Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is it an Accident?
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 1 of 12 (605463)
02-20-2011 12:16 AM


I was recently watching a documentary with Richard Dawkins speaking with reverend Ted Haggard. In the clip, Dawkins confronts Haggard in his usual attack style. Haggard counters that some people find it hard to believe that something like the eye could come about by accident. Dawkins tries to claim the intellectual high ground by claiming that no one who knows anything about evolution ever claimed that an eye could come about by accident.
Aside from the clear vitriol that Dawkins displays in his discussion style-is what Dawkins says really true? Is it really honest to say that something like an eye most certainly did not come about by accident, just because there is a process (called natural selection) which supposedly weeds out bad accidents and keeps the good ones? Does that change the fact they they are still biological accidents?
I think it is simply a lie, to say that you (and all of science) refute the idea of an eye arising by accident, while you are in fact promoting the idea that everything indeed did arise by accident. Are evolutionists promoting an accident or are they not?
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 02-20-2011 2:15 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 12 (605465)
02-20-2011 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bolder-dash
02-20-2011 12:16 AM


Hi Bolder-dash,
I can't promote an OP that characterizes the opposing view as "a lie." Maybe you could change it to "misrepresentation."
I'm also considering the possibility that this is simply a matter of differing terminological preferences. To help me decide, can you comment on whether or not a backgammon champion wins by accident because the dice rolls are random? In this analogy, the dice rolls are random mutations, while the backgammon champion's non-random decision making process is natural selection. In other words, backgammon play combines both a random and a non-random process to produce an outcome. Is the outcome accidental? Why or why not?
I'm not trying to turn the thread proposal process into a discussion. I just feel I need to know a little more before deciding whether this would be a profitable discussion.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-20-2011 12:16 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-20-2011 5:33 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 3 of 12 (605471)
02-20-2011 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
02-20-2011 2:15 AM


I didn't say I felt that all evolutionists are lying, I said I felt that dawkins was lying in his statement to Ted Haggard.
I don't think it would be right to begin debating with you about backgammon before you even approve a discussion. It seems you want to debate my point with me without allowing me to debate. I feel that your reticence to promote this topic could be based on your own bias about the conclusions. Perhaps you could let another moderator decide if it is a fair topic, like slevesque for instance.
The simple point of my topic is-Is it accurate to say evolution is an accident? That seems a pretty fair starting point. This statement is often made that evolution is not an accident. But is that accurate to say that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 02-20-2011 2:15 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminSlev, posted 02-20-2011 6:14 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
AdminSlev
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 03-28-2010


Message 4 of 12 (605475)
02-20-2011 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Bolder-dash
02-20-2011 5:33 AM


Hi Bolder-dash,
I remember when I watched that discussion between Haggard and Dawkins. I felt this was a problem of terminological preferences (as Percy put it) more then anything else.
Clearly, in the video of Dawkins and Haggard, the issue is that both don't agree about what can be described as ''by accident''. And certainly, Dawkins isn't really concerned about genuine discussion rather then putting Haggard in a bad light, so that certainly doesn't help the matter.
And when I read your OP earlier, I thought exactly the very same issue of terminology would arise in the first replies if promoted, and could (and certain would) go on for many pages before even starting to adress the question you ask.
So right now, I do feel we could promote this topic. But this would result in a lot of wasted time discussing this terminological discrepancy, and it could be fueled by some posters with the same attitude as Dawkins. This would probably lead nowhere.
So I think the other option at our disposal is better. Have an honest discussion with Percy about this terminological issue, which will provide for a solid foundation from which more fruitful discussions will come out once promoted afterwards.
You can PM me anytime to express concerns on all of this

- EvC Administrator -
Understanding through Knowledge and Discussion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-20-2011 5:33 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-20-2011 8:41 AM AdminSlev has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 5 of 12 (605481)
02-20-2011 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminSlev
02-20-2011 6:14 AM


Well, I really don't see the basis for all of the obfuscation. People either believe in this theory or they don't. If you or Percy wants to explain clearly how you can claim it to be non-accidental I am happy to hear it. I don't think analogies of games of skill and luck have much relevance.
According to evos theory, an eye developed accidentally. It is the entire backbone of the theory. Life is one big accident. How can anyone quibble about this being what the theory says? This is what Dawkin's Blind Watchmaker was entirely devoted to. The whole concept of accidents multiplying.
If you don't want to promote it, fine. But the next time someone tries to claim that the TOE does not claim to be about accidents, I am going to say that is a a complete distortion, and expect them to defend their position and show that it is somehow something other than an accident.
Evolution says life happens by accident, some accidents work and some don't. The term of natural selection is simply saying that some accidents work better than others when it comes to multiplying. The essence of the theory is as plain and simple as this.
I have presented the opportunity for anyone to prove otherwise, but I don't think they are going to find that to be possible. I don't mind them admitting defeat before the battle even started.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminSlev, posted 02-20-2011 6:14 AM AdminSlev has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 02-20-2011 9:14 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 6 of 12 (605486)
02-20-2011 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Bolder-dash
02-20-2011 8:41 AM


Hi Bolder-dash,
Let's try to put a finer point on what you're saying. Would it be accurate to say that you think Dawkins is claiming that the evolution of the eye was not an accident while he simultaneously promotes the idea that the evolution of everything else *was* an accident?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-20-2011 8:41 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-20-2011 10:02 AM Admin has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 7 of 12 (605493)
02-20-2011 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Admin
02-20-2011 9:14 AM


No I don't feel Dawkins is saying that.
I think he is kind of trying to play a word game that really isn't honest. If you have read Blind Watchmaker you can see that he clearly DOES believe that all of life was an accident. But when he argues with guys like Haggard or debates someone, he also tries to steal the territory of also being non-accidental.
It kind of makes one wonder why he does that. Why is he afraid to just admit that yes, he feels like all of life's complexities arrived purely by accident. Which is totally what he does believe. As Sleve said, I think he is just trying to play this kind of gottcha game. But its curious why. I guess he just feels his ideas can have more broad appeal if he downplays the accident in his theory.
He believes it is by accident, most of the people on this board believe life is just an accident, why are they all afraid to just stick with that, instead of waffling on that by claiming NS somehow nullifies the accident effect? NS only says not all accidents work. So what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 02-20-2011 9:14 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Admin, posted 02-20-2011 4:05 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 8 of 12 (605515)
02-20-2011 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Bolder-dash
02-20-2011 10:02 AM


Bolder-dash writes:
If you have read Blind Watchmaker you can see that he clearly DOES believe that all of life was an accident.
It's been 25 years since I read The Blind Watchmaker, but it still sits on my bookshelf, so if you can point out where Dawkins states his belief that all life is an accident then I could look it up and verify that he really said this. I was just scanning through the preface and did find this:
Dawkins writes:
The great majority of people that attack Darwinism leap with almost unseemly eagerness to the mistaken idea that there is nothing other than random chance in it. Since living complexity embodies the very antithesis of chance, if you think that Darwinism is a tantamount to chance you'll obviously find it easy to refute Darwinism! One of my tasks will be to destroy this eagerly believed myth that Darwinism is a theory of 'chance'.
Next you say that evolutionists here believe the same thing you claim Dawkins believes:
He believes it is by accident, most of the people on this board believe life is just an accident, why are they all afraid to just stick with that, instead of waffling on that by claiming NS somehow nullifies the accident effect? NS only says not all accidents work. So what?
I don't understand this part where you say "So what?" to natural selection. Evolutionists here don't believe life is "just an accident." Evolution explains how new species arise because of the adaptations forced by changing environments. Adaptation occurs through natural selection choosing among variation produced by random mutations. Without natural selection adaptation could never occur, and it was in attempting to understand and explain the tremendous number of examples of adaptation in nature that Darwin was led to conceive of his theory of evolution. This is why saying "So what?" to natural selection doesn't make any sense to me. Before I could promote this thread I need to understand how this actually does make sense.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-20-2011 10:02 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-20-2011 10:22 PM Admin has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 9 of 12 (605563)
02-20-2011 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Admin
02-20-2011 4:05 PM


Natural Selection is not a force. It is not an entity. It does not do anything.
Natural selection is a word created to describe an idea. That idea as we know today is that good accidents survive better than bad accidents. Other than the 'idea" of good body plans surviving better than bad body plans, there is no such thing as natural selection. You can't touch it, you can't feel it, you can't see it, it is not a mechanism, it is not something real at all, any more than the concepts of "funny" or grotesque" or "irony" or "vanity" . Its simply an idea expressed with a phrase. There are lots of phrases that describe thoughts.
When the phrases Natural Selection is used, one could just as well use the phrase "some organisms reproduce better than others" to mean the exact same thing. That is all it is.
Does Dawkins try to make more of NS than it really is? Of course he does. This is the hyperbole of the man. He does this at the exact same time that he goes on and on about how small accidents in nature can accumulate into more complex forms.
If you want to claim that natural selection is a 'real" thing that actually does something tangible, instead of a phrase that describes the ability of some organisms to survive better than others, well than this is the thread to argue that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Admin, posted 02-20-2011 4:05 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Admin, posted 02-21-2011 8:05 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 10 of 12 (605616)
02-21-2011 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Bolder-dash
02-20-2011 10:22 PM


If Dawkins didn't actually express the belief in The Blind Watchmaker that all of life is an accident, then I cannot promote this thread while it still includes claims that he did. The whole purpose of the thread proposal process is to make sure a thread starts off on the right foot, and that can't happen while the proposal contains inaccurate claims.
Would you consider writing a new OP that focuses on your issues with how natural selection is viewed by evolution?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-20-2011 10:22 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-21-2011 9:18 AM Admin has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 11 of 12 (605621)
02-21-2011 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Admin
02-21-2011 8:05 AM


In the OP I don't mention the Blind Watchmaker as the source for my belief that his ideas openly suggest the notion of accidents causing life (and thus his conclusion for his atheism), but simply that all of his work clearly implies accidental conditions which caused life, followed by what I feel is his contradiction that it is not an accident, just because natural selection is involved.
I agree that he doesn't overtly say that he believes life is an accident, but rather the entire work discusses how all these accidents have accumulated into life's complexities. His whole chapter on the human eye, or on silicon crystals clumping together on riverbeds are all about accidents happening. I don't think that part can be interpreted any other way. The only thing up for debate is whether saying that because some accidents are selected for, does that make it honest to say life is not accidental, that the development of the eye is not accidental?
His dishonesty to me is in clearly implying exactly that in everything he writes, and then oddly trying to subsequently remove the word accident from his evolutionary vocabulary. He is an atheist because he believes life is only an accident! Its Fox News style spin taken to the extreme, in my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Admin, posted 02-21-2011 8:05 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Admin, posted 02-21-2011 9:36 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 12 of 12 (605625)
02-21-2011 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Bolder-dash
02-21-2011 9:18 AM


Hi Bolder-dash,
I'm afraid I still don't understand your position. Perhaps it would help if you addressed what I said earlier about evolution producing adaptation, see the final paragraph of Message 8.
Edited by Admin, : Typo.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-21-2011 9:18 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024