“This argument is amusing and seductive, but for all I know, the Lord may be laughing over it and leading me down the garden path.” – Albert Einstein in a letter to a friend
A theory that addresses the object ‘science’ in this sentence but not the object ‘Lord’ is lacking.
Is there determinism without a purpose? Give me an example in Nature.
All of it.
Obsrvr is inherently stupid as demonstrated by this post.
Obsrvr,
You are not stupid. What do you wish to say about design in evolution?
I find evolution deterministic and creative. We owe to it as we are all involved in it.
I have had God experiences so I know God exists for everyone regardless of their personal beliefs to the contrary.
But this thread is not about me. It’s about purposeful design in Nature and how that implies a creator.
Michael Behe was scoffed at by other scientists because he found instances in nature of “irreducible complexities”. Some scientists seem to forget that Darwinian evolution is theory. That at present it has not been refuted does not mean it never will be.
He wants to get a room with you!!
And also it sort of has been. No scientist uses Darwin as a reference. Even though some general concepts he laid out are still mainly what are used today, too much of his actual theory has been refuted and replaced for imperfections and oversights that are part of the normal course of scientific theoretical progress.
If Darwin read “The Selfish Gene,” he would have an aneurysm.
Darwin is more of a symbolic figurehead.
Rubbish.
Darwinism is used throughout science, not just biology, but computer science, neurology and more.
Examples can be found in anthrolpology, sociology, even psychology.
Darwin changed everything.
I know you feel very strongly that it is true.
I wonder what Darwin would have thought of the modern synthesis (Julian Huxley) or of Stephen. J Gould’s '“punctuated equilibrium”, revisions of the early theory, mostly in light of Mendel’s findings on genetics.
Deep within existential awareness lie clues to the secrets of evolution. These clues are of a designer. Most atheists I have met neglect these clues in favor of attacks on religious fundamentalism, attacks that stem from personal problems with religion as they have experienced it or from belief that religion in general has always been anti-science. On the one hand there is the lumping of all religions together as if religion itself has never evolved. On the other hand the approximately 150 years of the war between science and religion has rendered only losers on both sides, but science is still credited with all advances of the human race. Attempts to reconcile science and religion are usually met with scoffing and derision from many. atheists.
For me, Thomas Henry Huxley’s agnosticism is a much more honest approach to religion vs science than atheism is.
I always feel strongly to challenge the ignorance of people who just do not know, - that is you in this instance.
It’s not a “revision”. Gould was perfectly aware that he was building on Darwin.
Yes, I see that, but you have to learn to temper your feelings if you wish to attain any level of intellectual proficiency.
Typical infantile reaction.
What was special about Darwin wasn’t any of his general ideas about evolution, which already existed, that is, the gradual changes in animals through generations in response to environmental stimuli, or any of his specific postulates, which have all generally been replaced in mainstream research by more advanced postulates that adhere more closely to the actual behavior of evolutionary change.
What was special about Darwin was his obsessive studiousness of actual evolutionary changes, the level of depth of his anatomical observations in actual instances of evolution, making the theory, though it already existed, undeniable by the main stream of science which had so far succeeded in denying it and making it a fringe field of study. Before Darwin, most evolutionary theorists were essentially hobby botanists.
He also firmly established that changes that occurred during the lifetime of one generation were not inherited by the next, prompting a revival in Mendel’s studies and general acceptance that genetic material, that is, whatever it was that transmitted phenotypes from one generation to the next, was itself not sensitive to external stimuli. The environmental incidence was indirect by way of permitting certain changes to be transmitted, and others not.
This ruled out many possibilities for what it might be that in actuality is what directs the changes themselves in a coherent, evolutionary manner, but it did not itself establish one.
What you do not understand is that passion and intelligence go hand in hand.
Without passion you are dull and passive, learning nothing.
Passion gets you up in the morning and gets you out there on the expedition.
So get out of bed and find something out!
True, but you can’t help it.