Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Denis Noble: Why talk about replacement of Darwinian evolution theory, not extension?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Royal Society In new book on the Royal Society’s Public Evolution Summit, Oxford’s Denis Noble explains,

The reasons I think we are talking about replacement rather than extension are several. The first is that the exclusion of any form of acquired characteristics being inherited was a central feature of the modern synthesis. In other words, to exclude any form of inheritance that was non-Mendelian, that was Lamarckian-like, was an essential part of the modern synthesis. What we are now discovering is that there are mechanisms by which some acquired characteristics can be inherited, and inherited robustly. So it’s a bit odd to describe adding something like to the synthesis ( i.e., extending the synthesis). A more honest statement is that the synthesis needs to be replaced.

By “replacement” I don’t mean to say that the mechanism of random change followed by selection does not exist as a possible mechanism. But it becomes one mechanism amongst many others, and those mechanisms must interact. So my argument for saying this is a matter of replacement rather than extension is simply that it was adirect intention of those who formulated the modern synthesis to exclude the inheritance of acquired characteristics. (p. 25)

That’s why the fat’s in the fire and smoking hot. Darwinism (or whatever the term du jour is) has been a totalistic system, enforced as such. But the evidence today simply doesn’t support it.

Reading Mazur’s book, I was struck by two things:

The genuinely interesting nature of alternative evolution proposals contrasts sharply with the science media release where fairly dull researchers have come up with a casuistical explanation of how Darwinism can account for various phenomena. And one realizes that for those individuals, that is evolution. That is science. Science is about reaffirming and finding evidence for the teachings of the Great One. And deploring or attacking anyone who doubts his teachings, irrespective of the state of the evidence.

The new approach is not exclusive or totalistic. It does not behave, as Darwinism does, as a metaphysic. Among many assemblies of evidence, some will naturally prevail, as more persuasive than others. But for once, evidence exists to understand living things better rather than to understand Darwin better.

Ladies and gentlemen, place your bets. This’ll be fun.

See also: What to expect from the Royal Society’s public evolution summit November 7-9

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Thank you, Dionisio. I hope so. AhmedKiaan, But we're friendly ghosts . . . :-)
Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. -Romans 6:11 NASB
-QQuerius
November 1, 2016
November
11
Nov
1
01
2016
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
This is like a ghost town.AhmedKiaan
November 1, 2016
November
11
Nov
1
01
2016
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
Actually this blog doesn't even show up in google. Lots of dead pages that were last updated in like 2009.AhmedKiaan
November 1, 2016
November
11
Nov
1
01
2016
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
Where is everyone going to go if Uncommon Descent is shut down? I google Intelligent Design and this is like the last blog left.AhmedKiaan
November 1, 2016
November
11
Nov
1
01
2016
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
Querius You've got a very valid argument. Agree with you. Perhaps some anonymous readers are benefiting from your comments right now and that is a great reason for joy. Well done. Keep it like that. Thank you.Dionisio
October 31, 2016
October
10
Oct
31
31
2016
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT
Dionisio, First of all, let me acknowledge that I may be completely wrong in my responses. Yes, I agree that DK is blind, hard edged, self-confident, and hurting as we all once were. So, I'm trying an experiment in the theory and hope that maybe I need to plow up the hard soil first, before a seed of faith can be planted. Consider Psalm 18:25-17 (NASB)
With the kind You show Yourself kind; With the blameless You show Yourself blameless; With the pure You show Yourself pure, And with the crooked You show Yourself astute*. For You save an afflicted people, But haughty eyes You abase.
The word translated “astute” is a challenge. In Hebrew, it literally means “twisted,” and in the Septuagint, it reads “You turn aside.” Jesus was pretty rough on the self-righteous Pharisees, asserting that they did the deeds of their father, the devil. And he said that prostitutes and tax collectors were closer to the kingdom of heaven than they were. Maybe the plow is needed in this case. Or maybe I’m dead wrong. If I am wrong, I’m totally willing to apologize. Consider carefully my brother and let me know either way. -QQuerius
October 31, 2016
October
10
Oct
31
31
2016
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT
Vy and Querius : Your logical arguments are very persuasive. Thank you.Dionisio
October 31, 2016
October
10
Oct
31
31
2016
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
BA77, You write very insightful comments, loaded with valuable information. Keep doing it, I like it. Also many onlookers, lurkers, anonymous visitors can read your posts and learn much from them too. Spiritually blind people won't see it. Their minds are set. But their spiritual eyes could get opened eventually. However, not all will get their spiritual vision restored to what it was intended to be. Unfortunately many won't. We sing hallelujah when our spiritual vision got restored, And rejoice, and share the joy. We're sad when we see the lost ones. We are sorrowful yet always rejoicing.Dionisio
October 31, 2016
October
10
Oct
31
31
2016
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT
BA77, Querius and Vy, Please, let's show grace and compassion for DK, who is a spiritually blind person. Pray for him. Your capacity to see clearly far beyond DK should move you to a merciful attitude, because you are beneficiaries of God's mercy and grace. Now it's time to share that mercy and grace with others. Someday it will be too late. DK is in the desperate situation described by Pink Floyd in their song Time, where they said they were waiting for someone to show them the way. Worse than that, because DK doesn't know he's in that situation. That's a tragedy. DK is not fighting against us, but against his Creator. This is not a battle between DK and us, but between DK's master and ours. Let our Lord take care of this. Let's leave the battle to Him. We know He won already. We know the Way. The only Way. Let's show it to others too! There's nothing else we can do. Thank you.Dionisio
October 31, 2016
October
10
Oct
31
31
2016
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
But since real strawmen, i.e. scarecrows, are merely illusions of persons that are created by real people, and yet naturalists claim that 'personhood' is itself illusory, then, by default, does that not make all naturalists strawmen? i.e. make them merely illusions of persons that were created by real people? :) But if naturalists really want to insist, against all reason, that they really don't exist as real people, then at least they can do us Theists a big favor and stop acting like they really do exist. It would make their argument that they don't really exist much more convincing! :) And would also make their argument that they don't really exist much shorter since scarecrows, i.e. illusory people, don't ever argue back to real people trying to convince them that they don't really exist as real people!
Who wrote Richard Dawkins's new book? - October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3 Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: One section in his book is even titled "We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.",,, When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine -- a "big bag of skin full of biomolecules" interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, "When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, ... see that they are machines." Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: "That is not how I treat them.... I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis." Certainly if what counts as "rational" is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks's worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn't. Brooks ends by saying, "I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs." He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html
In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be a delusion.
Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
supplement
Philosophical Zombies - cartoon http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11 David Chalmers on Consciousness (Descartes, Philosophical Zombies and the Hard Problem) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo
bornagain77
October 31, 2016
October
10
Oct
31
31
2016
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
Vy, Yes, indeed! Daniel King had written
More ad hominems Is that all you have?
Although I do acknowledge that that strawmen and strawwomen are easy to make and are quite fun for people who are entertained by puppets! Sock puppetry comes next, followed by the ink clouds of octopussary. ;-) -QQuerius
October 31, 2016
October
10
Oct
31
31
2016
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
But let’s get things straight: Dionisio’s accusations were ad hominem fallacies, not ad hominem attacks.
You seem to be dealing with a strawman.Vy
October 31, 2016
October
10
Oct
31
31
2016
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
Querius:
They weren’t ad hominem attacks, it’s not a fraction of the knowledge that Dionisio provides us, and he doesn’t need to “rethink” his experience with Jesus Christ, as neither do bornagain77, nor I.
May the grace of your Lord and Savior shine upon you and elevate your spirit. But let's get things straight: Dionisio's accusations were ad hominem fallacies, not ad hominem attacks. Do you understand the difference?Daniel King
October 31, 2016
October
10
Oct
31
31
2016
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
Bob O'H @91: That's fine. No problem. I'll ask Querius to tell me what else I can do to keep myself busy. :) Have a good week.Dionisio
October 31, 2016
October
10
Oct
31
31
2016
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Dionisio @ 84 - As I wrote, I'm not beholden to you, and I'm sorry but I'm not going to spend time explaining what I do - I have a homepage (although it's not up to date, sorry).Bob O'H
October 31, 2016
October
10
Oct
31
31
2016
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
Querius, Thank you. Rev. 22:21Dionisio
October 31, 2016
October
10
Oct
31
31
2016
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT
Daniel King accused
More ad hominems Is that all you have? You might rethink your position.
They weren't ad hominem attacks, it's not a fraction of the knowledge that Dionisio provides us, and he doesn't need to "rethink" his experience with Jesus Christ, as neither do bornagain77, nor I. -QQuerius
October 30, 2016
October
10
Oct
30
30
2016
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
as to: "Contrary to what you may personally believe, bornagain, your opinion is not a fact." At least there is a 'me' with free will, instead of a neuronal illusion with no free will, in my Theistic worldview in order to even be able to form a personal opinion about something in the first place.
“We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.” Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that: “consciousness is an illusion” A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion… what isn’t?”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? – video 37:51 minute mark Quote: “You can spout a philosophy that says scientific materialism, but there aren’t any scientific materialists to pronounce it.,,, That’s why I think they find it kind of embarrassing to talk that way. Nobody wants to stand up there and say, “You know, I’m not really here”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism – Paul Nelson – September 24, 2014 Excerpt: “Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism (MN). If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds. MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed (the illusion of) you of that event after the fact. “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer? Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,, You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent.,,, some feature of “intelligence” must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we’re back to physics versus physics, and there’s nothing for SETI to look for.”,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set090071.html And although Dr. Nelson alluded to writing an e-mail, (i.e. creating information), to tie his ‘personal agent’ argument into intelligent design, Dr. Nelson’s ‘personal agent’ argument can easily be amended to any action that ‘you’, as a personal agent, choose to take: “You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.” “You didn’t open the door. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.” “You didn’t raise your hand. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.” “You didn’t etc.. etc.. etc… Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.”
bornagain77
October 30, 2016
October
10
Oct
30
30
2016
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT
Dionisio:
But I feel sad for DK. I used to exist in that same state of mind for a substantial portion of the time I’ve been around, totally oblivious to reality. It’s pathetic, because I wasn’t aware of my lost condition. Everything seemed fine from my distorted perspective. However, there’s hope that DK could be rescued from that miserable situation. I know God loves him, because God loves me and I’m not better than DK. DK, you and I were made in God’s image (Imago Dei), hence we all share the same dignity and can have intimate relation with our own Creator. It doesn’t get better than that. I pray that DK’s spiritual eyes get wide open so that he can see the true ultimate reality, defined in the first few verses of the gospel according to the apostle John.
More ad hominems Is that all you have? You might rethink your position.Daniel King
October 30, 2016
October
10
Oct
30
30
2016
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT
bornagain77:
Daniel King, contrary to what you may personally believe, a statement of a fact is not a personal ad hominem.
Contrary to what you may personally believe, bornagain, your opinion is not a fact. If you really were born yesterday, I can understand your confusion.Daniel King
October 30, 2016
October
10
Oct
30
30
2016
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
Bob O'H: Since I've started to like you, specially after your comments @82, I want to show you the answers to some questions I asked you @65, so you see how easy they are:
The following questions were asked to professor L.M. of the U. of T. His answers are publicly available in this site. Now you have the opportunity to answer them too. 6. Do you know exactly how the morphogen gradients are formed? (yes/no) 7. Do you know exactly how the morphogen gradients are interpreted? (yes/no)
The answer to both questions is NO, because nobody knows exactly how the morphogen gradients are formed or interpreted. There are important outstanding questions in that area. In the thread "Mystery at the heart of life" there are several references to very recent papers on this subject. A lot is known, but still far from knowing exactly the whole enchilada. In your case, since this is not your area of expertise, it was obviously easy to realize that the answer is NO.Dionisio
October 30, 2016
October
10
Oct
30
30
2016
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
Bob O'H @82: Thank you for writing back. Please, forgive me if I wrote anything that sounded 'insulting' to you. That was not my intention and I don't have any right to insult anybody here or anywhere else. You mentioned a few interesting things related to the scientific work you do: @60:
Going through my inbox just now, I’ve been sent some data on an experiment in canine psychology, got emails from colleagues about an analysis I sent them last night about Mongolian livestock, and was CC’ed a decision on a manuscript I reviewed. That’s just overnight. So the reason I don’t participate in every thread is that I’m busy actually doing serious science (this morning it’s more Mongolian livestock and global trees).
@64:
One reason I lack the time is because I’m doing serious science. This week I’ve been poking at analyses, and waiting for my Markdown documents to compile, so I have time to pop in & look at threads I’ve been active on.
I would like to hear more about the scientific work you do, at least in general terms, without revealing any identities or classified information. But first, can you tell what's your scientific/professional/educational/academic background without revealing specific details about people, places or dates? Take your time. No rush. I can wait. Thank you.Dionisio
October 30, 2016
October
10
Oct
30
30
2016
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
Bob O'H, A genuine discussion here is always welcome. This involves both expository and responsive posts. Communication goes two ways. I'm not sure what a "world tree" is in this context, but if you're more comfortable using Mongolian livestock as a point in case, feel free to do so, but expect others to do likewise in areas you might not feel comfortable in. Are you studying the genomes of Mongolian livestock? -QQuerius
October 30, 2016
October
10
Oct
30
30
2016
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
Dionisio @77 - I responded to a particular comment which I found rather insulting. I wasn't intending that to be an invitation to be asked about other topics that hadn't been brought up and I'm sorry if you misconstrued my response as such. If you genuinely want to learn, then I'd suggest trying a less confrontational approach. Even if there is much we don't agree on, I would hope that a genuine discussion could be had.Bob O'H
October 30, 2016
October
10
Oct
30
30
2016
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
Daniel King in regards to this statement that I made,,,
"if you are not a Theist then, by default, you are not being ‘scientific’ but are in fact being anti-scientific."
,, you replied,,,
"Looks like ad hominems are so ingrained in the UD community that it’s become the standard reply to any criticism."
Daniel King, contrary to what you may personally believe, a statement of a fact is not a personal ad hominem. It is simply a statement of a fact. If you consider my statement personally offensive then that is your own fault for being too personally attached to the naturalistic worldview. The naturalistic worldview, as much as you may admire that worldview, is not 'you'. In fact, since consciousness is an illusion under naturalism, then there would be no 'you' to be offended in naturalism were actually true. I merely pointed out the now established fact that the naturalistic worldview is indeed anti-scientific. Daniel King, you then go on to, of all things, state this,,,
"You’re not fooling anybody, except yourself."
Yet Daniel King, if Naturalism were actually true then Naturalism itself would be 'fooling' everybody and science would be impossible. That is, in fact, a very large part of the reason why I stated that Naturalism is in fact the 'anti-scientific' worldview. For instance, although reliable ‘observation’ of reality is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method itself,,,
Steps of the Scientific Method Observation/Research Hypothesis Prediction Experimentation Conclusion http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html
,,, Although reliable ‘observation’ of reality is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method, the naturalism that Darwinian evolution rests upon undermines this necessary cornerstone. That is to say, given the atheistic premises of naturalism, not only are our personal beliefs about reality held to be somewhat flawed, and therefore in need of testing, even our perceptions/observations of reality itself are held to be untrustworthy and thus ‘illusory’ given the materialistic premises of atheism. Richard Dawkins puts the awkward situation between Darwinian evolution and reliable observation like this:
Why Atheism is Nonsense Pt.5 – “Naturalism is a Self-defeating Idea”video Excerpt: “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Richard Dawkins – quoted from “The God Delusion” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff-5rsrDRGM
In the following video and article, Donald Hoffman has, through numerous computer simulations of population genetics, proved that if Darwinian evolution were actually true then ALL of our perceptions of reality would be illusory.
Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? – Video – 9:59 minute mark Quote: “,,,evolution is a mathematically precise theory. We can use the equations of evolution to check this out. We can have various organisms in artificial worlds compete and see which survive and which thrive, which sensory systems or more fit. A key notion in those equations is fitness.,,, fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes.,,, Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it is fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality. Others see just part of the reality. And some see none of the reality. Only fitness. Who wins? Well I hate to break it to you but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality, but are just tuned to fitness, drive to extinction that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those (accurate) perceptions of reality go extinct. Now this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?” https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY?t=601 The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality - April 2016 The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions. Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.” https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/
Although Hoffman tried to limit his results to just our visual perceptions, as Plantinga had pointed out before Hoffman came along, there is no reason why the results do not also extend to undermining our cognitive faculties as well:
The Case Against Reality - May 13, 2016 Excerpt: Hoffman seems to come to a conclusion similar to the one Alvin Plantinga argues in ch. 10 of Where the Conflict Really Lies: we should not expect — in the absence of further argument — that creatures formed by a naturalistic evolutionary process would have veridical perceptions.,,, First, even if Hoffman’s argument were restricted to visual perception, and not to our cognitive faculties more generally (e.g., memory, introspection, a priori rational insight, testimonial belief, inferential reasoning, etc.), the conclusion that our visual perceptions would be wholly unreliable given natural selection would be sufficient for Plantinga’s conclusion of self-defeat. After all, reliance upon the veridicality of our visual perceptions was and always will be crucial for any scientific argument for the truth of evolution. So if these perceptions cannot be trusted, we have little reason to think evolutionary theory is true. Second, it’s not clear that Hoffman’s application of evolutionary game theory is only specially applicable to visual perception, rather than being relevant for our cognitive faculties generally. If “we find that veridical perceptions can be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality” (2010, p. 504, my emphasis), then why wouldn’t veridical cognitive faculties (more generally) be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality? After all, evolutionary theory purports to be the true account of the formation of all of our cognitive faculties, not just our faculty of visual perception. If evolutionary game theory proves that “true perception generally goes extinct” when “animals that perceive the truth compete with others that sacrifice truth for speed and energy-efficiency” (2008), why wouldn’t there be a similar sacrifice with respect to other cognitive faculties? In fact, Hoffman regards the following theorem as now proven: “According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness” (Atlantic interview). But then wouldn’t it also be the case that an organism that cognizes reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that cognizes none of reality but is just tuned to fitness? On the evolutionary story, every cognitive faculty we have was produced by a process that was tuned to fitness (rather than tuned to some other value, such as truth). http://www.gregwelty.com/2016/05/the-case-against-reality/
Thus, in what should be needless to say, a worldview that undermines the scientific method itself by holding ALL of our observations of reality, and even our cognitive faculties, are illusory, is NOT a worldview that can be firmly grounded within the scientific method!
Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself – Nancy Pearcey – March 8, 2015 Excerpt: Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value. So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality. The reason so few atheists and materialists seem to recognize the problem is that, like Darwin, they apply their skepticism selectively. They apply it to undercut only ideas they reject, especially ideas about God. They make a tacit exception for their own worldview commitments. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar094171.html
Moreover, completely contrary to what Hoffman found for Darwinian theory, accurate perception, i.e. conscious observation, far from being unreliable and illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable of reality, than the mathematics of population genetics said it would be. In the following experiment, it was found that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html
Apparently science itself could care less if atheists are forced to believe, because of the mathematics of population genetics, that their observations of reality are illusory! In conclusion, Atheistic Naturalists undermine their own testimony about reality since they, self admittedly, cannot trust anything that they may see and/or think about reality if their worldview were actually true. In other words, Naturalism is 'anti-scientific': Whereas on the other hand, as science itself demonstrates, the testimony of the Christian Theist, as to what result he may have personally saw in an scientific experiment, or what he personally saw otherwise, remains reliable in its overall integrity. Verse:
Revelation 1:2 who testifies to everything he saw--that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.
bornagain77
October 30, 2016
October
10
Oct
30
30
2016
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT
Dionisio, Yes, I agree. The reason that I've added some ridicule to certain replies is in the perhaps vain effort to shake them into awareness. It seems like few if any of their posts are genuine attempts at discussion. What woke me up was the speculative nature and inadequacy of Darwinism. I started asking questions in high school and then rejected the pathetic theory after studying *part* of a wall-full of complex biochemical cycles in college. The sick man by the pool wanted healing and told Jesus straight out. He didn't argue or rationalize when Jesus told him to get up,take up his bed, and walk. Certain people here want anything but healing, preferring instead to waste our time with stupid arguments to justify their lifestyle. However, I respect a question or doubt as long as the person is genuine and honest. There's a huge difference! -QQuerius
October 29, 2016
October
10
Oct
29
29
2016
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT
Querius I like you buddy. You've made me laugh out loud. But I feel sad for DK. I used to exist in that same state of mind for a substantial portion of the time I've been around, totally oblivious to reality. It's pathetic, because I wasn't aware of my lost condition. Everything seemed fine from my distorted perspective. However, there's hope that DK could be rescued from that miserable situation. I know God loves him, because God loves me and I'm not better than DK. DK, you and I were made in God's image (Imago Dei), hence we all share the same dignity and can have intimate relation with our own Creator. It doesn't get better than that. I pray that DK's spiritual eyes get wide open so that he can see the true ultimate reality, defined in the first few verses of the gospel according to the apostle John. PS. One reason to ask very simple easy to answer 'yes'/'no' questions is to let your interlocutors reveal their real motives for discussing. If they hassle about those simple questions, it most probably means that they're not interested in having a serious discussion whatsoever. Just observe DK's hysterical reaction. It's definitely sad. By the pool of Bethesda our Lord met a man who had been paralyzed many years. Do you remember what Jesus asked him? What did the sick man respond? What happened next?Dionisio
October 29, 2016
October
10
Oct
29
29
2016
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
Daniel King @69 wrote:
Querius, You’re funny. Dionisio’s fallacious reasoning is science? Get a grip, if you can.
To which, (Daniel King)^-1 would reply:
Daniel King, You're stupid. Dionisio’s brilliant reasoning is science. Get a grip, if you can.
Thus it becomes apparent that multiplying them together and subtracting one from the product would simply leave a bad smell. ;-) -QQuerius
October 29, 2016
October
10
Oct
29
29
2016
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
bornagain77:
Daniel King, if you are not a Theist then, by default, you are not being ‘scientific’ but are in fact being anti-scientific.
Looks like ad hominems are so ingrained in the UD community that it's become the standard reply to any criticism. You're not fooling anybody, except yourself.Daniel King
October 29, 2016
October
10
Oct
29
29
2016
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
Dionisio @72:
1. Do you know exactly why Dionisio is writing directly to Bob O’H? 2. Do you know who started the direct exchange of comments between Bob O’H and Dionisio? 3. BTW, did Bob O’H hire you as his defense lawyer? :) 4. Do you want to discuss science with me? 5. Do you have time for such a discussion? 6. Would you be really interested in such a discussion? 7. At any depth of details? You may use any help you can get. Just let me know when you’re ready. For appetizers you may start from the questions # 6 & 7 posted @65.M
You can answer those silly questions yourself. That smokescreen doesn't hide your attack on Bob O'H simply for disagreeing with bornagain77. Ad hominems seem to be the modus operandi of this site. (I am grateful to my Jesuit mentors for teaching me a little elementary Latin and elementary logic. Both come in handy when analyzing the illogic of UD supporters.)Daniel King
October 29, 2016
October
10
Oct
29
29
2016
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply