Creationism seems to be the Watchtower doctrine that a lot of ex-JWs find the most difficult to get over.
If anybody actually manages to bring evidence against the fact of evolution a Nobel Prize awaits.
Another Professor Renounces Darwinism
by Sea Breeze 32 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
LoveUniHateExams
He gives an anecdote on how hard it would be to create just one new protein by chance — "the odds are so astronomical that there are fewer atoms in the entire universe in comparison: “The odds bury you. It can’t be done.” - this is essentially Watchtower's 'argument':
1. Ignore the fossil evidence that supports natural selection occurring over geological time.
2. Say how long the odds are over complex molecules developing (this is actually whataboutery - pretend to debate evolution but then switch to talking about biogenesis at the first available opportunity).
NB - a computer scientist is an expert in the field of computers only. His or her opinions on evolution carry about as much weight as my opinions on art.
The theory of evolution is out there to be criticised legitimately. Any biologist who is successful will be awarded a Nobel prize and much more.
-
Half banana
He may be a professor of computing (a strictly mechanistic endeavour), he may be rattled by the mockery dealt out by life scientists towards creationism and its followers-- but he is not qualified to pontificate on the subject of evolution.
How can a dentist denounce architecture or a plumber be qualified to decry psychiatry?
This guy renouncing Darwin is not news! It is a symptom of human desperation in an uncaring universe. It is only news if your private version of reality must have a god in it, if you are one of the declining number who cannot live without belief in an invisible supercharged father figure to get you through.
Creationism is merely a belief based on a literal take of ancient manuscripts. They were written by people who knew no science at all. Just beliefs, hunches which carry an emotional bubble to support your mindset.
Evolution is a scientific fact determined by the evidence. This comes from many sources, palaeontology, geology, biology, genetics etc but not computer science. In one hundred and sixty years no one has found a fundamental flaw in Darwin's great idea. By contrast God and creationism are products of the human imagination.
If you have evidence to the contrary we would all be pleased to hear it.
-
slimboyfat
Evolution seems to make the best sense of the evidence that we have and to the extent that we are able to evaluate it. But a deeper question is why we suppose that we are able to gather and make objectively true statements about reality. Those who think that human rationality is the ultimate guide to truth need to do better than respond by saying, “that’s a stupid question”. And it shows there’s a real problem there that that’s the answer we get. It’s the same kind of dismissal of criticism of the church in the Middle Ages.
What if the church has got it wrong? Heretic!
What if our perception doesn’t correspond to reality? Don’t be stupid!
Neither is a real answer to the question and is unsatisfactory,
In fact it seems we can go further than simply saying there are grounds for doubt about our perception of reality. Donald Hoffman argues that evidence is mounting that evolution has resulted in a cognitive system that does NOT perceive reality as it really is.
-
Vidiot
Another facet to consider...
...if smoking-gun evidence for creationism actually existed, it would have been revealed by now...
...because of the absolute SHIT-TON of money to be made.
Think about it...
...financial support for evangelical ministries and megachurches would go through the fucking roof.
-
cofty
Those who think that human rationality is the ultimate guide to truth need to do better than respond by saying, “that’s a stupid question”. - SBF
Yes it is. Observe the astonishing progress since the enlightenment.
Facts, evidence, reason, rationality works - The End.
And yet another science thread is dragged through the mire of postmodern bullshit.
-
Pete Zahut
It's easier for some to believe that because of the complexities of the earth and it's inhabitants, it would be impossible for it to have gotten here without being created by a complex, almighty and powerful god. Even though they believe he has always existed and had no creator, himself. -
slimboyfat
That science works is not in dispute. Something does not need to be true in order to work. Newtonian physics for example “worked” but was apparently not “true”. Will the same one day be said about Darwinian evolution? That’s the point you don’t address.
In fact it is the very argument that Hoffman makes: we have evolved or survival, not for truth. Our beliefs and perceptions are shaped by what has enabled our ancestors to survive and reproduce, not by their approximation to world as it exists in itself. This is an inconvenient “fact” for those who have a naïve realist view of the world, but it doesn’t simply go away by calling it stupid.
-
MeanMrMustard
I find it odd that a computer scientist would “deny” evolution. The process of evolution is an algorithm. There is a division of computer science dedicated to “genetic algorithms”. These are algorithms that are evolved with the process of natural selection, applied over “generations”, shapes by a “fitness” criteria. NP-hard problems, such as the traveling salesman problem, can be solved with genetic algorithms. What’s interesting is that these algorithms are not “perfect”, but tend to be very efficient.
The “evolving” process is a precursor back propagation algorithms that train neural networks.
-
cofty
Newtonian physics for example “worked” but was apparently not “true”.
Yes it is. It just isn't the complete picture but for macro objects it is true. No scare quotes required.
In a million years of progress it will still be a fact that extant species descended from earlier common ancestors by evolution.
Jerry Coyne describes Hoffman's prognostications as ".. a mess, and seems a bit like a gemisch of quantum woo, evolutionary misunderstandings, and postmodernism."
There is a huge market for po-mo obfuscation, obscurantism and woo woo.