Hello Evolution, Nice to Meet You (nature displays genius, Evos forced to personify)

Discovery Institute ^ | June 2, 2009 | Logan Gage

[GodGunsGuts]

Hello Evolution, Nice to Meet You

I believe it was Philip Johnson who once said that if you replaced the word "evolution" in biology textbooks with the word "design," almost nothing of substance would change. I think he was right.

We wonder at nature, not because we are so ignorant, as some people think, but rather because it is so amazing. As Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt explained in A Meaningful World, nature displays true genius. And it is this plain fact that drives design-deniers to deify, or at least personify, Evolution.

Take as just one example this extremely fascinating article, "To Be a Baby," (a play on Thomas Nagel's question of what it is like to "be a bat") from Seed Magazine. The article is an interview with Berkeley psychologist Alison Gopnik, author of The Philosophical Baby: What Children's Minds Tell Us About Truth, Love, and the Meaning of Life.

Gopnik notes that the helplessness of young children seems to be an evolutionary disadvantage and thus would never have developed via the Darwinian mechanism (recall that in humans this period of helplessness is longer than in many other species). Yet her fascinating research led her to see that babies have such a richer mental life (especially rich in imagination) than we typically give them credit for. And this period where they are helpless actually affords them a lengthy period to develop thoughts about the world.

Thus Gopnik concludes:

The way that evolution seems to have solved this problem is by giving us this period of childhood where we don’t have to do anything, where we are completely useless. We’re free to explore the physical world, as well as possible worlds through imaginative play. And when we’re adults, we can use that information to actually change the world.

Rather than see the amazing design of the world, the Darwinian is forced to the absurd position of personifying "Evolution." Evolution intended this and that. And yet this rings hollow when you read of the genius of child development Gopnik ably describes.

Yet she would have lost nothing except the superfluous personification had she just opened her eyes to design.

[FormerRep]

Best to just let this one go. It was never really meant to prove anything just convey the author’s opinion.

[freedumb2003]

>>Best to just let this one go. It was never really meant to prove anything just convey the author’s opinion.<<

Good advice.

Abandoning thread.

‘Night.

[AZ .44 MAG]

See ya!

[tpanther]

Best to just let this one go. It was never really meant to prove anything just convey the author’s opinion.

Uhhhh, no that would be the results liberals expect to find with evolution, thus the sham of peer review.

Is there a single thread where evo-liberals don't project-alot?

[tpanther]

Sure it does. It demonstrates that the Evo-atheists are statistically the most likely publisher stories about Indian-loving aliens and winged cats.

Liberals project. In fact I challenge anyone to find a thread where liberal-evos haven't projected. Or used strawmen.

[GodGunsGuts]

Yes, they do...especially when they try to tell YOU that you are made of goo.

[AndrewC]

As I said, my source is as reliable as the OP.

...

As far as childhood somehow undermining TToE — only when you don’t understand science.

No, this is what you "said": "In related news from an equally reliable source:"

The original source was the "Seed" article which contains the fairytale.

You continually assert that because someone disagrees with your viewpoint that they don't understand science. Well, something has to be able to undermine TToE or it is not science, by definition. On top of that, it was a comment that was made by the researcher/author during the interview which seems to undermine TToE(but a just-so story comes to the "rescue" in a comment following it), not a comment made by the article's author. The undermining comment being "It’s related to one of the basic things that came out of our research: Why do children exist at all? It doesn’t make tremendous evolutionary sense to have these creatures that can’t even keep themselves alive and require an enormous investment of time on the part of adults. That period of dependence is longer for us than it is for any other species, and historically that period has become longer and longer.

And specious is the act of making up just-so stories to justify a conclusion. Especially when that conclusion involves defining childhood(children) as useless. Do you think children are useless?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[freedumb2003]

>>No, this is what you “said”: “In related news from an equally reliable source:”<<

Yes, as opposed to people who purposely misread my post.

>>You continually assert that because someone disagrees with your viewpoint that they don’t understand science. Well, something has to be able to undermine TToE or it is not science, by definition. <<

That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you talking about falsifiability?

>>On top of that, it was a comment that was made by the researcher/author during the interview which seems to undermine TToE(but a just-so story comes to the “rescue” in a comment following it), not a comment made by the article’s author. <<

Yes, a child psychologist can undermine a 200 year old bedrock of physical science.

>>The undermining comment being “It’s related to one of the basic things that came out of our research: Why do children exist at all? It doesn’t make tremendous evolutionary sense to have these creatures that can’t even keep themselves alive and require an enormous investment of time on the part of adults. That period of dependence is longer for us than it is for any other species, and historically that period has become longer and longer. <<

How silly is that comment. The progression of lengthening childhood is a sociological phenomenon, not a physical one. The fact we have seen it in a few hundred years — faster than a blink of an eye in terms of evolution — means that it has nothing to do with evolution at all. As I said, anyone with the tiniest passing knowledge of science should be able to come to this conclusion. I guess someone had to help connect the dots.

[freedumb2003]

>>Liberals project. In fact I challenge anyone to find a thread where liberal-evos haven’t projected. Or used strawmen.<<

I think I shall dub thee iron-y man.

[AndrewC]

Yes, as opposed to people who purposely misread my post.

You mean the sterling post citing Batboy. Get a life.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you talking about falsifiability?

Well, howdy. You said it made no sense. You just fell into the hole?

Yes, a child psychologist can undermine a 200 year old bedrock of physical science.

Do you know the difference between physical science and biological science?

How silly is that comment.

Well, now you seem to be getting the drift of the thread. That silly comment was made by Gopnik who later made this statement. "The evolutionary answer seems to be that there is a tradeoff between the ability to learn and imagine — which is our great evolutionary advantage as a species — and our ability to apply what we’ve learned and put it to use."

So you evidently agree with the Logan Gage, "Rather than see the amazing design of the world, the Darwinian is forced to the absurd position of personifying "Evolution." Evolution intended this and that. And yet this rings hollow when you read of the genius of child development Gopnik ably describes.".

[freedumb2003]

>>Rather than see the amazing design of the world, the Darwinian is forced to the absurd position of personifying “Evolution.” Evolution intended this and that. And yet this rings hollow when you read of the genius of child development Gopnik ably describes.<<

That is, as I said, specious. It is incorrect on so many levels that it is almost impossible to address them all.

Suffice it to say that seeing the wonder of a child is indeed, possible for those who understand science. The statement just shows the inability of the person to see beyond simple talking points.

[AndrewC]

That is, as I said, specious. It is incorrect on so many levels that it is almost impossible to address them all.

No, what is specious are the statements made by the Darwinists. Your argument is specious, because you admit that the Darwinist's statement was silly in your post 29. The simple statement you assert is specious assails the statements made by Gopnik which is exactly what you have done.

And your statement implying that one must understand science to see the wonder of children is completely laughable.

[freedumb2003]

You crack me up. I leave your words for the world to see.

Adios.

[AndrewC]

You crack me up. I leave your words for the world to see.

Coming from the person who cites Batboy.....

[GodGunsGuts]

==I leave your words for the world to see.

I guess he’s really impressed with your work AC!

[tpanther]

Projection on top of layers of projection...predictable coming from a zerrhoid.