Posts by Etude

85

Did Life Originate By Chance or Intelligent Design? Or is There a Third Option?

by JimmyPage in

jw
friends

when discussing the argument of how life originated the wt always boils it down to being chance vs. intelligent design.. no scientist in their right mind believes it happened by chance.

nor do most scientists believe that life is a product of god.. there is a solution that the wt completely ignores and that is... natural selection.. how many here who believe in a creator have honestly examined what natural selection really is?.

(i've been reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins and was very surprised when i came to the chapter that actually mentions the watchtower society's arguments for intelligent design.

Etude

NewChapter: Well, the point of "jumping" on Dawkins ideas is not new. In the research I gathered, I found lots of writers and scientists "jumping" on Dawkins and making all kinds of criticism for the way he employs his deductions. These people are not theists and I believe their aim is to correct an idea and to further a common cause, that of Evolution and Natural Selection.

You seem to be saying to me (and by inference to those other writers and scientist) to lay off poor Dawkins because he has done so much. I had some indication that a few of Dawkins critics are not just fellow scientists but also friends. The scientific discussion or disagreement, in my opinion, needs to be dispassionate. Their personal affection or camaraderie for Dawkins is irrelevant to their interpretation of science. And, they probably won't stop the criticism.

I'm not concern, since I've seen to it to be informed, whether the world will fall apart if one of Dawkins' ideas is proven wrong. I won't come apart if one of them is proven right either. In the former case, life will go on as usual and in the latter, I'll feel glad that my personal understanding has been adjusted to a more accurate interpretation. At least I will know the reasons why.

But, I disagree with you in one respect: Dawkins does have a quasi-apostolic following that borders on religious fervor. I'm not saying that anyone here has displayed that but, on an interview he did with Bill Maher, Dawkins spoke of a "convert" corner on his web site where people post testimonials of their turnaround from religion. His website sells T-shirts and Scarlet-A pendants, among other paraphernalia. Some of Dawkins' appearances resemble protestant revivals. I don't pay attention to much of that because Dawkins has also received the most vilest and heinous wishes and death threats I've ever seen; and from religious people.

Nevertheless, I find him one sided in his assessment that religion is at fault for everything. On thefirst page of the preface to his "Delusion" book he states: "Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian Partitions ...no Northern Ireland troubles...no persecution of Jews...no honour killings..." I would love that and think it possible if I lived on another planet. But what he fails to mention are the other things we can imagine the world without, like the Stalin's, the Pol Pot's of the world and other individuals and governments who killed millions without the benefit of religion. To top it off, he avoids to explain how this killing capability of the human animal is a necessary and discriminate result of Natural Selection as opposed to the effect of a religious delusion, which the atheist killers contradict. All of that is a matter for each of us to explore and really does not have any weight in our discussion.

Jeffro: Your point will continue to stand -- all by itself.

Terry : Sorry for not acknowledging you earlier. " The first thing I had to learn was that knowledge can be COUNTER-intuitive. The layman reliance on how things ought-to-be is naive and self-defeating. Strict adherence to facts and methodology is more revealing than any demand that things be the way we expect them to be. "

I think your friend is mostly right, but I object to the underlined phrase. What is a "layman"? In the context ofthe statement and your description of your friend, it sounds to me like the definition: one who is "not a professional". Given in that frame, I presume that your friend would agree that aside from Paleontology he is as naive and self-defeating in anything that remains. In that case, I would disagree with him. Just because he may not be able to work the intricacies of the financial markets, it doesn't mean he can't come to comprehend them and even use it to his advantage, without an Economics degree. That's a long way from Paleontology. That this is possible is why I like the last sentence of your citation. "Facts and methodology" are of great advantage to your friend and to you and me. They are not there to confirm our expectations. They are there to help us reach an end, whether that end is an answer or just a better question.

While it may have appeared so, I don't think I spoke much of Biology on this thread. I attempted to speak to a failure of process that requires a burden of proof. While I did study Logic and Mathematics, I don't think it was the fact that I studied that affords me any authority. It is the fact that I can think. So can other people, as my own experience shows, having known individuals with little formal education who have brilliant minds.

112

Are They Cynically Shutting Down The Organization?

by metatron in

jw
friends

i've raised this idea before but recent events seem to support it.

changes in the watchtower may be guided by more than a need for cash flow: they may simply be liquidating/shutting it down as discreetly as possible.. of course, this doesn't mean they stop working on their upstate ny country club - but it could mean that the throrough going exposure and disproof of their beliefs on the internet, when it emerged, took many of them by surprize, as it did many of us!

after awhile, they generally gave up trying to make any sense of their doctrines - and coupled with cash flow issues - moved towards a quiet retreat.. take a look at a few things:.

Etude

The saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" or "if it's working, don't screw with it" is indicative that it ain't working. They're changing because they have to. The prophesies and saintly structures they've built have come back to haunt them. I think somebody in there (the GB) knows they need to move in another direction.

I don't see the organization being strapped for cash. What I do see is that they realize that their contribution base has been notably reduced. They still have loads of money. They're getting leaner and meaner financially by divesting of property they no longer utilize. In a way, it is like any other business.

As I recall, even before the GB came into existence in the early 70s, some of the individuals who were the signatories and the legal representatives of the different corporations and organizations of the Jehovah's Witnesses (the International Bible Students Association, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania; the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc; Religious Order of Jehovah's Witnesses, New York; Kingdom Support Services, Inc., New York) included and/or now include individuals who were not of the anointed. My perception is that some of those people were chosen because they either had some business experience or had credentials that made them suitable to be signatories or legal representatives. I don't think that meant that the visible heads (either the presidents at one time nor the GB now) ever lost ultimate control. So, I don't think there's anyone behind the GB pulling strings.

But perhaps now, with the move to the GB as the FDS there may be a greater degree of control, even if they still use non-anointed or R&F individuals to represent them. For the Mormons, it's simple. You essentially become an "anointed" when you reach the higher echelon of "priesthood". Reaching the top layer or the highest order of their priesthood , the Melchizedek order, where I suspect the major shots are called from, is what I imagine would equate with the GB of JWs. It just seems that that kind of level is more attainable in the Mormon Church because to some degree the requirements can be identified. The GB selection is much more mysterious. The change is afoot. I think they see it. I think they're working on it.

85

Did Life Originate By Chance or Intelligent Design? Or is There a Third Option?

by JimmyPage in

jw
friends

when discussing the argument of how life originated the wt always boils it down to being chance vs. intelligent design.. no scientist in their right mind believes it happened by chance.

nor do most scientists believe that life is a product of god.. there is a solution that the wt completely ignores and that is... natural selection.. how many here who believe in a creator have honestly examined what natural selection really is?.

(i've been reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins and was very surprised when i came to the chapter that actually mentions the watchtower society's arguments for intelligent design.

Etude

bohm: Don't get hung up on Cosmology. I'm not. I never mentioned Cosmology per se and I'm not contending that Dawkins is an expert on Cosmology. Perhaps you're referring to my mention of one aspect of Cosmology, the Anthropic Principle, which I only mentioned because Dawkins uses it (as most that propose it) as an ultimate explanation for the derivation of the laws that govern Evolution and Natural Selection.

Q. " dawkins is wrong about the origin of natural laws (as far as i can tell thats your point of critique of dawkins). So what? "

A. Nothing. As long as you and other people realize it and don't think that because he wrote an interesting book ("The God Delusion" is a very interesting book as is "The Blind Watchmaker") that he is now a significant proponent of how Evolution and Natural Selection happened. Did you notice I didn't question whether "it" (Evolution or Natural Selection) happened? I also did not say that Dawkins is wrong on the origin of natural laws. There is no right or wrong about the "origin" of our natural laws because we just don't know why or how they came to be what they are. What I suggested is that if there's a question on how our natural laws work or that they even hold up, it's hasty to make some of the conclusions Dawkins makes. On this thread, the mention of Dawkins has been positive and I just wanted to balance the view by pointing out things that could make us think otherwise about the way life actually happened.

Jeffro: I think you misunderstand if, by my challenging what Dawkins or anyone says, it automatically means I'm for the "magic sky daddy". That's a pretty black-and-white view of things. Is there no room for some other option? Better yet, is there no room for no option? Are we really compelled to make a choice or simply concluded that we just don't know?

" Wilson says: I can live with not knowing for sure as long as I don’t stop seeking good answers or at least asking the right questions. "

Alas, that was not Wilson. That was me speaking in an excerpt from my book. I made no citation of Wilson (well, maybe a sentence fragment) and instead referenced and summarized his objections to Dawkins. That was but one example in my research about Dawkins' ideas. Here's another extract from my book which actually includes a citation in reference to Dawkins:

Carl Coon (an atheist and vice president of the American Humanist Association and author of several books) puts the dismissal of Group Selection, particularly by Dawkins, this way: “It was as though he had informed me that the American Association for the Advancement of Science had repealed the law of gravity.”

So when I find other legitimate writers and scientists object to Dawkins in this manner, that he may be wrong, saying "so what" is like sticking my head into the ground. Yes the kinks and controversies will be worked out. But until then, I prefer to keep an open mind and not accept conclusions that are not warranted. In case anyone missed it, that doesn't mean that an effect, like Natural Selection, is not real. What it means to me is that it's not legitimately justified based on a particular flawed explanation.

NewChapter:

A hypothesis (from Ancient Greek ?π?θεσις, from Greek ?ποτιθ?ναι – hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose," [1] plural hypotheses ) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis , the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and " theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory . A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research. [1]

If you look carefully, I never said that the (Dawkins') "hypothesis" was a limitation. I said that "there are limitations to our theories" (due to the scientific method). Before I get into "scientific theory", notice the highlighted text and realize why what Dawkins proposes is not a scientific hypothesis but an ordinary hypothesis (suggestion) which may not require the scientific burden of proof.

The argument Dawkins lays out in his book proposes lots of reasons for why we have religion and a common delusion, while at the same time explaining how some processes (like memes and Extended Phenotypes) are part of the Natural Selection process or of some process. Unfortunately, they (the ones I mentioned) can't be tested with the scientific method. What we have left are some interesting observations (I've already admitted that about the whole book). My impression has been in this thread that what Dawkins is proposing (his methods) has some sort of legitimacy. My contention has been that while interesting, it only rises to the level curios.

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment ." [1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force. [3][4]

Evolution is a work in progress because many aspects of it do not meet the burden of the definition above. But, many do. How do we, as lay individuals, note the difference? By at least questioning --no -- challenging some propositions the same way other scientists do. That's what I've been doing here when Dawkins' assertions seemed so passively accepted. This is exactly what happened with Darwin's other Theory of Pangenesis and Lamarck's Theory of Transmutation. They are completely discredited. Remarkably, we don't criticize the discreditors (other scientists) and say "so what" that Darwin and Lamarck were wrong in those instances.

" This idea may be trashed someday, or it may hold up. But that's how it works. "

I do hope you mean to say that the "trashing" or "hold[ing] up" of the idea is the way things work and not that while the idea remains, that is how the idea works (with the inference that since there's nothing better, we'll just go with it). In fact, I'm sure you meant the former and you are right. But, my particular attitude is that just because an idea is out there and even if it happens to be a particularly exciting one or somewhat advanced, that is not enough reason to accept it until the day comes when it's trashed because a better one came along. We should put the idea in doubt particularly if I have some reason to question it or question aspects of it.

For centuries, we held to Newton's view of the universe and the majority of people came to accept with absolute certainty that we had arrived at a reality about time, space and the laws that govern them. But not everyone accepted everything. Some did question. And the questions became so important and profound that demanded equally profound answers. All of that coalesced in Einstein. But it was not long after that Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg successfully challenged Einstein's ideas about the quantum. Today, notable people are challenging Einstein's Time Relativity equations in order to compensate for the theoretical Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

It's difficult to maintain a position of neutrality or even skepticism and not be pigeonholed into one position or another simply because I pose what to me are legitimate questions. I do think that either I'm not explaining myself correctly or I'm just being misunderstood. That is why I've persisted in this discussion. It's important for all of us to know if we really have the correct information, if we are at least pointing in the right direction, or if we have no business making unsustainable conclusions. At least, it's important for me. Even though it's been a great exercise, I'm ready to stick a fork in this one.

85

Did Life Originate By Chance or Intelligent Design? Or is There a Third Option?

by JimmyPage in

jw
friends

when discussing the argument of how life originated the wt always boils it down to being chance vs. intelligent design.. no scientist in their right mind believes it happened by chance.

nor do most scientists believe that life is a product of god.. there is a solution that the wt completely ignores and that is... natural selection.. how many here who believe in a creator have honestly examined what natural selection really is?.

(i've been reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins and was very surprised when i came to the chapter that actually mentions the watchtower society's arguments for intelligent design.

Etude

OK. Apart from the most fundamental problem about the explanation or meta-physics of our physical laws from which an occurrence of Evolution emanates, here are some notes and excerpts from my book on the holes in some of the arguments that seem to support the evolutionary process, particularly what Dawkins proposes. The main point is that the "holes" consist of missing processes that explain what is actually happening in the process of Natural Selection:

An article by David Sloan Wilson ( Beyond Demonic Memes: Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion ) takes Dawkins to task for not dealing with the evolutionary aspects of religion as is practiced by an increasing number of scientists and for Dawkins’ alternative theory of Extended Phenotype. While Wilson states that evolutionary biologists use “a number of hypotheses to study for a trait”, which I take it includes those that are not apparently advantageous (i.e. the peacock’s plumage or religion), he suggests that this provides a good framework for studying the role of religion in Natural Selection, something he says Dawkins fails to do. One thing I can conclude: they both can’t be right (or even someone else with a third opinion) and they are all wrong, or someone (one of them) is right.
The problem is that given the lack of certainty regarding how that Natural Selection process occurs, it seems unscientific to conclude that “it” indeed happened by the suggested manner. Wilson further explains the complexity of Natural Selection by stating that certain traits may not be the result of adaptation, or perhaps they were but are no longer necessary because we have surpassed their need. Yet, they remain. Then there’s the question that even if a trait is adaptive, one needs to determine if the adaptation is simple, complex or not even meant to favor the biological entity that has it (i.e. the evolutionary success of the Rhino virus which causes the common cold). That’s all well and good, but that’s a lot of “ifs” that are interesting yet hardly lead to certainty. That’s OK. I can live with not knowing for sure as long as I don’t stop seeking good answers or at least asking the right questions.
Beyond the brain “errors” that could cause God delusions, Dawkins suggests that there are other replicators, besides DNA, which may be better suited to perpetuate something like religion, namely memes. He defines memes as “units of cultural inheritance.” Besides being Dawkins’ own device, memology is controversial among other scientists, namely because a meme can be subjective, difficult to unitize and therefore hard to measure and study. While it appears to me to be a brilliant alternative for a replicating system, I can see the difficulty some individuals have determining what a meme constitutes. Could culture as a whole be considered a meme or could a component of culture, like the banality of the “wave” at baseball games or the more insidious racial bigotry, be a meme?
All of the above could certainly be candidates and would not pose a contradiction, if we looked upon them the right way. But that is precisely the problem some individuals have when trying to study memes. How does one measure and follow the replication aspects of elements in culture if one can’t really quantize them by a common arbiter? In addition, memes don’t map to genes. However, according to Dawkins, the replication process is either tied to or co-evolving with Natural Selection. How? Well, that’s not clearly demonstrated because of the difficulties associated in tracking and measuring memes and because we have no genetic markers as reference.
Dawkins further suggests that memes may survive in the meme pool (the memeplex) due to their own intrinsic merit (“absolute survival value”) or because of their compatibility with other memes in the memeplex. I suppose that the ideas of reincarnation and the immortality of the soul are two that Dawkins would approve as fitting this possibility. While he argues that the “absolute survival value” of a meme is enough to ensure its permanence, he does not clearly define what that means and instead suggests several things it may mean: that whatever it is, it would cause the meme to survive in any memeplex regardless of its surroundings; that a meme could only survive in terms of other memes, creating alternate memeplexes; that memes may be analogous to genetic complexes (complices?) such as a carnivorous genetic complex or a herbivorous genetic complex. Okie-dokie.

So, do you get the picture? His collegues disagree with him on several levels. But the main point is that in the barrage of suggestion regarding what could explain a meme, a memeplex or the replication of memes, there is no process or descrete steps to account for them. The "limitations" I'm referring to are defined by the conclusions one cannot legitimately make without a way to test or establish how they happen. That's how science is supposed to work.

112

Are They Cynically Shutting Down The Organization?

by metatron in

jw
friends

i've raised this idea before but recent events seem to support it.

changes in the watchtower may be guided by more than a need for cash flow: they may simply be liquidating/shutting it down as discreetly as possible.. of course, this doesn't mean they stop working on their upstate ny country club - but it could mean that the throrough going exposure and disproof of their beliefs on the internet, when it emerged, took many of them by surprize, as it did many of us!

after awhile, they generally gave up trying to make any sense of their doctrines - and coupled with cash flow issues - moved towards a quiet retreat.. take a look at a few things:.

Etude

I had no idea flipper could talk with the dead.

112

Are They Cynically Shutting Down The Organization?

by metatron in

jw
friends

i've raised this idea before but recent events seem to support it.

changes in the watchtower may be guided by more than a need for cash flow: they may simply be liquidating/shutting it down as discreetly as possible.. of course, this doesn't mean they stop working on their upstate ny country club - but it could mean that the throrough going exposure and disproof of their beliefs on the internet, when it emerged, took many of them by surprize, as it did many of us!

after awhile, they generally gave up trying to make any sense of their doctrines - and coupled with cash flow issues - moved towards a quiet retreat.. take a look at a few things:.

Etude

I've sometimes pictured that the religious structure Mormons built, while at times reputed to have had things like secret henchmen and even assassination squads, has coalesced into a group of people at the top who run things as a "special" type of business. They have come to believe their own place as saints and are therefore self-justified in the decisions they make. I don't think they view themselves as a cabal.

They have come to totally believe and embrace their ideology, fulfilling their own expectations. That's why it seems so difficult to unentrench their views. They really believe in all they do and they have ways of justifying it. They don't sit or see themselves as perpetrating an organizational hoax or are necessarily aware (or even consider) a different impact their decisions may have on someone else. If there are any bad consequences, they can justify that too.

I can see that there are a few things that the JWs can do to morph their position into something more overreaching. They can first develop and promote a view that would allow members to express their own opinions without directly challenging the organization. There was a parallel but different move a few years ago with the idea that one could forgive one-self after committing a sin because the matter was between you and Jehovah. I forget what they used to call that but I think it was "self reprove".

With something like differences of opinion in place without criticism of the organization, they'd be able to maintain adherents and even attract reluctant ones. The "fellowship" bond would be maintained. Within that framework, it would be possible for some people to interpret going to college as a worthwhile thing. The organization could simply remain silent about it. When I filed as a conscientious objector, I heard all kinds of things that you could or could not do. Some brothers had elected alternative service without any loss of favor. For other's alternative service was tantamount to some sort of loyalty or obedience to the government. The JWs have been known to have different interpretations on some matters (sigh). A simple attitude adjustment could let the prevailing zeitgeist endure if they just stop meddling and nitpicking on every action people make.

After about a generation, they could actually achieve individuals within their ranks that could have the credentials and business weight to be influential, just like the Mormons.

85

Did Life Originate By Chance or Intelligent Design? Or is There a Third Option?

by JimmyPage in

jw
friends

when discussing the argument of how life originated the wt always boils it down to being chance vs. intelligent design.. no scientist in their right mind believes it happened by chance.

nor do most scientists believe that life is a product of god.. there is a solution that the wt completely ignores and that is... natural selection.. how many here who believe in a creator have honestly examined what natural selection really is?.

(i've been reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins and was very surprised when i came to the chapter that actually mentions the watchtower society's arguments for intelligent design.

Etude

bohm: No. Here's where you miss the point: I'm not, repeat, am not insisting that there's a failure somewhere in the mainstream scientific thinking. I'm insisting that mainstream scientific thinking realizes and admits that there are limitations to our theories and therefore (pay attention now), it is not right for some proponents like Dawkins to make assertions that mainstream scientific thinking does not promote. He can wax prosaically all day long about what happens and it won't make any difference to the weakness of his conclusions. It's not about liking Dawkins on any particular subject. It's about accepting whether or not a proposal is sound and derivative of evidence, regardless of whether or not Dawkins agrees or disagrees.

85

Did Life Originate By Chance or Intelligent Design? Or is There a Third Option?

by JimmyPage in

jw
friends

when discussing the argument of how life originated the wt always boils it down to being chance vs. intelligent design.. no scientist in their right mind believes it happened by chance.

nor do most scientists believe that life is a product of god.. there is a solution that the wt completely ignores and that is... natural selection.. how many here who believe in a creator have honestly examined what natural selection really is?.

(i've been reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins and was very surprised when i came to the chapter that actually mentions the watchtower society's arguments for intelligent design.

Etude

sizemik: I'm happy to agree to disagree as well. But mainly, I was considering Dawkins' work ("The God Delusion") as a whole to ascribe to him how time after time he makes the same conclusions from interesting propositions without demonstrating what he claims is the Darwinian Imperative. He says:

"Knowing that we are products of Darwinian evolution, we should ask what pressure or pressures exerted by natural selection originally favoured the impulse to religion. The question gains urgency from standard Darwinian considerations of economy. Religion is so wasteful, so extravagant; and Darwinian selection habitually targets and eliminates waste. Nature is a miserly accountant, grudging the pennies, watching the clock, punishing the smallest extravagance...If an animal habitually performs some useless activity, natural selection will favour rival individuals...But my preoccupation in this chapter is with Darwinian ultimate explanations. If neuroscientists find a 'god centre' in the brain, Darwinian scientists like me will want to understand the natural selection pressure that favoured it." The God delusion, pages 163, 166, 167

I just don't see that he clearly demonstrates the Darwinian process via which these "impulses" came to be so pervasive in humanity.

85

Did Life Originate By Chance or Intelligent Design? Or is There a Third Option?

by JimmyPage in

jw
friends

when discussing the argument of how life originated the wt always boils it down to being chance vs. intelligent design.. no scientist in their right mind believes it happened by chance.

nor do most scientists believe that life is a product of god.. there is a solution that the wt completely ignores and that is... natural selection.. how many here who believe in a creator have honestly examined what natural selection really is?.

(i've been reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins and was very surprised when i came to the chapter that actually mentions the watchtower society's arguments for intelligent design.

Etude

bohm: " And its a moot point to point out science do not provide a complete account of reality; ofcouse it does not, everyone is aware of that. "

I understand that in a sense, it seems an obvious conclusion of Science. But unfortunately, it seems to me that due to its patent obviousness, its significance is ignored. It becomes the big elephant in the lab nobody wants to talk about. I just went through this exercise and I feel like my head is about to explode. It was covered on this thread: Re: REALITY may not be what you think .

My experience with Science is that, the more we learn the less we know. This is why it's important to ask the hard questions. We challenge theism by asking who made God and who made him who made God and so on, or simply say that He always existed. Once we believed that the universe had always existed, a no less privileged proposition. Now we have established its age and have gone on to asking what was before it came into being. That there are no forthcoming answers does not mean we should stop asking or that we should jump on the most convenient band wagon for comfort.

Clearly, as I stated right after your post (4745) (our posts got crossed), the type of faith that allows us to accept Einstein's field equations is not what they justify in church. But it is a contention of many physicists that there are instances where the application of Einstein's field equations and the physical laws associated with them simply break down and have no meaning, particularly at the nanoscopic level, rendering matter to statistical chaos. How then do we trust that the laws are uniform and really are universal? How can we account that those laws are responsible for the world we live in (including Abiogenesis and Evolution) if we can't explain their "exceptions"? We either have to find a different framework or revise our previous conclusions. We have done that many times, most notable since Isaac Newton.

85

Did Life Originate By Chance or Intelligent Design? Or is There a Third Option?

by JimmyPage in

jw
friends

when discussing the argument of how life originated the wt always boils it down to being chance vs. intelligent design.. no scientist in their right mind believes it happened by chance.

nor do most scientists believe that life is a product of god.. there is a solution that the wt completely ignores and that is... natural selection.. how many here who believe in a creator have honestly examined what natural selection really is?.

(i've been reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins and was very surprised when i came to the chapter that actually mentions the watchtower society's arguments for intelligent design.

Etude

bohm: To answer your question a briefly as possible: Science doesn't work that way. It is the venue of science to explain, via a verification process, that what we observe, believe or postulate is true. If we can't trust and abide by that method, then each of us is free to conclude anything we want.

The long answer to "why is that 'mere acceptance (scientific faith)' a good way to summarize that" is that, 1) I don't know. I'm simply stating that to me it makes sense that someone in-the-know would put it that way and that as a physicist, he's in a good position to questions our "mere acceptance" of physical laws. 2) It is indeed correct that we simply do not know yet. That's the very reason I tend to take Dawkins explanations with a grain of salt. The fundamentals aren't there yet. That doesn't mean there aren't any. But with our limited knowledge come limited answers. Any conclusions we make beyond what can be positively established is probably influenced by our own desire for it to be so.

For example: Dawkins suggests that one of the reasons individuals have a propensity towards "religion" is due to an innate sense of "trust", which is critical in the development of children. This, according to Dawkins, makes them "primed" for absorbing societal and religious teachings which can be manipulated by religion. He parallels this to the moth instinct for navigation by the light of the moon and stars which also cause it to fly into a burning fire. The problem is that, while the comparison is clever indeed, the known traits of moths' (and other species') navigation capabilities are clearly embedded in genetics while the same, at least the sense of "trust", cannot be plainly demonstrate genetically in humans.

His "misapplication" of such traits is what leads to negative results, like religion. He makes the same argument about "dualism". He says that we are all born "dualists" with the ability to think of "other", such as an imaginary playmate. That also sets us up for the "otherness" of religion. So to him, religion is a by-product of errors in specific "modules" that are misdirected. The problem is that this is contrary to his assertion that Natural Selection is "ruthlessly efficient". Above all, he describes no experiment via which this can be established.