Skip to comments.
Berkeley s Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson
Touchstone Magazine ^
| June 2002
| Touchstone interview
Posted on 05/29/2002 8:32:25 AM PDT by cornelis
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 561-577 next last
To: Dimensio
That still doesn't mean that it couldn't find evidence of it, just that it could explain it (and Johnson is thus still wrong). It would have to box it in very tightly, of course. A post that's still around criticises this part for requiring supernaturalism to prove a negative.
Well, God could peek out from behind the clouds and say "Hi!" but that's another thing that hasn't happened yet.
To: VadeRetro
The problem is that as soon as the explanation "it was God" is introduced you've either left the realm of science or you're declaring that God is a natural phenomenon (subject to natural laws). It doesn't make the statement false, it's just that science can't be applied to it anymore.
To: Dimensio
The problem is that as soon as the explanation "it was God" is introduced you've either left the realm of science or you're declaring that God is a natural phenomenon (subject to natural laws). Yes, ID is the science of throwing up hands and saying, "If I can't understand it, Goddidit." That strikes me as pretty useless, not to mention that it's hard to be sure you haven't quit too soon.
And if we did see a big face beyond the clouds, is that God or a Space Giant? Or have we been putting mushrooms on our breakfast cereal?
To: Dimensio
Strawman. That "life has no purpose other than survival of the species" is not part of the theory of evolution or any scientific theory derived from it (in fact there is no scientific theory that deals with the "purpose" for life, science only deals with cause and effect) nor does every evolutionist believe this. Yes, agreed here as well. Shouldn't have thrown that in. Was very tired last night and couldn't resist! However, does it not seem (not scientifically, just to you as a human being) strange to think that all that is us and humankind has no overarching purpose or raison d'etre? Are we just a bunch of smart life forms trying to selfishly maximize our own survival, comfort and the survival of our progency? Or might there be something more?
To: Dimensio
Humans wanted to hear and create music, so they did. I don't see how natural selection has any direct role in it. That's the point. So was it just an accidental mutation (or series thereof), without enough downside, survival-wise, that gave rise to our great obsession for and love of music? If so, it was a great accident!
To: VadeRetro
And if we did see a big face beyond the clouds, is that God or a Space Giant? Or have we been putting mushrooms on our breakfast cereal?
GOD: Arthur! Arthur, King of the Britons! Oh, don't grovel! One thing I can't stand, it's people groveling.
ARTHUR: Sorry.
GOD: And don't apologize. Every time I try to talk to someone it's 'sorry this' and 'forgive me that' and 'I'm not worthy'. What are you doing now?!
ARTHUR: I'm averting my eyes, O Lord.
GOD: Well, don't. It's like those miserable Psalms-- they're so depressing. Now, knock it off!
To: yendu bwam
However, does it not seem (not scientifically, just to you as a human being) strange to think that all that is us and humankind has no overarching purpose or raison d'etre? Are we just a bunch of smart life forms trying to selfishly maximize our own survival, comfort and the survival of our progency? Or might there be something more?
It doesn't seem strange at all. Science isn't in the business of answering the question of "why is it all here", just "how did it happen". As for why, I don't have an answer. Intelligence of the level humans have is certainly a survival trait, and it's likely that much of our human desires -- such as desire for comfort, love of music or concern for loved ones -- is a consequence of that intelligence. I can't offer much of a better explanation, but then I've never really thought much about the issue.
To: Dimensio; yendu bwam
Intelligence of the level humans have is certainly a survival trait, and it's likely that much of our human desires -- such as desire for comfort, love of music or concern for loved ones -- is a consequence of that intelligence. He Who Was So Briefly Among Us pointed out last night that most of the components of musical ability/appreciation have survival value. Sense of pitch comes from acuteness of hearing. Our ability to perceive rhythm and tempo involve pattern recognition -- intelligence.
That strikes me as right. When you have a faculty, it strengthens itself through play like a kitten practicing stalking.
To: VadeRetro
Well I was going along with the less easily answered question of "why do people enjoy music?". It's not something that obviously lends itself to explanation via natural selection -- and in fact it may not be directly related at all. That still doesn't mean that it's evidence of something "beyond" the natural world that is behind our existence.
To: VadeRetro
That strikes me as right. When you have a faculty, it strengthens itself through play like a kitten practicing stalking. Now that we have those faculties and use them extensively in pursuits that little involve pure survival (most musicians don't earn their living that way), and now that we encourage and help those with harmful traits to survive, and now that we can actually engineer those harmful traits away (genetic engineering) or prevent their expression, would you say that the process of natural selection has for the most part ended?
To: VadeRetro
That strikes me as right. When you have a faculty, it strengthens itself through play like a kitten practicing stalking. Now that we have those faculties and use them extensively in pursuits that little involve pure survival (most musicians don't earn their living that way), and now that we encourage and help those with harmful traits to survive, and now that we can actually engineer those harmful traits away (genetic engineering) or prevent their expression, would you say that the process of natural selection has for the most part ended?
To: Dimensio
It doesn't seem strange at all. Science isn't in the business of answering the question of "why is it all here", just "how did it happen". As for why, I don't have an answer. Intelligence of the level humans have is certainly a survival trait, and it's likely that much of our human desires -- such as desire for comfort, love of music or concern for loved ones -- is a consequence of that intelligence. I can't offer much of a better explanation, but then I've never really thought much about the issue. It does seem strange to many.
To: yendu bwam
. . . would you say that the process of natural selection has for the most part ended? No. Civilization is part of nature.
To: yendu bwam
would you say that the process of natural selection has for the most part ended?
Not really. Natural selection theory is simply the theory that the organisms who are biologically best able to survive in their environment will be the ones that pass their genetic information to their offspring. Humans have created an environment where those who, one hundred years ago, might not have survived to reproduce now are much more likely to do so now. It's still natural selection, it's just that the environment is being altered deliberately and the survival chance has increased greatly as a result.
To: VadeRetro
No. Civilization is part of nature. So you're saying we've moved from survival of the fittest being to survival of the fittest civilization - that evolution will most aptly apply to whole societies rather than to invidiual life forms?
To: yendu bwam
No. Civilization is part of nature. And also, if nature is everything (I suspect that would be your view...) then civilization must, ipso facto, be part of it.
To: yendu bwam
Civilization is what has enabled those who might have been "unfit" in the past to survive and reproduce. Civilization is a part of nature. Therefore that civilization has increased human life expectancy and proliferation only means that fewer individuals are removed via natural selection -- it does not mean that natural selection is "over".
Whether this is a good or bad thing is a question of philosophy.
To: yendu bwam
So you're saying we've moved from survival of the fittest being to survival of the fittest civilization - that evolution will most aptly apply to whole societies rather than to invidiual life forms? Competition and selection still happen simultaneously at all levels, individual and societal. What works, works.
To: Dimensio
Would you say that the effect of natural selection has greatly diminished? (If there are fewer and fewer environmental or genetic variables that prevent survival and the passing of genes into the next generation...)
To: VadeRetro
Competition and selection still happen simultaneously at all levels, individual and societal. What works, works. But of course, there are some differences, no? Do civilizations suffer random mutations? - Where do you think it will all lead?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 561-577 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson