Reply to Why don't you believe in God?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Why don't you believe in God?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Theories of evolution technically begin after the appearance of the first living cell.  However, Dawkins devoted one chapter of [u]The Blind Watchmaker[/u] to speculation about applying evolutionary theories to the origin of life.

Of course, if Dawkins is correct there is no Designer of any kind, that would include the time before the origin of life.  So scientists' inability to explain the origin of life by naturalist causes should be considered problematic.  But Dawkins flatly states, "The present lack of a definitely accepted account of the origin of life should certainly not be taken as a stumbling block for the whole Darwinian worldview."  But what if all the evidence shows life [i]could not[/i] arise from purely naturalistic causes?  That is where we stand right now, with the complexity of the simplest single cell surpassing Darwin's imagination.  There is no application of evolutionary theory that can explain the origin of information in living things, much less the presence of all the interworking functions of a single living cell.  But after several speculations, Dawkins concludes, "This chapter has had the modest aim of explaining only the kind of way in which it [b]must have happened.[/b]"  (emphasis mine)  In other words, he is working backwards from a necessary conclusion.  And his necessary conclusion is that there is no Designer.

But let's skip past the origin of life issue, to when evolutionary theory actually can be applied.  In the chapter titled "Accumulating small change," Dawkins uses his "Methinks it is like a weasel" example in an attempt to demonstrate how what should be a mathematical impossibility of progressive complexity is actually accomplished in a much smaller series of steps when some of the small changes are retained along the way.  (If you don't already know this analogy, it is easily found elsewhere, so I won't detail it here.)  Rather than starting over from scratch every time with the letters necessary to make this sentence, if some letters are retained each time, it would not require as many chances to accomplish.

What is the logical problem with this explanation?  If you are a naturalist, there is no Designer, no direction. But if so, where would this "target sequence" be stored as a goal to achieve?

A simple way to see how this explanation is fatally flawed is to think of the target sequence as a combination lock.  If you don't know the combination, getting half of the letters "right" is no improvement over having none of the letters right.

This analogy was meant to demonstrate that "variation is generated at random, but selection among variants is non-random."  Natural selection requires a function to select.  There is no function in a lock combination that does not work.

Dawkins admits the program was never intended to model biological evolution accurately:

"Although the monkey/Shakespeare model is useful for explaining the distinction between single-step selection and cumulative selection, it is [b]misleading in important ways.[/b] One of these is that, in each generation of selective 'breeding', the mutant 'progeny' phrases were judged according to the criterion of resemblance to a distant ideal target, the phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. Life isn't like that. Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection, although human vanity cherishes the absurd notion that our species is the final goal of evolution. In real life, the criterion for selection is always short-term, either simple survival or, more generally, reproductive success." (bold mine)

There would be no survival, much less reproductive success, from a fatal mutation, and the ratio of harmful to beneficial mutations does not inspire optimism for "progress."

Darwin stated emphatically, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."  But some neo-Darwinists refuse to follow the evidence if it may lead towards a Designer.

These instances of logical fallacies permeate the discussions of those who cannot consider the possibility of a Creator.[/quote]

Also, too, there's nothing to this Quantum Mechanics business because Newton was wrong on several points.  Sorry, PP, but this is just ignorance dressed up in a cheap tux and tap dancing around the stage.  I hope you got this nonsense from a third source, and didn't waste any time going through Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker with a highlighter, looking for words like "misleading".  That's just sad.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics