tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post6056378210118874496..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: In which I enter Jerry Coyne's "Make your own atheist billboard" contest...mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-29942682217512696712013-12-30T21:23:16.277-05:002013-12-30T21:23:16.277-05:00Dude, your entry was pure awesomeness.Dude, your entry was pure awesomeness.K T Cathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259428595745509790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-59171136639536495712013-12-29T19:33:32.702-05:002013-12-29T19:33:32.702-05:00Curio,
I'm just asserting that evolution isn&...Curio,<br /><br />I'm just asserting that evolution isn't planned. There isn't some intelligence behind it with a future goal in mind.<br /><br />It's up to the people who believe that there's directedness in evolution as evidence that there's an underlying intelligence to provide evidence that there's directedness in nature in the first place. <br /><br />That what happened, is the only thing that could possibly have happened, and why everything that could possibly have happened, in actual fact could not possibly have happened.<br /><br />In other words, why someone who believes in teleological evolution isn't like a gunman who fires shots at random at the side of a barn, and then afterwards goes up to the barn and draws targets around each bullet hole, and asserts that he's an excellent marksman because he hit all the targets in the bullseye?<br /><br />The point about the trilobites is that they need not have gone extinct were it not for the Siberian traps supervolcano. Was that directed? Stephen Meyer wrote his book on the origin of the trilobites as evidence of the Intelligent Designer. Is their destruction also evidence?bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-60634418892577416332013-12-29T18:59:01.196-05:002013-12-29T18:59:01.196-05:00Bachfiend - This has nothing to do with Meyer'...Bachfiend - This has nothing to do with Meyer's beloved trilobites! Or Behe's flagella. Or Dembski's math.<br /><br />You and Hoo both nailed it. You said earlier <i>Humans, of course, being intelligent, can conceive of a future aim and develop methods of achieving that aim, despite the intermediate steps being of little or no benefit.</i><br /><br />Hoo said <i>Ironically, one electron orbiting a proton lacks any "directedness." It forms a spherically symmetric cloud with no sense of direction whatsoever. </i><br /><br />Could be mistaken - but you both affirm that non-intelligent things can't plan ahead. An electron doesn't have a mind, and can't decide to take the most efficient course around the nucleus. It just <i>does</i>.<br /><br />This is basically the Fifth Way as I understand it. To get around the conclusion, some contemporary philosophers invoke panpsychism - there's proto-minds in all of matter. Now <i>there's</i> some real woo.<br /><br />- CurioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-74977601928444318062013-12-29T17:21:42.497-05:002013-12-29T17:21:42.497-05:00Egnor,
OK - provide an example of directedness in...Egnor,<br /><br />OK - provide an example of directedness in nature. And explain why that happened, and why everything else that could have possibly happened, didn't.<br /><br />Or explain why Stephen Meyer wrote a book on the Intelligent Design of trilobites 540 million years ago, tens of thousands of species of them over hundreds of millions of years, the last of them going extinct at the end of the Permian, the mother of all mass extinctions, 250 million years ago? Where is the directedness? Why did that happen and everything else was impossible? Why is it impossible that we could have trilobites around today?bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-53568966314371941552013-12-29T16:35:01.538-05:002013-12-29T16:35:01.538-05:00Egnor: One electron orbiting one nucleus is as muc...Egnor: <i>One electron orbiting one nucleus is as much an example of teleology as my writing this comment. Directedness in nature is what teleology is.</i> <br /><br />In a word, bullshit.<br /><br />Ironically, one electron orbiting a proton lacks any "directedness." It forms a spherically symmetric cloud with no sense of direction whatsoever. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-52434491298615117252013-12-29T16:24:50.281-05:002013-12-29T16:24:50.281-05:00Curio:
Very good and important point, and general...Curio:<br /><br />Very good and important point, and generally overlooked or misunderstood, especially by those who deny teleology. <br /><br />Teleology merely means directedness in a natural process-- any directedness in any process. Deliberate human acts, animal behavior, gravity, all inanimate behavior according to laws of physics, are teleology. <br /><br />One electron orbiting one nucleus is as much an example of teleology as my writing this comment. <br /><br />Directedness in nature is what teleology is. It cannot be a part of any materialistic or mechanical understanding of nature. <br /><br />It presupposes a hylemorphic understanding, and in my view is a clear demonstration of God's existence. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-11688008615404717402013-12-29T15:05:36.519-05:002013-12-29T15:05:36.519-05:00Is "Darwinism" even a useful descriptor?...Is "Darwinism" even a useful descriptor? Biologists like Pigliucci prefer "extended synthesis", which incorporates evo-devo, HGT, modern genetics, elements of complexity theory, etc.<br /><br />The real crux of the matter is whether or not one should take the science of biology and make into metaphysics and read into the theory what isn't really there.<br /><br />- CurioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-18400680761575302072013-12-29T13:23:02.318-05:002013-12-29T13:23:02.318-05:00I occasionally read Ilon's blog. We can alloca...I occasionally read Ilon's blog. We can allocate only so much time in a day for reading.Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-43234632911593097212013-12-29T13:22:33.000-05:002013-12-29T13:22:33.000-05:00In my experience, when teleology is presented with...In my experience, when teleology is presented without the opaque scholastic verbiage most people respond like Hoo. "Well, duh!"<br /><br />"My challenge still remains. Provide an example of teleology in biology."<br /><br />Ok. Here goes; A woodpecker taps on the trunk of a tree so that it can find insects and eat them.<br /><br />I don't know how to stress just how uncontroversial teleology is. Plenty of biologists and philosophers can talk about teleology without bringing ID, Creationism, or even (as Egnor alluded to) God into the equation. We're just talking about simple facts of nature. <br /><br />- CurioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-62322049880564741102013-12-29T12:51:01.315-05:002013-12-29T12:51:01.315-05:00C.Rex: "I read Ilion's blog."
Since...<b>C.Rex:</b> "<i>I read Ilion's blog.</i>"<br /><br />Since I wasn't previously aware of that, my I here extend a welcome to by little blog?<br /><br />(p.s. you *could* comment if you see something you care about enough to have an opinion)Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-63113719536289856842013-12-29T12:50:59.364-05:002013-12-29T12:50:59.364-05:00Ilion,
That's another of your unsupported ass...Ilion,<br /><br />That's another of your unsupported assertions. You're claiming that I'm a liar because I disagree with you. That actually, I secretly agree with you, but for some dishonest reason, I'm lying in denying it.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-38116936284155260072013-12-29T12:49:51.038-05:002013-12-29T12:49:51.038-05:00Teleology means directedness in natural change-- a...<i>Teleology means directedness in natural change-- a tendency for many natural processes to go some ways and not others. Things fall down, and not up. Positive charge attracts negative charge, not other positive charges. </i> <br /><br />Yeah. Red objects look red, and not blue. Blue objects look blue, and not yellow. Deep stuff, that.<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-33544094347371816792013-12-29T12:47:42.060-05:002013-12-29T12:47:42.060-05:00Egnor,
'Evolution, like all of nature, is sho...Egnor,<br /><br />'Evolution, like all of nature, is shot through with teleology'. And some examples?<br /><br />Where is the directness of nature in trilobites being created 540 million years ago, tens of thousands of species of them over hundreds of millions of years, only for all of them to go extinct, the last of them in the end of Permian mass extinction 250 million years ago.<br /><br />You only see direction in biology after the event has happened. You can't predict what's going to happen, not with certainty.<br /><br />My challenge still remains. Provide an example of teleology in biology.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-22551023373630188922013-12-29T12:46:07.979-05:002013-12-29T12:46:07.979-05:00"You would benefit from reading it regularly,..."<i>You would benefit from reading it regularly, too.</i>"<br /><br />Perhaps. But I think it more likely that he'd have to decide to stop being intellectually dishonest before he could get any benefit from reading my blog.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-80637498669171691682013-12-29T12:18:12.859-05:002013-12-29T12:18:12.859-05:00What's so great about Ilion's blog? His po...What's so great about Ilion's blog? His posts consist mainly of links. There are hardly any signs of intellectual activity there.<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-88463806919523888592013-12-29T12:11:02.934-05:002013-12-29T12:11:02.934-05:00HGT (which also happens amongst "higher"...<i>HGT (which also happens amongst "higher" organisms) is entirely contrary to Darwinism; it cannot be were Darwinism indeed the truth about the nature of reality -- not that anything like that has *ever* stopped any DarwinDefender from trying to retroactively shoehorn some anti-Darwinistic fact into Darwinism.</i><br /><br />This can only be said by someone who deeply misunderstands how science works. Let's take apart this paragraph.<br /><br />HGT is indeed outside of Darwin's original theory. Transfer of genes between very distant species is a non-Darwinian process (as is genetic drift, a far more frequent phenomenon). <br /><br />Does the existence of a non-Darwinian process undermine Darwin's theory? Yes and no. Yes in the sense that Darwin's original theory isn't the full story (there is much more to evolutionary biology than just Darwin's original ideas). No in the sense that Darwin's original ideas remain applicable in many contexts. <br /><br />There are great parallels with physics here. The constancy of the speed of light is entirely contrary to Newtonian mechanics. Explaining it required the development of theory of relativity. However, Newtonian mechanics has not been thrown out. It remains with us: we teach it in high school and in college. Not because there are some deeply entrenched Newtonians in academia, but because Newtonian mechanics works in its domain of applicability. <br /><br />Likewise, Darwin's main idea (gradual variations + natural selection = evolution) works in its domain of applicability (large populations). There are exceptions to that (genetic drift dominates in small populations). But there are also exceptions to Newtonian mechanics. <br /><br />And it's not like HGT or genetic drift are any better than Darwinian evolution from the creationist standpoint. All three are equally bad. Alas, there are no creationist ideas that are even worth considering. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-4735755355964037112013-12-29T12:06:40.507-05:002013-12-29T12:06:40.507-05:00Consider the choices beyond the dichotomy presente...Consider the choices beyond the dichotomy presented by Coyne: <br />If there is a God and the promised transcendence of the soul/mind connected with His creation, then how can we properly judge the purpose of suffering from our perspective? How could we ever reconcile a reality in which consequences and the resultant suffering (both man made and natural) are not the result of generations of choices made by people with free will and of the natural world in which we abide? <br />In short, we cannot. <br />All we could do is attempt to ease, avoid when possible, and to mitigate that suffering. If there is/was/will be the genesis of free will within the human soul, for whatever God's ultimate purpose may be, then there must be at least a finite period of exposure to decision making, choices, and consequences - both deserved and undeserved. This finite period (ie within time), we would call 'life'. Time is the key here. Time is the tool. <br />In this period the ultimate goal would not be IF we survive (we must all perish), but HOW we survive, or even WHY we survive..or why we choose to sacrifice our own lives. <br />So, can God still love his suffering children without eliminating suffering in the physical reality in which we inhabit at this stage of our existence? Of course! This is the forge of free will. We learn, grow, love and pass on to the next stage. This does not make suffering 'okay', it does not make it enjoyable, but it does lend it a purpose - the one thing Coyne's (EM) view cannot allow; and this is why this third choice is not even considered.<br /><br />Then there is the other half of Coyne's dichotomy. The one he really wants you to go for. After all, an unloving God is just as hard to disprove as a loving God. Purpose is purpose, and purpose is VERBOTEN!<br />The choice Coyne wants you to make is that there is no true objective (ie universal) morality and thus no God. Here again we see the fatal flaw in his argument. Coyne wants us to be outraged by the image, while at the same time recognizing there is no real reason for outrage other than it makes us uncomfortable that such things should occur. Why we should feel that way is explained away (in his EM view) by banal survival adaptations. Humans are just animals, animals are just machines, machines just are. No room for anything beyond the material. That, of course, necessarily includes immaterial abstractions and any truly objective morality - the very same sense that he appeals to in order to generate animosity toward the concept of a loving God. <br />Coyne points to a half empty glass and demands that the evidence it provides shows us that either that He who filled it was a mean sort who likes to torment us with the idea of a full glass, or that nobody filled it at all. That the water is illusory or at best a lucky chance of nature. In doing so, he ignores the glass itself and the thirst that drives us ALL to witness it and wish for it to be full. <br />If Coyne would seriously, even for a few hours, consider the actual possibilities of the questions he raised, he may just get to drink from that glass one day. We can only hope and pray. The choice, as it is with all of us, is his to make. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-42981293607598140102013-12-29T12:03:58.312-05:002013-12-29T12:03:58.312-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-26279543842547367732013-12-29T12:03:30.893-05:002013-12-29T12:03:30.893-05:00Coyne's argument is flawed from the outset.
D...Coyne's argument is flawed from the outset. <br />Doomed, one might say, by a central, self refuting, circular logic. <br />Coyne appeals to an objective moral stance on the illness of a child (natural evil) as evidence for (eliminative) materialism. Simply put: He calls upon a standard that does not exist within his model cosmos to argue against the existence of anything beyond his (eliminative materialist) model. The specific target of his angst being the Judeo-Christian God; the God of mercy, love, and all creation. He attempts to forward a false dichotomy that is as old as the hills by pointing to natural evil as evidence. <br />What is this silly mind trick? What sophomoric attempt at dialectics is being made by Coyne? <br />Well, Coyne wants you to choose between a God that does not love His creations, or alternately the non-existence of the same Deity by pointing out that suffering exists. <br />This is not a serious attempt at theodicy. <br />Coyne's is a childish attempt at manipulation aimed at college kids. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-4187266228726547012013-12-29T11:39:35.519-05:002013-12-29T11:39:35.519-05:00bach,
I read Ilion's blog daily, and I learn ...bach,<br /><br />I read Ilion's blog daily, and I learn a lot from it. It's an excellent blog. <br /><br />You would benefit from reading it regularly, too.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-34798562482043374012013-12-29T11:35:11.343-05:002013-12-29T11:35:11.343-05:00Precisely. Teleology does not mean mere 'purpo...Precisely. Teleology does not mean mere 'purpose', as by analogy to man's purposes. Aristotle (probably) didn't conceive as teleology as evidence for God's existence-- he never made an argument from design, as St. Thomas did. <br /><br />Teleology means directedness in natural change-- a tendency for many natural processes to go some ways and not others. Things fall down, and not up. Positive charge attracts negative charge, not other positive charges. <br /><br />Evolution, like all of nature, is shot through with teleology. Every electron orbiting every nucleus manifests teleology. <br /><br />The evidence for God's existence-- by Aquina's Fifth Way alone-- is massive, replete in every atom. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-366600360627239832013-12-29T11:33:35.040-05:002013-12-29T11:33:35.040-05:00The Torch:
Moths changed colors over time becaus...The Torch: <br /><br /><i>Moths changed colors over time because the ones that weren't fit enough for their surroundings got eaten. "Fitness" can mean many things in many contexts but in the context you provided, it means that ability to blend in to surroundings. Those that can't do it get dead real quick. <br /><br />The fittest survive. Fitness is defined as the ability to survive. Survivors survive. It's a perfectly logical statement. I think you resist it because it makes Darwin's theory sound less profound. </i> <br /><br />The first paragraph is a very nice summary of Darwin's theory applied to peppered moths. Well done, Torch!<br /><br />I am not sure what to make of the second paragraph. "Survivors survive" isn't an accurate summary. <i>Fitter</i> moths survive in the end, not just <i>any</i> moths. You understand it very well, don't you? <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-83707398149230615512013-12-29T11:05:58.259-05:002013-12-29T11:05:58.259-05:00Bach,
I read Ilion's blog. I don't often...Bach, <br /><br />I read Ilion's blog. I don't often comment on any blog site. Why? Because most of the commentary takes place on linked social networking sites these days. <br />Besides a Blog is a log book. People do not write them for commentary. They write them to express themselves. Perhaps to stimulate thought in the reader. Commentary is great, but it is hardly the raison d'etre for blogging.... at least for those of us who are not egomaniacs. <br />But while we're on it, what's the link to your blog? Do people comment on it, or are the comments to be found on some other social networking site? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-84957981315639403662013-12-29T10:33:26.836-05:002013-12-29T10:33:26.836-05:00Bachfiend,
"If you can come up with an examp...Bachfiend,<br /><br />"If you can come up with an example where teleology occurs in nature, then you've falsified the idea that there's no teleology in biology"<br /><br />It's not as controversial as you think, I swear. All biologists rely on the concept, some affirm it publicly and some don't.<br /><br />In nature, some organisms act for their own good, the good of their host, or the good of their kin. You affirmed this (contra Dr. Egnor) when you talked about altruism in bacteria. Horizontal gene transfer helps a species acquire genetic diversity, resistance to antibiotics, and ultimately survive. Some would object to calling this altruism, since the term is usually reserved for volitional human action, but I don't see any problem with calling this "good for the species". <br /><br />Processes in nature that act in order that a good result may be achieved are what (some) philosophers call teleology. Immunology and embryology are rife with further examples.<br /><br />- CurioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-53426288372095323832013-12-29T10:22:28.256-05:002013-12-29T10:22:28.256-05:00*There's no evidence that there's an after...*There's no evidence that there's an afterlife*<br /><br />Bachfiend.... silly, of course there's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcKinnMXuKg&feature=player_detailpage#t=90" rel="nofollow">Afterlife</a><br /><br />Shame on Coyne's team for exploiting pictures of sick innocent children to promote their dumb messages. Did they deconvert anyone with those distasteful boards?<br /><br />(El Booto is really pissed off)Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.com