Stu wrote: Most Darwinian scientists think the evolutionary process is devoid of purpose. Here is a sample. Douglas Futuyma in his book Evolutionary Biology says: Monroe W. Strickberger, of the University of Missouri-St. Louis, notes in his widely-used textbook Evolution: The book Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine and Kenneth R. Miller, says on page 152: George Gaylord Simpson, the leading neo-Darwinist a generation ago, claimed: According to the National Association of Biology Teachers, evolution has no direction or goal including the survival of a species: Cambridge Paleontologist Simon Conway Morris says: Richard Dawkins says:
Stu wrote: Do you deny that Darwinists use dysteleology arguments against design? Why are these arguments being invoked if it's not to prove that there is no evidence of purpose in nature?
stu, you got kudos from the King of Evasion. You should feel proud. I'm only surprised that he didn't post a picture of a pink bunny smelling its own finger, which used to be his standard response when he ran out of excuses.
"Does evolution have a structure, an overall design, perhaps even a purpose? Orthodox opinion recoils from this prospect. Evolution, it is widely believed, is an effectively random process where almost any outcome is possible. --------------------- Actually, many current contributors to evolution hypotheses think it is likely that humans have affected the rate of their own evolution. There are bound to be many constraints, both chemical and thermodynamic in addition to natural selection, on evolutionary processes. So even though random occurrences may lead to an evolutionary event, many conceivable outcomes would be precluded by these constraints and would therefore have a very low, virtually zero, probability. The number of possible outcomes at each step would be quite limited, but over many steps there could wide variance. Also, it is highly unlikely that there was a single origin of life on this planet. There is good evidence of multiple origins, possibly a very large number. This could explain speciation.
survival is for the purpose of the quest... the quest to know... to know what can be known for a practical end... and that can only be what is "causal"/"sequential" in some shape or form, although we are able to perceive the "non-causal" out there... and will attempt to tame it, shape it, get around it... for we are expressions of causality... questing itself is a causal mechanism, an attempt at connecting dots... causality is the essence of all life... mutations are random and survival of mutant species obey fitness rules but there will come a time when mutations are predominantly self-engineered from the macroscopic level (as well?)... we humans have already started that process around us 13,000 years ago or so by selecting and selectively improving a handful of crops, and similarly with a handful of mammals, as a prelude to re-engineering our selves... we may not be the first ones to do so, there is no reason to believe we are, i for one don't believe we are, although we may well be... but we know that our choice is either to be the engineers of this universe "around" us, or to be re-engineered, or de-engineered... to the extent there is a "choice"... but if only as a figure of speech... and as for all principles causality will expand (grow) its realm in every imaginable dimension via knowing and shaping to its own image until it hits a wall if there is one... we simply are one of causality's vessels, fingers, an arm perhaps, or even causality itself... eternally probing and meant to do so... in the dark... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Ching fear not, my friend... peace
Tele, You have everything there from the acknowledgement of purpose, to talks of special purpose, to ID'erss in biologists' clothing shouting no purpose. Miscovery Destitute's ID/Creationism Archives must be so full of confused out of context text snippets and disconnected articles, snatched out of any one's comments, that their own purpose is now illusrating both no purpose and purpose, along with "looks like" no design (in mud puddles) but "looks like" (intelligent) design in everything. Muddled and dishonest shenanigans , that's all it is. So it's really all to do with your insistence to refuse any other understanding of purpose, other than one coming about via a separate intent. Your argument swivels around a notion that things cannot have any purpose unless that purpose is a pre-planned intended one, by an outside agent. That is in straight contradiction and denial of all Natural events. Nature's purpose is on nature's terms, not yours. Where there is any serious meaningful examination taken of nature, Her purpose, in the biololgical process, is survival via nature's own means. Evolution. Bolting intelligent design onto everything and anything for no other reason than the groundless claim "it looks like" , against what has been found and confirmed time after time , generation after generation since Darwin, to be pupose by Nature's own means, is nothing more than a display of of human conceited arrogance on the part of ID'ers trying to palm the God card. The Natural Universe as revealed by modern science, contains more magnificent wonder, far more reason for reverence, than relious faith or any ID/Creationist has ever reached into.
Yes I refute that remark entirely and I don't believe you are being honest when you say "Darwinists" use it. You are totally discredited at this stage. It is seen how you make up any statement yourself and then attribute it to "Darwinists" or scientists. You take partitial text which actually says the opposite to what you state it does , but you still stand there declaring it doesn't. This is in the same league. Arguing no purpose = no design or conversely purpose = design, is no argument at all. It's just more ID/Creationist baseless conjecture.
Nik, Not sure its pride I feel. Kudos from EvaZzzer I imagine would be like the double whammy of being handed a 3 dollar bill by a counterfeiter.
"The Natural Universe as revealed by modern science, contains more magnificent wonder, far more reason for reverence, than relious faith or any ID/Creationist has ever reached into." Must be love...stupid has reverence for random ignorant chance which serves no purpose... Yes, oh yes, so gooey is that love, so much reverence for non designed lifeless mechanistic driven function...stupid should be writing sonnets of Shakespearean love to Ms. Natural Universe. Of course, this is the same bozo who when there is talk of God, he bitches about the pain and suffering of human life...love is blind. Oh well, now we know stupid has a purpose in life, to clinically observe a mindless "Natural Universe" (I would like very much to hear about the Unnatural Universe) and feel reverence for it. "Nature's purpose is on nature's terms, not yours. Where there is any serious meaningful examination taken of nature, Her purpose, in the biololgical process, is survival via nature's own means. Evolution." Of course, stupid has no clue what "Nature's" purpose is. Then he reveals his real position by this line: "Her purpose, in the biololgical process, is survival via nature's own means." Did anyone but me notice that nature is suddenly described by stupid as "Her?" Not it, but "Her" with a capital letter used to reference "Her." Is that love or what? Nature is a "Her" and not an it? Not a Him, not a Them, not God, but "Her"? Mother Nature? Mother Nature's son is stupid? Sounds to me like stupid worships Mother Nature...