The Improbability of God (page 2)

JanH

IW,

My point is, mankind may be harming his natural ability to evolve a better, more perfect immune system by applying these quick fixes. Scientists who believe in evolution should have faith enough in it to trust that natural selection is the better way to go rather than thwarting this process by using immunization which saves the individual but does not produce a better, stronger species.

Humans are far more complex, and evolve slower, than the microbes that attack us. Remember that evolution works equally well for all organisms, so the arms race between predator and prey can go on for millions of years. Microbes have come darned near wiping us out earlier, and it's far from impossible that they can still get the upper hand one day. Our first and last line of defence if and when that happens is modern science.

Scientists who know about evolution knows it is a natural force with as little moral or foresight as gravity. Evolution works, but not to make our lives better. It simply treats us as survival machines for our genes. It doesn't work for the best of the individual nor for the best of the species. It works to propagate genes.

Around 1600, life expectany for a human being was around 20. Around 1900, it had increased to around 40 in the western world. Today, in our parts of the world, it is 80. This is due to progress in technology, medicine, food production and sanitary conditions, all results of science. Nobody who understands anything about evolution will believe any such progress could be made through biological evolution.

And yes, contrary to what you say, fighting nature is the only way to stay alive. Nature tries to kill you constantly. The day you are in "balance with nature" is the day your body is consumed by earthworms and microbes. To argue that scientists do us a disservice by saving lives is ludicruous.

- Jan
--
The believer is happy. The doubter is wise.

JanH

gravedancer,

While on the subject genetic enginnering (man tinkering with with genes) is the same as natural selection from my way of thinking.

Except that it is unnatural selection. Essentially, humans have done "unnatural selection" of domestic animals for millennia, so that is not new. Of course, genetic engineering opens up a range of new possibilities, along with a few pitfalls.

- Jan
--
The believer is happy. The doubter is wise.

gravedancer

Janh,

Since we are part of nature...then it remains "natural selection" ;-)

IslandWoman

To argue that scientists do us a disservice by saving lives is ludicruous.

Jan,

That was not my argument. My argument was that many scientists strongly advocate evolution as the producer of the world as we know it, but while extolling the greatness of the evolutionary process they in effect will not chance that process. They will not put their money where their mouth is. Any abnormality is termed a birth defect. The drive is to limit these defects, not allow them to freely increase with the possibility of producing a further step in the evolutionary process.

I agree it sounds stupid. Leaving to chance the survival of mankind in the face of so many unknowns, microbial and otherwise is dumb. Allowing birth defects to florish in the hopes that one in a trillion will be beneficial is ridiculous.

But that is the very process that according to many scientists has produced the world we live in.

You're right it is ludicrous.

IW

P.S.

Microbes have come darned near wiping us out earlier, and it's far from impossible that they can still get the upper hand one day. Our first and last line of defence if and when that happens is modern science.

Perhaps microbes will survive us because they are the fittest, and that is how it should be.

funkyderek

Perhaps microbes will survive us because they are the fittest, and that is how it should be

IslandWoman, it's fairly clear that you don't understand evolutinary theories. There's no "should" involved. There's no ultimate purpose. Organisms survive and reproduce according to the instructions in their DNA. Organisms that are good at surviving are more likely to survive. Whether their survival is "good" in any moral or ethical sense is irrelevant. There's no direction or purpose. An adaptation that benefits an individual is likely to propagate through the species over time. Those that harm the individual are likely to die out. Because most species become well adapted to their environments over time, any rapid change in the environment can lead to the decimation or total extinction of the species, as has happened many times in our planet's history.

Humans are unique in that, unlike other animals, we can in effect, "see around the corner." We can anticipate the future and do not live at the mercy of our genes. As, in most people's opinion, the survival of humanity is important, we take steps to ensure our species' survival (and the survival of individuals). We even take steps to ensure the survival of other species. We are part of nature and of evolution, but our large evolved brains allow us to circumvent natural processes that could harm us.

Understanding genetics allows us to live longer, healthier lives. Most scientists think that's a good thing. Evolution is like weather or gravity. It shapes the world we live in, but we still try -rightly in my opinion - to avoid its negative effects.

--
"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794.

JanH

IW,

You keep repeating the same ridiculous claims, just stated in different ways.

My argument was that many scientists strongly advocate evolution as the producer of the world as we know it, but while extolling the greatness of the evolutionary process they in effect will not chance that process.

What you fail to understand is that human beings and the blind force of evolution have different goals. How many times must I repeat it for you to realize that your "argument" is stupid?

I agree it sounds stupid. Leaving to chance the survival of mankind in the face of so many unknowns, microbial and otherwise is dumb. Allowing birth defects to florish in the hopes that one in a trillion will be beneficial is ridiculous.
But that is the very process that according to many scientists has produced the world we live in.
You're right it is ludicrous.

In fact, if your objective is to produce counter-arguments against evolution, you have just shot yourself in the foot. Defects, pain, disease and death are tragic facts of life to all organisms. This is precisely because we are created by blind forces, not the benevolent "god" that wishful thinkers have dreamed up.

- Jan
--
The believer is happy. The doubter is wise.

IslandWoman

Jan,

I have understood and agreed with much of what you have posted on this thread.

In my ever so faulty mind, evolution is ridiculous and deserves no more than a tongue in cheek "dance" around the room. To say the world that teems with life, living organisms in balance with one another, was "created by blind forces", is not logical.

I apologize for the "dance".

IW

JanH

In my ever so faulty mind, evolution is ridiculous

What is ridiculous is to reject facts based on what it at best personal intuition and at worst religiously inspired prejudices. Both are worthless on such questions. Intuition is useless for such questions because it is based on our everyday experiences that simply do not help us to understand what is far removed in time, scale or space. Religion is useless since the people who created these old religions were extremely ignorant about the natural world, even compared to what an adolescent is expected to know today to graduate from high school.

This is what Dawkins called "the argument from personal incredulity", aka "I don't understand it, therefor it can't be." You have already demonstrated you know pitifully little about evolutionary science. Yet you dismiss it out of hand. What more do you dismiss that you know nothing about? Nuclear physics? Quantum mechanics? Perhaps Math?

- Jan
--
The believer is happy. The doubter is wise.

funkyderek

living organisms in balance with one another

Like the smallpox and AIDS viruses? IslandWoman, it's one thing not to understand evolution, it can be complicated and counter-intuitive, but to refuse to understand things that have been patiently , repeatedly and clearly explained to you makes you look stupid, rather than just ignorant.

--
"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794.

IslandWoman

Jan,

I respect you, I really do. That's one of the few things around here that IW follows along with the crowd on. :)

Religion is useless since the people who created these old religions were extremely ignorant about the natural world

I agree! But how about a logical belief in God? Not a belief in any religion but just God, a creator. Why is that illogical?

IW

The Improbability of God

Share this