Definitions (Evolution)
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Saturday, March 29, 2008, 16:47 (5871 days ago)
In the "Quotation from Darwin" thread dhw asks for definitions of various terms. These are my understanding of them, and some others: - Science = The application of logical reason to data obtained by observation and experiment (this is called the scientific method), with the aim of developing systematic understanding of the whole of human experience (this is called scientific knowledge). The degree of confidence to be attributed to this knowledge will vary according to the evidence. Absolute certainty is impossible. - Ockham's razor = The principle that one should not make unnecessary extra assumptions. I consider this to be an important principle of logical reasoning, and therefore of science, though others of more baroque sensibilities may say it is a matter of aesthetics. - Evolution = The step by step changes over time that take place in any system. This is it's most general sense. Thus it can apply to the history of the whole universe from the big bang through the evolution of heavy elements in the stars, to the evolution of self-replicating molecules (i.e. the origin of life), to the evolution of the simplest life forms into varied species. - Darwinism = Evolution of life on Earth, from a single original form, by natural selection acting on variation, as expounded by Charles Darwin in his 1859 book "Origin of Species". The word was possibly first used by Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer of the theory, who wrote a book with this title. - Natural selection = The process described by Darwin whereby new species originate from earlier species, due to variations in the genetic characteristics within a population leading to those who carry the changes being better adapted to their environment and thus passing on their genes to the next generation (while those less well adapted do less well). - Chance = The happening of some event in an unpredictable manner. Whether we call something chance may depend on our knowledge of the circumstances leading to its occurrence. Examples: Someone is injured in a road accident. The impact of a radioactive emanation on a molecule alters its structure to produce a mutation (change) that makes it's chemical properties different. A quantum fluctuation in the void results in the appearance of a new universe. - Random = The happening of a chance event which is one of a set of possible events all of which could occur with equal probability. - Determinism = The belief that everything has a cause, and that with sufficient knowledge all chance events would have an explanation. - Indeterminism = The belief that there are events that have no cause, and are purely random. This is one of the bases of quantum theory. - Belief = The confidence one is prepared to place in various propositions about the nature of human experience. - Faith = Willingness to believe in something for which there is inadequate evidence. This may be for emotional or aesthetic reasons, and no doubt from other causes. It may often result from a strong "Trust" in the integrity of one's teachers. Faith is sometimes used when Trust would be a better term. Faith may be strong or weak. - Theism = Various forms of belief in the existence of supernatural forces that create, design or guide the phenomena humans experience, and possibly have intentions towards human beings and their history and future. - Atheism = Non-belief in theism. This may be from various motives, rational or emotive. For example someone brought up in a religion who has had bad experiences with the practitioners of the religion may hate the whole idea without having thought it out intellectually. - Scientific Atheism = Non-belief in theism because of the lack of scientific evidence for the truth of the claims of theists. (This of course is my position.) Since theistic claims are varied, the strength or weakness of the evidence for or against is also varied. In the weakest cases the non-belief may be simply an application of Ockham's Razor. - Agnosticism = Sitting on the fence between theism and atheism.
Definitions
George Jelliss writes: "In the 'Quotation from Darwin' thread dhw asks for definitions of various terms." I did no such thing, and I hope George is not beginning to hear voices. My posting was a specific complaint about the manner in which Dawkins and Co distort terms like Darwinism, evolution and natural selection in their attempt to prove that their atheism is backed by science, and to distract from their faith in chance. Please read my posting again for details. - George's definitions, however, are a good illustration. For instance, he talks of "variations" but makes no mention of random mutations. "Random" in the context of a random mutation does not = "The happening of a chance event which is one of a set of possible events all of which could occur with equal probability", because there is no "set" and no need for any event at all to take place. "Probability" does not come into it, but of course the word itself reduces the emphasis on chance. Atheism is not non-belief in theism. Nor is it "unbelief", to use whitecraw's term, since he defines that as "an absence of both belief and disbelief towards a proposition", which = agnosticism (my own position), in the popular and not the original sense of the word. Atheism according to every definition I can lay my hands on is disbelief (see whitecraw) in the existence of a God or gods. George says (so-called) scientific atheism "is non-belief in theism because of the lack of scientific evidence for the claims of theists", but in that case you might just as well talk of scientific agnosticism. Non-belief or unbelief are neutral (I agree with whitecraw's definition). Atheism is not neutral. Once again, both the terminology and the definition are calculated to give the impression that science supports disbelief in God, and at the same time they distract from the fact that the alternative is to believe in chance (i.e. abiogenesis and the randomness of mutations). That is the subject of my posting under "Quotation from Darwin". George's unsolicited glossary - offered, I'm sure, with the very best of intentions - simply proves my point.
Definitions
I'm puzzled. I really am. DHW raises an important issue about how atheists like Dawkins manpulate terms to suit their purposes. So of course do some theists. George pretends that dhw asked him for definitions (I've read the article under Quotation from Darwin, and I challenge anyone to find the request) and proceeds to manipulate terms just as dhw describes. And what puzzles me is WHY? Here's the situation as I interpret it. Theists believe there is a god of some kind. Atheists believe there isn't a god of any kind. Forget about all this unbelief, nonbelief, disbelief, ibulief carping. If you believe there's no god of any kind, you believe that life came about by chance. Theres no scientfic evidence that there is a god, so theists have to have faith in him or her or it. There's no scientific evidence that life came about by chance, so atheists have to have faith in chance. What's the problem? Why are atheists ... some atheists, not all ... so ashamed of admitting it? That's why I'm puzzled. Why must they go to such lengths as Dawkins and now George to pretend they're scientifically objective when its painfully obvious that they're not? I'd really appreciate an answer from any atheists out there ... thoughpreferably not an answer telling me that I've asked for something I haven't asked for.
Definitions
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Monday, March 31, 2008, 18:33 (5869 days ago) @ Peter P
Peter P maintains: There's no scientific evidence that life came about by chance, so atheists have to have faith in chance. What's the problem? Why are atheists ... some atheists, not all ... so ashamed of admitting it? That's why I'm puzzled. Why must they go to such lengths as Dawkins and now George to pretend they're scientifically objective when its painfully obvious that they're not? I'd really appreciate an answer from any atheists out there ... though preferably not an answer telling me that I've asked for something I haven't asked for. - The position as I see it is this: Science has well established theories (physics and chemistry) that explain the origin of the heavier chemical elements by atomic fusion processes in the earliest stars, and these sciences are able to provide ways in which many organic chemicals, such as amino-acids, naturally come about by combinations of these atoms under suitable conditions. - Secondly Science also has well established theories (evolutionary biology and genetics) that explain the origin of the many and varied life-forms that have existed or are still extant, and can trace these life-forms back to much simpler (but still admittedly complex) life forms, namely bacteria. These living things are also formed of atoms of the same chemical elements as are described in physics and chemistry. - So, between these two areas of knowledge there is a gap. The problem of the origin of life, known as abiogenesis. Does it require "faith" to suppose that there must be some physical mechanism, describable in terms of physics, chemistry and biology and genetics, that bridges this gap? It doesn't seem to me to require much faith, however you define that term. - How much this process is a matter of chance cannot be assessed until the process is discovered. It may turn out to be inevitable once the necessary conditions for it to proceed have occurred. - On the oter hand, does it require "faith" to suppose that this gap is bridged by the action of some outside force intervening to make it possible? That does indeed seem to me to require a great deal of faith. - Does this go some way to answer your question?
Definitions
First of all, my apologies to George for not replying sooner to his post on March 31st . I've been doing battle with one of life's more primtive forms which refused to acknowledge my superiority. - I had asked why atheists refuse to acknowledge their faith in chance. George's reply was that science has come up with theories to explain other aspects of the universe, so he thought it reasonable to suppose that it would also provide one to explain the origin of life as something perfectly natural with say just a smattering of chance. I hope that's a fair summary. - Meanwhile the argument has moved on apace, with George's attack on dhw's use of "chance". George came up with a golfing accident analogy, which actually confirmed dhw's use of chance, and with a description of the orgin of life, which also confirmed dhw's use of chance. However, even after accidentally shooting himself in the foot, and even after David Turrell's devastating SCIENTIFIC exp;lanation of why the odds against chance creating a simple living cell are "stupendously enormous", I bet George will still say atheism doesn't involve faith in chance. I like the expression "quasi-religious", so long as its not meant derogatively, because I see no difference between say Christian faith in God and atheist faith in chance, and personally I've got equal respect for both. Its just the scientific camouflage of atheism that bugs me. But at least I think my original question has been answered. It's the old adage: there's none so blind as those that will not see.
Definitions
by David Turell , Saturday, April 05, 2008, 17:15 (5864 days ago) @ Peter P
Right on Peter P! The arrogance of atheists, assuming that science will reach atheistic conclusions, somehow solving all issues and 'proving' God cannot exist, is amazing to me. Atheists seem to deny how much faith they have in science. All you have to do is read lay literature on scientific findings and see how complex life really is, and the mathematical laws of probability take over. Each year life is shown to be more and more complex, and some supernatural force becomes more likely to explain the origin of life.
Definitions
'Each year life is shown to be more and more complex, and some supernatural force becomes more likely to explain the origin of life.' - Then it will be a moot point as to whether such an explanation can be considered 'scientific'. - It is a constitutive principle of modern science that nature is a closed system of cause and effect and that, for an explanation to be considered 'scientific', it must not invoke as a postulate any agency outside of that system; i.e. any supernatural agency. This is the principle of methodological naturalism, and is what did for the scientific status of the theory of evolution by intelligent design in the case of Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. - There are also other problems with considering creationism to be a scientific theory. It isn't falsifiable; i.e. it is incapable of being tested by experiment or observation. And it has no heuristic value; i.e. it doesn't generate any problems requiring further investigation and research. As theologians will tell you, there is no way of disproving that supernatural agency exists and had at least a hand in making things the way they are. And the explanation 'because God made it that way' is the final word on any matter. - For such reasons as these I'd still go with the theory of evolution by natural selection as a scientific explanation of how properties of populations of organisms change through time. However lousy it may turn out to be, it is still the best lousy theory we currently have. You maintain that the theory of evolution by natural selection has problems explaining the complexity of life. I don't agree for the reasons I've adumbrated several times now without reply. But even if it did have such problems, this provides us with no immediate reason to abandon the theory (and, moreover, to effect a revolution in the constitution of science to allow us to ascribe scientific status to currently non-scientific theories); it calls meantime only for further investigation and research towards solving those problems within the scope of the current theory.
Definitions
by David Turell , Monday, April 07, 2008, 01:50 (5863 days ago) @ whitecraw
It appears that I have not been clear in my reasoning about science and the Darwin Theory. - whitecraw has stated, "It is a constitutive principle of modern science that nature is a closed system of cause and effect and that, for an explanation to be considered 'scientific', it must not invoke as a postulate any agency outside of that system; i.e. any supernatural agency. This is the principle of methodological naturalism." I absolutely agree, but please remember, I have the right to read scientific studies and their findings, but reach my own conclusions, since very often there are several possible interpretations. I am not asking science to find God. I know quite well that the proof and dis-proof of God are both impossible. But if I reach a position 'beyond a reasonable doubt', I will take that position. whitecraw further observed: "For such reasons as these I'd still go with the theory of evolution by natural selection as a scientific explanation of how properties of populations of organisms change through time. However lousy it may turn out to be, it is still the best lousy theory we currently have. You maintain that the theory of evolution by natural selection has problems explaining the complexity of life. I don't agree for the reasons I've adumbrated several times now without reply. But even if it did have such problems, this provides us with no immediate reason to abandon the theory." - Here I must respectfully disagree. Thomas Kuhn has taught us that scientists follow each other like lemmings and the theory, favored for the moment, will be defended almost to the death. That is what is happening with Darwin. In this country grants for research are simply not available unless it is within the umbrella of Darwinism. So much for encouraging opposing research, and the theory that all theories should encourage research. - Now for complexity: Darwin favored a gradual step by step change in organisms, and eventually a new species would appear. The fossil record does not favor this supposition in any way, and may never. New complex organisms appear suddenly, explosively, with no 'somewhat less' complex precursors. (Saltation) Careful biochemical studies of living mechanisms demonstrate how very complex one living cell is, with many interlocking processes involving hundreds of different proteins. Human blood clotting, when I last checked 4 years ago, involved 17 factors, not including platelets and tissue factors that initiate the process. It must be exact: the last thing wanted is clotting the whole circulatory system, and there are disease processes that literally try that. Each of the 17 steps have feed-back mechanisms which involve other factors, to exactly control the process. (By the way in medical school we were taught there were 10 steps) My point is that as science adds to the complexity of life, and keeps adding complexity, Darwin's supposition appears less and less likely, that processes like clotting just fell together a little bit at a time. One other example of Darwin's problem: when hominids quit knuckle dragging and went upright in locomotion, the female (and also the male) pelvis changed dramatically in shape. At the same time the female outlet became more bowl-like and the opening for birth had to enlarge to accommodate the enlarging baby's head to allow for the growth of the brain size. How was this accomplished if the baby had half its DNA from Dad? One could presume that the female outlet enlarged and then the babies' brains grew bigger. There are many areas in evolution that look like purposeful activity is present. Exaptations are a major example: novel innovations which appear in a species long before there are needed or used. Perhaps human birth with the bigger brain depended on an exaptation. There are thousands of examples like this, books written on the subject, so that I could go on typing for hours. All I can suggest is an open mind to alternatives. Hopefully, that makes my postion clearer.
Definitions
It's MicroEvolution at work, not Macro. *nudge nudge, wink wink*
Definitions
by David Turell , Monday, June 09, 2008, 01:09 (5800 days ago) @ Matt
You are right Matt: Darwin always described microevolution and assumed that macro would occur. Macro did occur, but not Darwin's way. How and why is beyond Darwin
Definitions
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Monday, March 31, 2008, 17:38 (5869 days ago) @ dhw
dhw maintains that he did not ask for definitions, but he did write: - It's become clear on this forum alone that there is a great deal of confusion over what constitutes Darwinism, evolution and natural selection, and to what extent atheism is based on faith in chance. - OK, this is not an explicit question, only implicit, but I thought an answer in the form of definitions of the confusing terms was what was needed. The responses to my definitions do seem to have brought out some clear differences of approach, and explains some cross-purposes. - For instance, whitecraw describes Science in terms I cannot subscribe to: - To qualify as knowledge, a practice, theory or statement must conform to the quality standards laid down by the knowledge community into which that practice, theory or statement seeks acceptance. These standards are established by the knowledge community's 'ruling paradigm', perpetuated through the educational and training régimes by which new practitioners are inducted into the community, and upheld by the community's judicial tribunals. - As far as I am concerned there is only one "knowledge community" that of human beings, and the quality standards to be observed are those of the most rigorous kind. There are undoubtedly communities of various kinds (Creationists, Rosicrucians and Conspiracy Theorists, come to mind) whose standards are less than the best. Are these the sorts of communities whitecraw has in mind?
Definitions
'Are these the sorts of communities whitecraw has in mind?' - Not really. They sound to me more like religious communities or communities of belief. 'Knowledge community' is an anthropological category that denotes any group which is bound together in its scientific practice (i.e. in its pursuit of knowledge) by a shared set of epistemological values. These values more often than not remain uncodified and uncodifiable, but are exemplified in some paradigmatic historical case or episode which becomes emblematic of the group and provides the group with (among other things) constitutive rules concerning what is to count as knowledge and the conditions that need to be fulfilled before anything can qualify as knowledge. - Each knowledge community characteristically is held by its members to be the only knowledge community, for the simple reason that they literally cannot (for obvious reasons) conceive any practice other than their own to be 'scientific'; i.e. pertaining to knowledge as such.
Definitions
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Tuesday, April 01, 2008, 09:37 (5868 days ago) @ whitecraw
whitecraw wrote: Each knowledge community characteristically is held by its members to be the only knowledge community, for the simple reason that they literally cannot (for obvious reasons) conceive any practice other than their own to be 'scientific'; i.e. pertaining to knowledge as such. - So does this mean that you and I just can never agree on anything because we belong to mutually incompatible "knowledge communities"? - Would it be correct to identify yourself as belonging to a "postmodernist" knowledge community, and myself to a "rationalist empiricist" community? - In this case how will our differences ever be resolved? Do we have to wait for some "paradigmatic historical case or episode" to occur?
Definitions
George Jelliss compiled his list of definitions because of my statement (under 'Quotation from Darwin', 29 March) that "it's become clear on this forum alone that there is a great deal of confusion over what constitutes Darwinism, evolution and natural selection, and to what extent atheism is based on faith in chance." - This statement was not a request for help but was part of the preamble to my quotations from Dawkins, showing precisely how he misuses those terms in order to give the illusion that his atheism is backed by science. Unfortunately, the list of definitions, while actually illustrating the point I was making, also serves to distract attention from what Matt has called these "subversive" tricks. There is now, for instance, a discussion over whitecraw's definition of Science, which pushes aside the issue of how Dawkins and others (not only atheists, of course) use scientific terms to disguise the unscientific basis of their beliefs. I'm sure this is not a deliberate ploy on George's part, but since his list contained similar obfuscations (see my posting of 30 March at 9.51), I feel it would be a pity ... and no doubt Peter P. will agree with me ... if we lost sight of the original subject.
Definitions
George Jelliss used my complaint about Dawkins' distortion of scientific terms as a reason for compiling a glossary. I objected at the time, as this resulted in digressions from the point at issue, but now that George has responded to my original posting (under Quotation from Darwin), I must admit that a glossary is a useful way of clarifying ideas. Whitecraw followed up with his own list of definitions, and I would like to do the same, while adding a few subjective comments which may or may not prove productive. - abiogenesis: the theory that non-living material can by chance assemble itself into living material capable of self-replication, heredity, variation and adaptation. Formerly known as "spontaneous generation". A cornerstone of atheism. - theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods. - atheism: disbelief in the existence of a god or gods. - agnosticism: 1) belief that it is impossible to know whether a god or gods exist(s) or not. 2) inability to believe or disbelieve in the existence of a god or gods. - god: a superior being believed to have created life on Earth and/or to embody different aspects of life on earth. - God: the god of monotheistic religions, believed to have created life on earth and still to be actively interested in human affairs. - deism: the belief that God created life on earth and then left it to its own devices. - Evolution: a theory that all life on earth developed out of original, simple forms through a) beneficial random mutations: hereditary genetic changes able by chance to produce complex new organs, mechanisms, systems which confer advantages on the organisms that undergo them; b) natural selection: a process whereby organisms that are able to adapt to their respective environments with the aid of beneficial random mutations survive as successful species. - chance: relating to any event that has no apparent cause, purpose or design. - Darwinism/Darwinian/Darwinist: originally used to indicate the theory of evolution, but currently often misused to indicate scientific support for atheism. - Science: the objective study of the physical world. - science: the objective study of any subject. - faith: belief and/or trust in something for which there is no objective confirmation ... e.g. God, the principles of politicians, abiogenesis.
Definitions
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Thursday, April 03, 2008, 13:32 (5866 days ago) @ dhw
I would just like to take up dhw again on his most annoying use of the term "chance". - dhw: abiogenesis: the theory that non-living material can by chance assemble itself into living material capable of self-replication, heredity, variation and adaptation. - dhw: chance: relating to any event that has no apparent cause, purpose or design. - Suppose a golfer mishits his ball. It flies over the fence and hits a man walking along the cliff path. The walker misses his step and falls over the cliff to the beach below. In this scenario, what are the chance events? The trajectory of the ball, once hit, and the fall of the man off the cliff are governed by the laws of gravity, although other factors such as gusts of wind, and undergrowth on the cliff obstructing the fall may come into account. - It seems that dhw would describe this whole series of events as "chance", even though parts of it have an inevitablity governed by laws of nature. - No one that I've ever heard of maintains that the first self-replicating molecules arose as the result of a "hurricane in a junkyard" type of event (which is what the "by chance" phrase brings to mind). The theories that I have seen require the coming together of the appropriate chemical components in a suitable environment, this requires a certain amount of chance, but then, once all the necessary factors are in position the laws of chemical reaction take over and it may be that the process thereafter is as inevitable as falling off a cliff. - dhw's use of the phrases: Formerly known as "spontaneous generation" and A cornerstone of atheism. are just silly jibes.
Definitions
Nothing raises atheist hackles more than the suggestion that atheism requires faith in chance. No doubt that is why George made every effort to underplay the role of chance in his own definitions, particularly of evolution and Darwinism. Notable absentees from his list were "abiogenesis" and "mutation" ... reference to the former was restricted to "the evolution of self-replicating molecules (i.e. the origin of life)", and the latter to "variations in the genetic characteristics". No mention of chance there. - The golfing tragedy would be described by most of us as an accident, i.e. an event "without any apparent cause, purpose or design". The golfer did not intend to mishit the ball, to knock it over the fence, or to hit the walker. The walker did not intend to be hit by the ball, to miss his step, or to fall off the cliff. What we have here is a chance combination, and once the different factors come together, the laws of nature do indeed go into operation. The grand, natural finale would not have taken place, however, without that initial chance combination of factors. - It's exactly the same with the origin of life as George describes it. This requires "the coming together of the appropriate chemical components in a suitable environment, this requires a certain amount of chance..." Let's stop there. It is precisely this "certain amount of chance" that I am referring to. Without the chance combination (an event or series of events, following your step by step scenario, without apparent cause, purpose or design), there would have been no life ... and this is not a minor matter to be skated over. The combination of those chemical factors is something so complex that scientists still haven't figured out how it could possibly happen. They can't reproduce it ... and even if they could, that would be the result of a conscious, intelligent procedure and not an unconscious groping in the dark. George continues: "once all the necessary factors are in position the laws of chemical reaction take over and it may be that the process thereafter is as inevitable as falling off a cliff." You are right. Once all the necessary factors for producing life are in position, life may be produced. You might just as well say that if you get six correct numbers in the lottery, you may become a millionaire. The chance combination comes first, and without it you have nothing. - All my dictionaries and reference books give "spontaneous generation" as an alternative name for "abiogenesis", but none of our contributors have ever used it. Personally, I find it a clearer description. Why is it a silly jibe? - I thought my statement that abiogenesis is "a cornerstone of atheism" was self-evident, but since for some reason you have taken that too as a jibe, perhaps it needs further explanation. If you do not genuinely believe in the spontaneous self-generation of life through that initial, so far inexplicable chance combination of chemical components, how can you discount the possibility that life originated through design? (Just "possibility" ... the agnostic, not the theist position.) My point, very simply, is that rejection of the theory of design is essential to atheism (= disbelief in the existence of a god, i.e. a designer), and you can only reject it if you believe that in the beginning there was no design (= abiogenesis).
Definitions
by David Turell , Friday, April 04, 2008, 03:03 (5866 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: "It's exactly the same with the origin of life as George describes it. This requires "the coming together of the appropriate chemical components in a suitable environment, this requires a certain amount of chance..." Let's stop there. It is precisely this "certain amount of chance" that I am referring to. Without the chance combination (an event or series of events, following your step by step scenario, without apparent cause, purpose or design), there would have been no life ... and this is not a minor matter to be skated over. The combination of those chemical factors is something so complex that scientists still haven't figured out how it could possibly happen." - And what is more, of the 20 essential amino acids necessary for the DNA/RNA mechanism which represents our living matter in our evolution, only eight have been found to occur naturally, outside of living matter. And all the amino acids in life must be left-handed, and non-living nature makes them equally left and right.The odds against a chance happening making a very simple living cell are stupendously enormous.
Definitions
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Sunday, April 06, 2008, 11:36 (5863 days ago) @ dhw
I'm a bit fed up with being castigated as being an "atheist", when I am a "rationalist empiricist". That is to say I base my beliefs on evidence and logic. My atheistic / agnostic view is a consequence of that approach. - dhw responds to my protest about his use of chance by saying: The golfing tragedy would be described by most of us as an accident, i.e. an event "without any apparent cause, purpose or design". - This misses the point of my argument which was that there are only two points at which chance entered the scenario, namely when the golfer's club contacted the ball, and when the ball contacted the walker. The rest of it was inevitable. - Why am I accused of "having faith in chance" when dhw and the theists also have "faith in chance". Or is part of the agnostic or theist belief that nothing whatsoever happens by chance? That everything is deterministic? That even a toss of the dice is fixed by their God intruding his noodly appendage? - It seems that dhw does have faith in chance, since he describes the golfing tragedy as an "accident".
Definitions
George is "a bit fed up with being castigated as being an 'atheist'". - There has clearly been a dreadful misunderstanding. The trouble is, you have always staunchly defended the atheist position and have never at any time given the slightest hint that you were in fact an "atheist/agnostic". When for example, you memorably announced that "the postulation of a designer to guide these processes [origin of life] is just so over-the-top in improbabilities as not to be worth considering", little did I dream that you were in fact keeping an open mind ... or at least half an open mind. - Your beliefs are based, you say, on "evidence and logic". There is no evidence that the chemical components necessary to create life combined together by chance, and indeed the odds against them doing so are "stupendously enormous" (David Turell), but if logic tells you that they did so, and therefore the alternative can be dismissed, it's not altogether surprising that you are "accused of having faith in chance". - The golfing tragedy ... the golfer mishit the ball which sailed over the fence, hit a walker on the head, made him lose his footing, and sent him tumbling over the cliff ... was described by me as an accident. You say I've missed the point, because the only two chance events were the club contacting the ball and the ball hitting the walker. "The rest of it was inevitable." Without the chance combination of all the different factors, the tragedy would not have occurred. George: "It seems that dhw does have faith in chance, since he describes the golfing tragedy as an accident." There is no faith involved in explaining the golf tragedy. All the circumstances are perfectly credible. And yes, of course I described it as an accident. Would you call it murder, predestination, suicide? The point of your story was to support your faith in the theory of abiogenesis, as you struggled to minimize the importance of chance in the process. I can only repeat that the golfing tragedy depended on a chance combination of events, and so does abiogenesis. The first chance combination is well within my bounds of credibility, and the second goes well beyond my range. - "Dhw and the theists also have 'faith in chance'. Or is it part of the agnostic or theist belief that nothing whatsoever happens by chance? That everything is deterministic?" Belief in God, of course, can range from deism (no divine interference) to Calvinism (predestination), but personally I have no doubt that many things happen by chance. That doesn't mean I have to believe in unlikely coincidences. In the context of our discussions, however, you should know, George,as a semi-agnostic, that the whole point of agnosticism is its lack of belief. It either = the impossibility of knowing or the inability to decide. Personally, I would like to think that I base my beliefs on "evidence and logic", which I am told by an expert is the hallmark of rationalist empiricism. For example, I find the theory of natural selection wonderfully logical, and I think there is sufficient evidence for me to believe it. But if there is no evidence for a theory which requires me to believe something against "stupendously enormous" odds, and if the alternative theory seems to me equally unlikely, I will not be able to believe in either and will preserve my agnosticism. Theists will take the plunge and opt for design. Atheists will take the plunge, ridicule theists, and opt for chance. Perhaps that will help you to understand my dreadful blunder in thinking you were an atheist.
Definitions
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 08, 2008, 00:54 (5862 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: " For example, I find the theory of natural selection wonderfully logical, and I think there is sufficient evidence for me to believe it." - 'The sufficient evidence' is that we see varying changes in species as each individual species adapts to changing environmental challenges. We never see one species adapt into another, and the fossil record shows no evidence that it has happened in the way Darwin imagined. Science is still looking for proof that his proposal works. The so-called 'tree of life' illustrating common descent is only represented by the 'tips and nodes' that Gould refers to. It is a very incomplete tree, in part because of the tremendous jumps in the fossil record. Not to mention that homologous and analagous parts of organisms refuse to follow the tree. Hemoglobins and other biochemicals don't follow the tree either. Did natural selection create the tree?
Definitions
I've been fascinated by the various exchanges between dhw, George, David Turrell and Whitecraw. Some really meaty stuff. But I'd really like to know straight out where each of you stand ... not wishing to be nosy, but just to understand where you're coming from. Dhw has made his position very clear, he's a don't-know-cant-make-up-his-mind-er, which is also my position. - 1) George says he's not an atheist but a rationalist empiricist with atheist/agnostic views. An atheist is someone who believes there is no God. So it would be interesting to know a) if George does or doesnt believe there is no God, and b) in what way his views are agnostic. - 2) David Turrell says the odds against chance creating life are stupendously enormous and some supernatural force is the more likely explanation. (I found his different examples fascinating, by the way.) Does he believe in God? If so, what kind of God? - 3) Whitecraw thinks science will come up with all the answers (though as dhw pointed out, that's a theory in itself and it can't be falsified so its unscientific), so is he an atheist? - All I'm asking really is for a direct statement of what you all believe or don't believe., just as a clarification. But of course, no obligation.
Definitions
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 08, 2008, 15:45 (5861 days ago) @ Peter P
2) David Turrell says the odds against chance creating life are stupendously enormous and some supernatural force is the more likely explanation. (I found his different examples fascinating, by the way.) Does he believe in God? If so, what kind of God?< - Peter: I'm a former agnostic who did 15 years of reading books and articles on consmology, particle physics, Darwin, philosophic books, atheistic books. As a retired physician, I can read scientific journals and have done so. I did not use the Bible. I don't think much of organized religion. - I finally concluded there is a 'greater power' which I think is an embedded intelligence or consciousness in the universe, but also outside. That makes me, I have found out, a panentheist, I guess sort of in the mold of Einstein and Spinoza. I don't think our brain could have an emergent property like consciousness unless a universal consciousness already existed. There are studies in human species consciousness at Princeton U., by Rupert Sheldrake, and others. Very suggestive, I might add.
Definitions
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Wednesday, April 09, 2008, 16:43 (5860 days ago) @ Peter P
Since Peter P asks: 1) George says he's not an atheist but a rationalist empiricist with atheist/agnostic views. An atheist is someone who believes there is no God. So it would be interesting to know a) if George does or doesnt believe there is no God, and b) in what way his views are agnostic. I will reply, though I've a feeling I've said all this before. - (1) I start out by being a rationalist empiricist, that is to say someone who bases their beliefs on logic and empirical knowledge, i.e. evidence, simply because I don't think there is any other reliable method. I accept current scientific knowledge as being soundly based on this method. (2) I'm an agnostic only in the sense that nothing can be known with absolute certainty. So this doesn't mean much. It just allows me to keep an open and sceptical outlook where evidence may be inadequate, and keeps me from being overly dogmatic. (3) I'm an atheist in the sense that I find the evidence for lack of supernatural input sufficiently overwhelming, and the theories developed in support of such ideas logically incoherent. But should evidence come to light of sufficient weight, I could change my mind. - In short I come from a pretty orthodox science background.
Definitions
David Turell has referred to my statement that there is sufficient evidence for me to believe in natural selection. He agrees that this works on the level of adaptation to the environment, but not on the level of one species turning into another, and he asks if I think natural selection created the 'tree of life' "illustrating common descent". - I had the impression that you and I were in agreement on this problem, but maybe not, so let me try to break my own beliefs down into their constituent parts. I can well believe that life began with simple forms (possibly bacteria). If this is so, then obviously it follows that more complex forms evolved from them. I accept the theory of natural selection when it = the survival of those organisms best able to cope with their environment. As you say, organisms adapt, and those features that are advantageous will be passed on. My problem, second in line to the origin of life itself and reiterated many times on this website, is mutations. These can only take place in individual organisms, or maybe a group of organisms within the same environment. Every "advance" from bacterium to human (advance in the sense of additional complexity, not necessarily of efficiency ... see whitecraw) will have been produced by mutations: totally new concepts and mechanisms such as vision, hearing, smell, limbs, sexual reproduction, consciousness etc., with all the necessary links through an evolved nervous system to an evolved brain. - It's a point we keep coming back to: the difficulty of believing that original forms and systems could emerge by chance from nowhere. Although the alternative of design raises huge problems of its own, that does not make the chance theory any easier to believe. So we are left with a massive question mark: if the starting point is bacteria and we take humans as a point of comparison, and if we accept that evolution (= mutations plus natural selection) led from one to the other, over no matter how many billions of years, what is the source of the inventive power to produce each of the innovations? The alternative answers as I see them are: 1) the original forms of life and all the subsequent mutations were random acts caused by chemical reactions and environmental factors; 2) the original forms of life were programmed with the potential for all the subsequent changes; 3) the subsequent changes were manipulated by an outside intelligence. You have asked: "Did natural selection create the tree"? Not according to my understanding. The tree may have been created by mutations, each of which was then subject to natural selection, but the mechanism driving the sheer creativity of these mutations is far beyond my comprehension.
Definitions
by David Turell , Thursday, April 10, 2008, 15:37 (5859 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: "You have asked: "Did natural selection create the tree"? Not according to my understanding. The tree may have been created by mutations, each of which was then subject to natural selection, but the mechanism driving the sheer creativity of these mutations is far beyond my comprehension." - The tree, which is an invention of science, is a result of the effects of natural selection. That is really the point I was making. The 'tree' does not 'advance' without the effects of selection, removing the less effective results of change in the organisms. The stronger organisms then become a majority of a species and the species is more successful. The mystery comes from the fact that most beneficial mutations are recessive. Two organisms must have the same recessive mutation, then must meet each other and mate. One must assume that the same mutation appears multiple times so that some chance at proper mating occurs. One theory I have seen is that a species will do better at this if isolated, which I guess follows the thought that in isolation there will be less competition and more chance for successful mating. As I have stated before, if Darwin knew all of this, I doubt he would have been so convinced his theory might work.
Definitions
by Cary Cook , Tuesday, May 27, 2008, 01:19 (5813 days ago) @ George Jelliss
DEFINITIONS is one area where we can be of great use to each other. I hope to plagiarize some of yours, and you're all welcome to mine. I am confident that you will find flaws in mine, and hope you will bombard me with corrections & additions. http://www.sanityquestpublishing.com/ConceptClarifier.html
Definitions
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Sunday, June 28, 2009, 12:37 (5415 days ago) @ George Jelliss
In dhw's most recent post in the James Le Fanu thread the terms "materialism" and "abiogenesis" come up, and it occurs to me that they need some reexamining. So I thought it might be as well to revisit this old thread. - Materialism. - First it is necessary to realise that this term is often used in the pejorative sense of "consumerism", or living a life without "higher values" such as are described as "ethical" or "spiritual". This is not the sense used here, but it is liable to colour people's thinking with emotive tinges. - Second, people who describe atheists as "materialists" generally mean that they have a picture of the universe as comprised of material objects like atoms and molecules, and suppose that attributes such as mind and consciousness are phenomena of the motion and interconnection of these material particles. - This is sound enough as far as it goes, but modern physics makes the distinction between material and immaterial more difficult to maintain in this nineteenth century sense. If the Higgs Boson is discovered at CERN then it will provide an explanation for the phenomenon of mass, which is the measurable quantity by which we determine whether something is material. - However much of nature as now understood by physics and cosmology is expressed in immaterial terms such as energy and information. So how does modern "materialism" differ from other more metaphysical ideas? I think it is less clear. This is not however to equate the immaterial with the spiritual. - Abiogenesis - In the sense used by dhw "a-bio-genesis" is taken to mean the supposed genesis (first appearance) of life (bio) from non-life (a-bio). I looked the word up in Chambers Dictionary and see that it ascribes the origin of the term to T. H. Huxley in 1870, who also coined "agnostic". The same dictionary defines "biogenesis" as "the generation of living things from living things only". So it seems that there is an inbuilt bias to both these terms. - I would prefer to have a term for "the origin of life" that was scientifically neutral, not presuming that it's origin is purely material, or purely organic or involved some other scenario, such as involving divine, spiritual or metaphysical input. From etymological consideration, "biogenesis" would seem to be the correct neutral term. The theory of "origin of life from life" would seem to be a contradiction in terms, since it supposes that life has always existed and had no origin in time. Creationism should I suppose be called something like "theobiogenisis".
--
GPJ
Definitions
George has revisited the terms "materialism" and "abiogenesis". - This is a brilliant post, George, and highlights just how difficult it is for us all to communicate. Language is an inadequate instrument, but it's the best we've got. - I'll take "abiogenesis" first. You say you would prefer a term for "origin of life" that was scientifically neutral. I don't think that's a problem ... "origin of life" will surely do perfectly well. The difficulty in our discussions is to find a term that means the spontaneous origin of life without the intervention of a designer. "Abiogenesis" fits the bill so long as we all know what we're talking about, but it has caused confusion in the past. The forerunner of "abiogenesis" was "spontaneous generation", but I remember you objecting to that when I used it many moons ago. One alternative is to keep repeating: "The Theory that Life Sprang Spontaneously from Non-Life without the Intervention of a Designer", but it's a bit of a mouthful! Any other suggestions? - When I use "materialism", it is not of course meant pejoratively, but only in the philosophical sense that physical matter is the only reality. However, you say "modern physics makes the distinction between material and immaterial more difficult to maintain in this nineteenth century sense". And modern physics and cosmology use "immaterial terms such as energy and information". You go on to ask "how does modern "materialism" differ from other more metaphysical ideas? I think it is less clear." Although you're careful to stress that this doesn't equate the immaterial with the spiritual, it seems to me that these ideas bring the physical and the spiritual much closer together. What does "spiritual" mean? It's just a word to indicate those elements of our nature that we can't pin down to the purely physical. I know how sceptical you are about so-called psychic phenomena, but even if we just stick with phenomena that we all acknowledge ... like consciousness, will, emotion, imagination ... perhaps we can find common ground in terms of unknown forms of energy. As regards terminology in general, though, unless we create our own neologisms, I'm not sure that we can do better than define what we mean by the old words and continue the discussion from there. - Theobiogenesis for Creationism? This could be fun, but if biogenesis = life from life, shouldn't Creationism be theoabiogenesis? And in that case, maybe the atheist theory could be atheoabiogenesis!
Definitions
by David Turell , Monday, June 29, 2009, 14:57 (5414 days ago) @ dhw
When I use "materialism", it is not of course meant pejoratively, but only in the philosophical sense that physical matter is the only reality. However, you say "modern physics makes the distinction between material and immaterial more difficult to maintain in this nineteenth century sense". - Physical matter is not the only reality. The quantum level underlies everything as I think George was inferring.This article on the attempt at quantum computing demonstrates: - http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090628/full/news.2009.603.html