|
|
#52
08-24-2007, 10:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
[ QUOTE ]
Its a common problem in discussing topics in evolution, this anthropomorphizing of the process, attributing intent, things like that. The reason is, it makes it easier to describe something by saying stuff like "Ok, so the worm needs to get here, so evolution creates this mechanism." It ends up being misleading and is obviously entirely incorrect, but it makes it more approachable. Dennett is probably the worst culprit of this, although I think Gould does it often and Dawkins also, to a lesser degree. Certainly, it is something that is RAMPANT in science textbooks and popular scientific writing. I always cringe a little bit when I read anyone talking about the goals or tactics or strategies that evolution uses to do things, but I also cringe when I read a general chemistry textbook and they talk about electrons in orbits and such. Its a balance, the writer tries his best, and you must consider the audience. Lestat, by posting here on SMP and reading the evolution debate in a very special context, you have a different perspective than the vast majority of readers. You know enough to cringe when you hear agency bestowed upon mindless processes (mindless added for NRs benefit) but perhaps don't have the experience or the repetition needed to translate those pop-speak phrases into what they really mean. [/ QUOTE ] Dawkins wrote the following more than 30 years ago in The Selfish Gene. He was talking about genes, but his comments obviously apply to larger biological units, i.e, organisms: [ QUOTE ] Throughout this book, I have emphasized that we must not think of genes as conscious, purposeful agents. Blind natural selection, however, makes them behave rather as if they were purposeful, and it has been convenient, as a shorthand, to refer to genes in the language of purpose...Just as we have found it convenient to think of genes as active agents, working purposefully for their own survival, perhaps it might be convenient to think of memes in the same way. In neither case must we get mystical about it. In both cases the idea of purpose is only a metaphor, but we have already seen what a fruitful metaphor it is in the case of genes. We have even used words like 'selfish' and 'ruthless' of genes, knowing full well it is only a figure of speech. [/ QUOTE ] So, I think Dawkins has always been pretty careful about this, and, to the extent that he is actually guilty of misleading anthropomorphism, it's not because he doesn't know any better. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] 
|
|
#53
08-24-2007, 10:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
[ QUOTE ]
So, I think Dawkins has always been pretty careful about this [/ QUOTE ] Why is it logical and rational to look at nature, see apparent purpose and design, and conclude non-design, and irrational to look at nature, see apparent purpose and design, and conclude design. That's the big gap of logic in people like Dawkins.
|
|
#54
08-24-2007, 10:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So, I think Dawkins has always been pretty careful about this [/ QUOTE ] Why is it logical and rational to look at nature, see apparent purpose and design, and conclude non-design, and irrational to look at nature, see apparent purpose and design, and conclude design. [/ QUOTE ] god help anyone who thinks notready is actually looking for an answer to this question.
|
|
#55
08-24-2007, 11:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So, I think Dawkins has always been pretty careful about this [/ QUOTE ] Why is it logical and rational to look at nature, see apparent purpose and design, and conclude non-design, and irrational to look at nature, see apparent purpose and design, and conclude design. That's the big gap of logic in people like Dawkins. [/ QUOTE ] Because "purpose" is the wrong word for it. Stop equivocating. You make your position many times weaker by being willfully ignorant of the arguments against it. Or, you know you are conflating all of these terms when you post, which makes you dishonest. Not sure which is worse.
|
|
#56
08-24-2007, 11:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
[ QUOTE ]
Why is it logical and rational to look at nature, see apparent purpose and design, and conclude non-design, and irrational to look at nature, see apparent purpose and design, and conclude design. [/ QUOTE ] Because, (Sephus warning notwithstanding) the processes are not invisible. We actually can figure out how stuff works. Being a Christian, I believe all comes from God. And God can create the matter/Time portion of the Universe any way He likes. It was not necessary for Creation to be about things, it is more likely, IMO, that creation is a process and about processes. People, including very fundamentalist Christians, being born into the this culture at this time, are imbued with scientific fact at so early an age, that they would never say, "Things are green because God liked the color and there's no such thing as photosynthesis." But, with some ideas being so new, so not endemic, it seems reasonable to the same person to say, "People have the form they have today because God decided this is the best way to be, and there's no evolution." God created everything one way or another, and "everything" includes processes. This is Time, and in Time, everything evolves - it changes over time. In Eternity, everything is absolute. If things didn't evolve here, it wouldn't be Creation, it would be Eternity.
|
|
#58
08-25-2007, 12:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
[ QUOTE ]
But, with some ideas being so new, so not endemic, it seems reasonable to the same person to say, "People have the form they have today because God decided this is the best way to be, and there's no evolution. [/ QUOTE ] My question wasn't about evolution, it was about design and rational inferences therefrom.
|
|
#59
08-25-2007, 12:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So, I think Dawkins has always been pretty careful about this [/ QUOTE ] Why is it logical and rational to look at nature, see apparent purpose and design, and conclude non-design, and irrational to look at nature, see apparent purpose and design, and conclude design. That's the big gap of logic in people like Dawkins. [/ QUOTE ] LOL. That may be a big gap in your understanding, but it's not a gap in his logic. I'll let Dawkins defend himself here, because he literally wrote an entire book focusing nearly exclusively on this very question - The Blind Watchmaker from 1986. Here's the beginning of chapter 2: [ QUOTE ] Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve this paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#60
08-25-2007, 12:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
[ QUOTE ]
Why is it logical and rational to look at nature, see apparent purpose and design, and conclude non-design, and irrational to look at nature, see apparent purpose and design, and conclude design. That's the big gap of logic in people like Dawkins. [/ QUOTE ] Is the apparent always the actual? Is it logical to conclude that a magician possesses real magical abilities? Simple answer: we have studied nature scientifically for hundreds of years and found that what is apparent is not necessarily the truth.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
