon.Oh, by the way, evolution wouldn't even be able to explain away Genesis on its own. It would take several branches of science, like physics, astronomy, and biology. So, there is no "flip-flop".You know, science fiction tends to be more scientific then your creationism, so . . .

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Dang your stupid.Your contention that because athiests all support Darwinism means darwinism is about disproving Genesis is flat out wrong. And unlike EZ, I decided to try and arghue your points. Instead, you claim they are evasions of your point. Well, if I'm evading it, then why don't you just give to me in plain english? [qs]All atheists support ToE = ToE is anti-Genesis/qsBiggest load of crap I've seen in a while. Just because something is in support of one thing doesn't mean its automatically against something else. (There's always the mum on the issue position)Let's look at this mathematically.
Atheists support evolution = A
Evolution rejects genesis = B.What you are saying is that A = B. This on its own is a logical fallacy. All math and logic theorems that I know of do not stop at this point, becuase without the addition of a third part it is impossible to show, logically, a link between the two.Much like if I were to say:
Christians accept religion = A.
religion rejects science = BA = B. but wait? what the hell, that makes no sense? What is linking A to B? There is nothing.All logic statements are like this--if A = B, and B = C, the A = C. The rest are just variations, with the exception that if A = B then B = A. Which means in your statment that Genesis rejects evolution (and how could it?), and in mine, it means that science rejects Christians? Niether statement is true. Then it wouldn't be science--nothing in Genesis has been found to be true as to how the world, or even universe, was created by natural processes. At any rate, ToE doesn't even attempt to put down Genesis--all it is is a scientific theory explaining the diversity of life we see today, and how it came to be through natural processes. Genesis assumes a supernatural explanation that's isn't testable nor verifiable by science. As such, it is curently outside of that realm, and until its not, then science will never prove or disprove God. ANd by the way, what does genesis have to do with God, as far as proof is concerned?As I said, it's only important that Genesis assumes there is a God, and that's all an aethiest needs to reject it. If it didn't assume there was a God, but left the question open, it might find more acceptance (except that factually it's wrong) by aethiests. Nothing to do with ToE.Now then, how about responding to my other points?I really think you're picking on this minor issue because you have nothing to say against what my several posts were? If you do have something to say against them, answer them, or else I think you're through.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

wow. I mispelled argue. Now then, how about responding to some of my posts, or even my points. If you don't, it's now you evading the arguement.Have you nothing to say on why your logic is fallacious? Especially when written out as a mathematical formula, like I showed you? Come on, you gotta be better than this.Oh, and get it right. Southwest virginia isn't known for hillbillies. Try rednecks. The hillbillies (if I'm not wrong) are down in the hills of tennessee and north carolina.Again, answer my posts, don't run around them, like you've been doing.ABE:And I doubt that they are cringing. Mayhaps some are reading it, and if they get permission, they can further show your logic to be wrong. But something tells me this whole aside you started has nothing to do with your OP. So can we get back to it, or I have I thouroughly thrashed it for you?Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Instead of whinning to Admin for new members to debate with, how about actually debating the main issues i brought up, eh?It seems an awful lot like crying to your mom because you lost the game, and are crying for a new game--which would be odd, considering that you yourself claimed to have won--the whole checkmate thing in your OP. And if you have already won, then why do you want more?Oh, and by no measure do I think you've won.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Post 18 deals with the OP specifically, and I made it. Posts 19-24 deal with other issues either in the OP or from your debate with EZ. They have what you want. Answer the questions I ask you--you asked none in the OP, but made a statement. I answered those statements with questions concerning the validity of your argument. Please reply to post 18, so I know that you've read it.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Thank you for finally responding to this post.I answered why the process was blind in (natural selection, that is) in post 19, take a look.It is wrong, and quite possibly fallacious to say that Bush represents all republicans and the pope represents all catholics. What you are doing is throwing a group of people with one of a few similarities together--the term is stereotyping, and most often it doesn't cover the entire group.I believe the most famous book on evolution is "On the Origin of Species: or The preservation of favored races in the struggle of life. NOT Dawkin's book.You seem to have some misconceptions as to what science rests on. It is a philosophy, rooted in methodological naturalism (which I may have already explained here, don't know though). It does not preclude the existence or non-existence of supernatural entities (including God). Whatever can be tested and verified is natural, not supernatural. This is why NO scientific theory at the moment includes God as an explanation--for as you all say, God works in mysterious ways. As such, he cannot be tested or verified, and saying God did it then means absolutely nothing. It could very well be that God is running the world, but until we can scientifically test him, he remains in the realm of the supernatural.The other misconception you have is that evolution is a "belief". Belief requires faith or blind trust (which can be the same thing). Nothing in science is believed in or held to dogmatically (of course, they are several times where certain ideas are held onto dogmatically, when new evidence shows that a theory is wrong). So far, evolution is the best NATURAL explanation for why we have all this diversity in life. So far, creationism uses a supernatural entitiy that cannot be tested nor verified to explain the natural world. Which is NOT science. This puts them into the category of psuedo-science (along with astrology and phrenology).Ok, so I've told you to check post 19 for your first question, and the following two paragraphs have somewhat touched on your question of how can leaving god out be scientifically justified. If you'd like a clearer explanation for your second answer, ask away.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

From wikipedia on methodological naturalism: When you make this statement: This is ontological naturalism, which according to the same wikipedia article is: Science is NOT founded on ontological naturalism.Be careful who you call ignorant--it is you who are confusing what science is founded on by what atheism is founded on.I never said I was a christian or an atheist. I'm agnostic, thanks to music.Since you say I completely evade your OP, can you tell me what it is in plain english? After all, I'm fairly certain I answered your OP, and yet you claim I haven't--which means I either misunderstood your OP, or you are not able to refute what I wrote in regard to yor OP, and are thus using the "you are evading argument" to try and win the debate.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

well, you know what . . .I got banned for calling you stupid. I But I'm back, because I wondered what had happened so that I couldn't post, and was told it was because of my derogatory comment. I apologized (not here, but on showcase thread for permission in the Suggestions forum) by saying I must remember to not insult people.It is not moronic to say that the Pope does not represent ALL catholics. The catholic church is conservative at the moment--or rather, that's the general movement. However, Virginia has a liberal catholic as governor. Same is true of Bush. He doesn't represent ALL republicans. Point in case--a friend of mine, who is conservative, thinks Bush is a total fool. Not only that, Bush isn't fiscally responsible, undermining one of the core issues of what used to be a business oriented party. Now it is a social issue oriented party, and there are still many conservatives who do not like this position--henceforth, the conservative, republican Bush does not represent these conservative, republican people.What you are doing is called stereotyping, something I try to avoid, because it is most often erroneos. Not moronic.But this thread isn't about who represents who, except for your Dawkins statement, which I feel has little to do with your OP.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences