Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Einstein would be horrified to have his words used to justify intelligent design.

Over the course of his life, Einstein wrote a lot and spoke a lot and moreover was widely consulted for comment on the issues of his day, so I hesitate to offer any definitive pronouncement, but it looks as though he never wrote or spoke extensively about evolution or evolution education. There are a few suggestive snippets here and there, however. For example, in 1939, speaking at Princeton Theological Seminary, Einstein famously decried conflicts arising “when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible.” The result of such an insistence, he explained, is “an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs.”

https://ncse.ngo/albert-einsteins-voice-evolution

[Charlemagne]

Einstein would be horrified to have his words used to justify intelligent design.

And you know this how? Your answer does not include remarks on the Einstein quote I gave you, which can have only one interpretation: that the universe has an organizing intelligence behind it.

One thing is very clear: you are "horrified" by Einstein's remarks.

[Sy Borg]

Einstein would be horrified to have his words used to justify intelligent design.

And you know this how? Your answer does not include remarks on the Einstein quote I gave you, which can have only one interpretation: that the universe has an organizing intelligence behind it.

One thing is very clear: you are "horrified" by Einstein's remarks.

You are wrong on all counts now, including your weird assessment of me. Einstein absolutely did not endorse creationism. Rather, his focus was challenging our conceptions of time so, in a block universe, things do not evolve because everything in time is already there. This is a highly esoteric view that in no way contradicts Darwin. Einstein sometimes used "God" as a metaphor because he enjoyed the poetry of it, but he is referring to the laws of physics.

Einstein obviously did not support the big-man-in-the-sky idea of Abrahamic faiths.

[Charlemagne]

Einstein would be horrified to have his words used to justify intelligent design.

And you know this how? Your answer does not include remarks on the Einstein quote I gave you, which can have only one interpretation: that the universe has an organizing intelligence behind it.

One thing is very clear: you are "horrified" by Einstein's remarks.

You are wrong on all counts now, including your weird assessment of me. Einstein absolutely did not endorse creationism. Rather, his focus was challenging our conceptions of time so, in a block universe, things do not evolve because everything in time is already there. This is a highly esoteric view that in no way contradicts Darwin. Einstein sometimes used "God" as a metaphor because he enjoyed the poetry of it, but he is referring to the laws of physics.

Einstein obviously did not support the big-man-in-the-sky idea of Abrahamic faiths.

And of course I never said he did. You can tap dance around the quote all you like, but it stands on its own merits. There's no other way to interpret it but that he saw some kind of intelligence behind all things. He was not into the God of Abraham, but he was clearly into the God of Spinoza. In any case, he denied being an atheist, which is altogether to deny any kind of intelligence governing the world.

[EricPH]

Nilsson and Pelger's paper was 28 years ago. More has been found since then.
https://www.nature.com/articles/eye2017226

Maybe, but it was an influential paper. The link you gave also quotes and uses N+P research.

Unlike theists, scientists are not satisfied with a dogma but keep on digging. Here is some updated information:

The link you supplied starts off by saying,

I will present some concepts about some of the major steps in the evolutionary process to stimulate your thinking about this interesting and complex topic.

I was hoping your link would provide evidence for eye evolution, as opposed to provoking thoughts on the subject. As is often the case, papers on evolution are full of words and phrases like, murky evidence, could have, it suggests that, probably, possibly, etc. This is not surprising when the soft tissue fossils are 500 - billions of years old. A lot of guess work is needed to fill the gaps.

https://www.nature.com/articles/eye2017226
Multiple light-sensing cells in an eyespot in a multicellular animal, such as a leech could recognize only light or dark. Perhaps after 35 000 generations, an organism discovered that developing a concave cup instead of a spot produced a more successful and competitive organ for sight.12
As Nilsson and Pelger12 suggested, from an eyespot to an eyecup to a fully formed camera-style eye could take as few as 364 000 generations, and the production of such an eye in perhaps as short a period as half a million years. Of course, there would be more to an eye than just a cup, but that is a key step (Figure 2), and that cup may fit the real definition of an ‘eye.’

If you study the Nilsson Pelger paper closely, they have shown 7 sets of parameters for the eye lens to develop. These amount to 7 goals, and without these 7 goals, the N+P paper crumbles. Yet one of the main principles of evolution, is there are no goals that life works towards. Presumably single cell life existed without eyes, so eyes were not needed. I am not disputing that eyes are an advantage, but they weren't needed in single cell life.

Your link provoked the thought that life could not evolve without a creator God guiding the process. Darwin probably knew that real evidence for the evolution of the eye would be almost impossible to prove.

There is extensive work that shows that the eye not only evolved, but it evolved multiple times. The human eye did not suddenly arrive, with all these presumed "goals". Eyes started with small photosensitive indents and things progressed from there.

Agreed, there is fossil evidence to show variations in diverse species, many still exist today. But in centuries from now, I don't believe the ToE will stand the test of time.

[Sy Borg]

The theory of evolution will not only stand the test of time, it will become ever more important. Darwin has been found over and over to be correct.

I find creationism ironic because it flies in the face of the first page of the Bible. The creation passages ("on the first day ...") are obviously intuitive observations of evolution, using poetic language of the time. The ancients had no scientific terminology, so they described phenomena with metaphor. The ancients would be horrified to see their words being so misunderstood, or maybe they would be amused.

Personally, I don't much differentiate between the development ("evolution") of geology and geochemistry that made abiogenesis possible, evolution or individual growth. It's all development over time because nothing ever stays the same.

I see evolution as gestation writ large, the growth and development of the biosphere as a whole. The fact is that everything grows and develops and, over deep time, the changes can be enormous, such as from microbes to manned space stations.

[Charlemagne]

The theory of evolution will not only stand the test of time, it will become ever more important. Darwin has been found over and over to be correct.

The one place he has not been found to be correct is abiogenesis. The first living creature did not evolve. There was nothing to evolve from. It was created. How is what Intelligent Design addresses.

[Sy Borg]

The theory of evolution will not only stand the test of time, it will become ever more important. Darwin has been found over and over to be correct.

The one place he has not been found to be correct is abiogenesis. The first living creature did not evolve. There was nothing to evolve from. It was created. How is what Intelligent Design addresses.

That's silly, like arguing that geology is not real because the discipline does not explain the plasma state of matter than preceded atoms, so we should instead insert God in the gap.

If you are actually interested in abiogenesis rather than using it as a means to justify your superstitions, this is easily the best material I've found:

[EricPH]

The theory of evolution will not only stand the test of time, it will become ever more important. Darwin has been found over and over to be correct.

Natural selection, and passing on genes to the next generation will certainly stand the test of time. It's doubtful that using the ToE to extrapolate back a few billion years, will stand the test of time.

I find creationism ironic because it flies in the face of the first page of the Bible. The creation passages ("on the first day ...") are obviously intuitive observations of evolution, using poetic language of the time.

I find this amusing, that the ancients predicted evolution. Does this make evolution yet another myth perpetrated by primitive man?

[3017Metaphysician]

The theory of evolution will not only stand the test of time, it will become ever more important. Darwin has been found over and over to be correct.

I find creationism ironic because it flies in the face of the first page of the Bible. The creation passages ("on the first day ...") are obviously intuitive observations of evolution, using poetic language of the time. The ancients had no scientific terminology, so they described phenomena with metaphor. The ancients would be horrified to see their words being so misunderstood, or maybe they would be amused.

Personally, I don't much differentiate between the development ("evolution") of geology and geochemistry that made abiogenesis possible, evolution or individual growth. It's all development over time because nothing ever stays the same.

I see evolution as gestation writ large, the growth and development of the biosphere as a whole. The fact is that everything grows and develops and, over deep time, the changes can be enormous, such as from microbes to manned space stations.

SB!

No. Darwin only hypothesized from an already existing ensemble of creatures, not the first one. More importantly, the qualitative properties of the mind, confer no biological survival advantages (love, music theory, mathematical genius/abilities, Qualia, Time, non-locality, QM, and other experiential phenomena, so on and so forth). Until you can demonstrate how the information narrative emerges from the matter narrative, you're dead in the water!

Keep trying though!

[Sy Borg]

The theory of evolution will not only stand the test of time, it will become ever more important. Darwin has been found over and over to be correct.

I find creationism ironic because it flies in the face of the first page of the Bible. The creation passages ("on the first day ...") are obviously intuitive observations of evolution, using poetic language of the time. The ancients had no scientific terminology, so they described phenomena with metaphor. The ancients would be horrified to see their words being so misunderstood, or maybe they would be amused.

Personally, I don't much differentiate between the development ("evolution") of geology and geochemistry that made abiogenesis possible, evolution or individual growth. It's all development over time because nothing ever stays the same.

I see evolution as gestation writ large, the growth and development of the biosphere as a whole. The fact is that everything grows and develops and, over deep time, the changes can be enormous, such as from microbes to manned space stations.

SB!

No. Darwin only hypothesized from an already existing ensemble of creatures, not the first one. More importantly, the qualitative properties of the mind, confer no biological survival advantages (love, music theory, mathematical genius/abilities, Qualia, Time, non-locality, QM, and other experiential phenomena, so on and so forth). Until you can demonstrate how the information narrative emerges from the matter narrative, you're dead in the water!

Keep trying though!

You did not understand my post. It was not about Darwin. Feel free to try again, or not.

[3017Metaphysician]

The theory of evolution will not only stand the test of time, it will become ever more important. Darwin has been found over and over to be correct.

I find creationism ironic because it flies in the face of the first page of the Bible. The creation passages ("on the first day ...") are obviously intuitive observations of evolution, using poetic language of the time. The ancients had no scientific terminology, so they described phenomena with metaphor. The ancients would be horrified to see their words being so misunderstood, or maybe they would be amused.

Personally, I don't much differentiate between the development ("evolution") of geology and geochemistry that made abiogenesis possible, evolution or individual growth. It's all development over time because nothing ever stays the same.

I see evolution as gestation writ large, the growth and development of the biosphere as a whole. The fact is that everything grows and develops and, over deep time, the changes can be enormous, such as from microbes to manned space stations.

SB!

No. Darwin only hypothesized from an already existing ensemble of creatures, not the first one. More importantly, the qualitative properties of the mind, confer no biological survival advantages (love, music theory, mathematical genius/abilities, Qualia, Time, non-locality, QM, and other experiential phenomena, so on and so forth). Until you can demonstrate how the information narrative emerges from the matter narrative, you're dead in the water!

Keep trying though!

You did not understand my post. It was not about Darwin. Feel free to try again, or not.

I double checked. I believe you're trying to make a case for the exclusivity of evolution, which obviously is only a half-theory and doesn't work. Remember, he only hypothesized from an already existing ensemble of creatures not the first one ex nihilo. A sinking ship for sure!

Did you ever figure out how the information narrative emerges from the matter narrative?

[Sy Borg]

The theory of evolution will not only stand the test of time, it will become ever more important. Darwin has been found over and over to be correct.

I find creationism ironic because it flies in the face of the first page of the Bible. The creation passages ("on the first day ...") are obviously intuitive observations of evolution, using poetic language of the time. The ancients had no scientific terminology, so they described phenomena with metaphor. The ancients would be horrified to see their words being so misunderstood, or maybe they would be amused.

Personally, I don't much differentiate between the development ("evolution") of geology and geochemistry that made abiogenesis possible, evolution or individual growth. It's all development over time because nothing ever stays the same.

I see evolution as gestation writ large, the growth and development of the biosphere as a whole. The fact is that everything grows and develops and, over deep time, the changes can be enormous, such as from microbes to manned space stations.

SB!

No. Darwin only hypothesized from an already existing ensemble of creatures, not the first one. More importantly, the qualitative properties of the mind, confer no biological survival advantages (love, music theory, mathematical genius/abilities, Qualia, Time, non-locality, QM, and other experiential phenomena, so on and so forth). Until you can demonstrate how the information narrative emerges from the matter narrative, you're dead in the water!

Keep trying though!

You did not understand my post. It was not about Darwin. Feel free to try again, or not.

I double checked. I believe you're trying to make a case for the exclusivity of evolution, which obviously is only a half-theory and doesn't work. Remember, he only hypothesized from an already existing ensemble of creatures not the first one ex nihilo. A sinking ship for sure!

Did you ever figure out how the information narrative emerges from the matter narrative?

:lol:

Stop lying.

Evolution is a genuine theory and its predictions have been shown to be correct countless times. There is no argument or debate. It's a fact.

I already discussed information and matter but it appears you didn't understand that either. I come to philosophy forums for intelligent conversation and I expect much better than what you have been dishing up of late.

[3017Metaphysician]

SB!

No. Darwin only hypothesized from an already existing ensemble of creatures, not the first one. More importantly, the qualitative properties of the mind, confer no biological survival advantages (love, music theory, mathematical genius/abilities, Qualia, Time, non-locality, QM, and other experiential phenomena, so on and so forth). Until you can demonstrate how the information narrative emerges from the matter narrative, you're dead in the water!

Keep trying though!

You did not understand my post. It was not about Darwin. Feel free to try again, or not.

I double checked. I believe you're trying to make a case for the exclusivity of evolution, which obviously is only a half-theory and doesn't work. Remember, he only hypothesized from an already existing ensemble of creatures not the first one ex nihilo. A sinking ship for sure!

Did you ever figure out how the information narrative emerges from the matter narrative?

Stop lying.

Evolution is a genuine theory and its predictions have been shown to be correct countless times. There is no argument or debate. It's a fact.

I already discussed information and matter but it appears you didn't understand that either. I come to philosophy forums for intelligent conversation and I expect much better than what you have been dishing up of late.

SB!

Remember attack the issue, not the person. Your ad hom's only serve to weaken your case! Lawyering 101 is when the opponent backs you in a corner (like I'm doing to you) and you resort to either attacking the person personally (calling me a liar) or the process itself (the rules, regulations, processes, procedures, etc.). Why? Because you seemingly have no arguments, only arbitrary assertions. You're not fooling anybody! Here, this may help you:

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy that involves a personal attack: an argument based on the perceived failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case. In short, it's when your rebuttal to an opponent's position is an irrelevant attack on the opponent personally rather than the subject at hand, to discredit the position by discrediting its supporter.

Using an ad hominem fallacy pulls the public's attention off the real issue and serves only as a distraction. In some contexts it's unethical. The attacks serve as red herrings to try to discredit or blunt the opponent's argument or make the public ignore it--it's not just a personal attack but one stated as a counterattack to the position.


Is that what you're doing SB? For shame for shame. And you're a moderator?? No matter, Darwin in his theory, (which is under scientific revision as we speak) hypothesized from an already existing ensemble of creatures not the first one ex nihilo. Do you have an argument for that? Is it true or false? Are ad hom's your only defense? Please share if you are able!

Because I'm such a nice guy, allow me to help you:

In its new form the argument is directed not to the material objects of the universe as such, but to the underlying laws, where it is immune from Darwinian attack. To see why, let me first explain the essential character of Darwinian evolution. At its heart, Darwin's theory requires the existence of an ensemble, or a collection of similar individuals, upon which selection may act. For example, consider how polar bears may have come to blend so well with snow. Imagine a collection of brown bears hunting for food in snowy terrain. Their prey easily sees them coming and beats a hasty retreat. The brown bears have a hard time. Then, by some genetic accident, a brown bear gives birth to a white bear. The white bear makes a good living because it can creep up on its prey without being noticed so easily. It lives longer than its brown competitors and produces more white offspring.

They too fare better and produce still more white bears. Before long, the white bears are predominating, taking all the food, and driving the brown bears to ex-tinction. It's hard to imagine that something like the foregoing story isn't close to the truth. But notice how crucial it is that there be many bears to start with. One member of the bear ensemble is accidentally born white, and a selective advantage is gained over the others. The whole argument depends on nature being able to select from a collection of similar, competing individuals. ---physicist Paul Davies/The Mind of God.


And so, SB, you need to tell us where all the information and instructions are, in nature, that has all the causal powers necessary to bring things into existence. And that includes not only material matter itself, but self-directed, self-organized biological creatures who propagate, think and feel!

I anxiously await your reply!!

[3017Metaphysician]

You have tried my patience ands your patronising is nauseating.

The fact is that evolution is a truly reliable theory, proved correct over and over. Further, it's simply logical that, over time, mutations happen and are naturally selected. If you have never heard of self-organisation, you are not equipped enough to speak about evolution, and should be quiet and listen to those with more knowledge. Paul Davies' thought experiment above is incoherent, ignoring the extremely long time spans over which evolution happens in large organisms.

Why would you give greater credence to a 2,000 year-old book of myths over tried and tested theories?

SB!

There you go again making unsupported assertions/claims. They are not relevant to my questions.

Keep trying!