Math Logic Disproves Evoution

[Chesterton]

I disagree. English is very idiomatic, and there are very few 'true' English words (if my historian friend is correct, 'pig' is the only word native to Britain).
More to the point, there are many words and phrases in other languages that describe legitimate concepts and ideas, but have no English counterpart. Well known examples are déjà vu and faux pas from French, doppelgänger from German, anime and haiku from Japanese, etc. English is not the best language with which to describe something, especially given its idiomatic and often ambiguous nature.

Yes, English is highly derivative, that only adds to its richness. But's that's not the point. An explanation in any language would be acceptable. I assume every language would have words which mean care, interest, strive, purpose, etc. The trick is to attribute these willful characteristics to mindless energy and matter, in any possible number or words, in any possible language.

Only if you warp the definition of 'god' to one not used by any theist or atheist I am aware of. Indeed, even if you use your above definition, there is still no 'mind' or 'will' influencing the universe under strong atheism, nor under evolutionary theory: there are simply forces and physical laws.

God must be a mind or will controlling or influencing the universe. I think that definition is perhaps not full, but good anyway. At least that much has to be accurate, and would be given by any theist.

I didn't say under strong atheism or under evolutionary theory. Atheism is always possible. Evolution may be theistic evolution. I referred only to "atheistic evolutionists", those who adhere to both atheism and biological evolution simultaneously, the underlying doctrine of which has to be pantheism.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, English is highly derivative, that only adds to its richness. But's that's not the point. An explanation in any language would be acceptable. I assume every language would have words which mean care, interest, strive, purpose, etc. The trick is to attribute these willful characteristics to mindless energy and matter, in any possible number or words, in any possible language.

To which metaphor, analogy, and even parable are best suited. If there is no word or phrase in the language, one could try to explain it in paragraphs and essays. But we should not expect to be able to recount the ultimate details of reality using languages evolved for screaming at other monkeys in Africa. As Dawkins puts it, our mind evolved in Middle-World, and we should not be surprised if there is a fundamental limit to what we can comprehend and espouse.

God must be a mind or will controlling or influencing the universe. I think that definition is perhaps not full, but good anyway. At least that much has to be accurate, and would be given by any theist.

Would a deity lose its godhood if it ceased to interact with the universe? Does a inter-universe being gain godhood if it attains a sufficient level of technological advancement?

I didn't say under strong atheism or under evolutionary theory. Atheism is always possible. Evolution may be theistic evolution. I referred only to "atheistic evolutionists", those who adhere to both atheism and biological evolution simultaneously, the underlying doctrine of which has to be pantheism.

 

[Chesterton]

To which metaphor, analogy, and even parable are best suited. If there is no word or phrase in the language, one could try to explain it in paragraphs and essays. But we should not expect to be able to recount the ultimate details of reality using languages evolved for screaming at other monkeys in Africa. As Dawkins puts it, our mind evolved in Middle-World, and we should not be surprised if there is a fundamental limit to what we can comprehend and espouse.

Yes, that's part of my point. It's inexplicable in words, yet nonetheless accepted and believed, much more like religion than science. Inexplicable yet believed just like the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Eucharist, etc.

Would a deity lose its godhood if it ceased to interact with the universe?

No, but the laws which the deity set in motion would always be a result of that being's will.

Does a inter-universe being gain godhood if it attains a sufficient level of technological advancement?

I'm not sure what's meant by an inter-universe being. Any being within the universe, a fish or a man? And do you mean the type of technological advancement which requires will and intelligence?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, that's part of my point. It's inexplicable in words, yet nonetheless accepted and believed, much more like religion than science. Inexplicable yet believed just like the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Eucharist, etc.

And I have always been puzzled by that: if you don't understand it, why on Earth would you believe it? Faith just seems to be stabbing in the dark and hoping for the best. Like donning ovenmits, pulling a random thread from a haystack, and hoping that it's a needle.

I just don't see why someone would say they believe in something if they don't even comprehend what that 'something' is.

Anyway. If something is inexplicable, not matter how long the attempted explanation is, is that not a sign that the concept itself is incomprehensible? As you say, language is rich, but our minds have limits.

But getting back to the point at hand: one can adequately describe evolutionary concepts in English (and most, if not all, languages), albeit at length. Anthropomorphisms such as "The Selfish Gene" serve as educational aids: though the gene is not selfish in the usual sense of the word, it acts as if it were. If confusion arises, we can always explain the terms in more detail.

I personally don't consider any valid concept to be inexplicable: if one can comprehend something, one should be able to adequately explain it in one's native tongue (assuming one can speak that language; i.e., mental retardation notwithstanding).

No, but the laws which the deity set in motion would always be a result of that being's will.

Who said the deity set laws in motion? Is this a supplementary requirement for godhood?

I'm not sure what's meant by an inter-universe being. Any being within the universe, a fish or a man?

Aye: any will or mind within the universe (i.e., one which has evolved since the universe's inception) that has developed technology that can manipulate the universe on par with a deity.

And do you mean the type of technological advancement which requires will and intelligence?

Possibly. See above.

 

[Chesterton]

And I have always been puzzled by that: if you don't understand it, why on Earth would you believe it? Faith just seems to be stabbing in the dark and hoping for the best. Like donning ovenmits, pulling a random thread from a haystack, and hoping that it's a needle.

I just don't see why someone would say they believe in something if they don't even comprehend what that 'something' is.

You'd have to ask Mr. Dawkins.

But getting back to the point at hand: one can adequately describe evolutionary concepts in English (and most, if not all, languages), albeit at length. Anthropomorphisms such as "The Selfish Gene" serve as educational aids: though the gene is not selfish in the usual sense of the word, it acts as if it were. If confusion arises, we can always explain the terms in more detail.

Selfishness is not something we can observe under a microscope. And it's not just the anthropomorphism; assigning a subjective adjective to anything, and saying it acts as if it were that, are the same thing. Saying "Mother Theresa is unselfish", is the same thing as saying "Mother Theresa acts as if she were unselfish". It is saying the same thing, but that does not mean it's true. The primitive says the volcano is a god. You tell him it's not, and he can respond, "well it's not really a god, but it acts as if it were". So that tribe might proceed on its unproved supposition and worship the volcano. Likewise science proceeds on its unproved supposition.

Who said the deity set laws in motion? Is this a supplementary requirement for godhood?

I may have misunderstood the reason for the question. The one who creates the laws is the one we'd call a deity. Living cells on Earth which strive to survive would just be acting upon the "hardwiring" the deity imparted to them, just as if a man wrote a computer program, and then the man died, the program will continue carrying out the man's will, not any will of its own. (Not a perfect analogy, because a second man could re-write that same program, that would just make him analagous to a second deity.)

Aye: any will or mind within the universe (i.e., one which has evolved since the universe's inception) that has developed technology that can manipulate the universe on par with a deity.

We know of no such being. When you say "technological advancement" and "manipulate the universe" are you talking about man's scientific achievements such as building a space shuttle or producing new breeds of dogs? That's only working with what we've been given, and is not on par with a deity. A single celled organism performs functions with what it's been given. If you can fly to the moon, or for that matter, if you throw a ball into the air, you could say as a figure of speech you're "defying gravity", but you are only manipulating matter and energy, you are not creating or manipulating the universal law of gravity. You're doing the same thing you do when you stand upright, it's just a matter of degree, it just takes a lot more force to go to the moon than it does to stand up from a chair. To be on par with deity would require something like inventing a new fundamental physical force such as gravity or magnetism, creating a new primary color, or creating life from scratch. But even Dr. Frankenstein was working with used parts, because that's all we can possibly have is "used parts", matter and energy which we can manipulate, but which we did not create, and cannot even destroy (even though man has proven quite adept at destruction). If I wake up tomorrow and the news says that a scientist somewhere created life in a laboratory, scientifically I would be impressed; metaphysically I would not be impressed at all, because as grand an achievement as that would be, the scientist would merely be a copycat.

 

[no1nose]

Here are the undisputed facts:

• Changes in living things occur at the molecular level.

• Mutations to molecules at almost always disadvantageous to the organism.

• Quantum changes occur at the molecular level. “More than a century ago, at the dawn of modern quantum mechanics, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Neils Bohr predicted so-called "quantum jumps." He predicted that these jumps would be due to electrons making transitions between discrete energy levels of individual atoms and molecules. Although controversial in Bohr's time, such quantum jumps were experimentally observed, and his prediction verified, in the 1980s. More recently, with the development of single molecule imaging techniques in the early 1990s, it has been possible to observe similar jumps in individual molecules.” http://www.physorg.com/news134141862.html

• Quantum mechanics connects the observer in the macro world to the events at the molecular level.

• Quantum mechanics allows the observer to determine outcomes at the atomic level. (one can choose whether a “thing” is either a wave or an particle.)

It is a matter of how you interpret these facts. I chose to see this quantum connection as a natural “feedback loop” between the macro world and the world of molecules. I believe that this loop allows a species to adapt quickly to environment factors but not to become a “new” species.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You'd have to ask Mr. Dawkins.

Why? He's not the one believing the incomprehensible (as far as I know). Indeed, you yourself have said that you believe the inexplicable: "Inexplicable yet believed just like the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Eucharist, etc."

Selfishness is not something we can observe under a microscope. And it's not just the anthropomorphism; assigning a subjective adjective to anything, and saying it acts as if it were that, are the same thing. Saying "Mother Theresa is unselfish", is the same thing as saying "Mother Theresa acts as if she were unselfish".

No, it is not: Mother Theresa could be the most selfish woman in the world, but that wouldn't have stopped her acting contrary to her true feelings.

Consider: I, as a homosexual, am not bound to act as a homosexual. I am perfectly free to get with the opposite sex: I can act as if I were heterosexual, but that doesn't in the slightest mean I am heterosexual. I could just be drunk, or trying to win a bet, or something.

It is saying the same thing, but that does not mean it's true. The primitive says the volcano is a god. You tell him it's not, and he can respond, "well it's not really a god, but it acts as if it were".

Indeed: it could just be a mundane volcano. It acts like a volcanic deity, but that doesn't mean it is a volcanic deity.

Likewise, the selfish gene isn't really selfish, because that requires the gene to have a conciousness that can experience selfishness.

So that tribe might proceed on its unproved supposition and worship the volcano. Likewise science proceeds on its unproved supposition.

Which would be?

I may have misunderstood the reason for the question. The one who creates the laws is the one we'd call a deity. Living cells on Earth which strive to survive would just be acting upon the "hardwiring" the deity imparted to them, just as if a man wrote a computer program, and then the man died, the program will continue carrying out the man's will, not any will of its own. (Not a perfect analogy, because a second man could re-write that same program, that would just make him analagous to a second deity.)

You seem to be confused about what a deity is. You have thus far listed three traits required for godhood:

• "God must be a mind or will controlling or influencing the universe."
  
  I.e., the ability to control and/or influence the universe. Seems very vague, but whatever.
  .
• "...the laws which the deity set in motion would always be a result of that being's will."
  
  I.e., the ability to set physical laws in motion.
  .
• "Living cells on Earth which strive to survive would just be acting upon the "hardwiring" the deity imparted to them, just as if a man wrote a computer program"
  
  I.e., the ability to encode and/or augment behavioural subroutines in an organisms genome, akin to a computer programmer. Not all organisms continuously strive for survival, but whatever.

Is this an accurate summary? If so, are there any more traits required for godhood? If not, what have I misinterpreted?

We know of no such being.

This is a hypothetical scenario, so that's irrelevant.

When you say "technological advancement" and "manipulate the universe" are you talking about man's scientific achievements such as building a space shuttle or producing new breeds of dogs? That's only working with what we've been given, and is not on par with a deity. A single celled organism performs functions with what it's been given. If you can fly to the moon, or for that matter, if you throw a ball into the air, you could say as a figure of speech you're "defying gravity", but you are only manipulating matter and energy, you are not creating or manipulating the universal law of gravity. You're doing the same thing you do when you stand upright, it's just a matter of degree, it just takes a lot more force to go to the moon than it does to stand up from a chair. To be on par with deity would require something like inventing a new fundamental physical force such as gravity or magnetism, creating a new primary color, or creating life from scratch. But even Dr. Frankenstein was working with used parts, because that's all we can possibly have is "used parts", matter and energy which we can manipulate, but which we did not create, and cannot even destroy (even though man has proven quite adept at destruction). If I wake up tomorrow and the news says that a scientist somewhere created life in a laboratory, scientifically I would be impressed; metaphysically I would not be impressed at all, because as grand an achievement as that would be, the scientist would merely be a copycat.

Well, not necessarily: they could have created an artificial planet and placed it in a time-acceleration field. The next day, 3.5 billion years have gone past on the planet, and life has spontaneously emerged. Nothing has been copied, so the scientists aren't copycats.

But I digress. You haven't addressed my question: I'm not talking about the limitations with which we have to work with; I talking about what we can do with them. If humans, or some other sufficiently advanced species, created some awesome device that was capable of altering physical constants and laws (e.g., G, or π, or whatever), would the operator of the device be classified as a 'deity' by your definition?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Here are the undisputed facts:

• Changes in living things occur at the molecular level.

Agreed, but just to clarify: these molecular changes occur during the formation of offspring, and as such are called mutations.

• Mutations to molecules at almost always disadvantageous to the organism.

They are not almost always disadvantageous, but it doesn't matter if they are: natural selection ensures that those that are advantageous will be selected for, and thus will proliferate into the next generations as and when they occur. Indeed, the ability to digest artificial (i.e., man-made) compounds is a now famous ability of bacterial populations.

• Quantum changes occur at the molecular level.

Depends on what you mean by 'change', but yes, I think we can agree on this: quantum mechanics only becomes important when one deals with nanoscale quantum systems.

• Quantum mechanics connects the observer in the macro world to the events at the molecular level.

Arguably, but I'm worried about that use of the word 'observer'; it sounds an awful lot like you're trying to equate a standard human brain and a measuring device (the latter of which is the quantum mechanical meaning of 'observer', not the former).

• Quantum mechanics allows the observer to determine outcomes at the atomic level. (one can choose whether a “thing” is either a wave or an particle.)

I don't know what else to say, other than: no. This is not what quantum mechanics implies, and it is rather explicit about that.

It is a matter of how you interpret these facts. I chose to see this quantum connection as a natural “feedback loop” between the macro world and the world of molecules. I believe that this loop allows a species to adapt quickly to environment factors but not to become a “new” species.

The facts say otherwise: speciation (the evolution of one species into another, or a number of others) has been directly observed. It has been observed naturally in the wild, artificially in the lab, and historically through a plethora of means (e.g., the main island of Madagascar has a large number of animal and plant species found nowhere else in the world, yet they are exceedingly similar to those in Mozambique).

 

[Steve Petersen]

Christianity and Judaism both believe God is not contingent. His existence does not depend on anything material.

 

[no1nose]

Originally Posted by no1nose

• Quantum changes occur at the molecular level.

Depends on what you mean by 'change', but yes, I think we can agree on this: quantum mechanics only becomes important when one deals with nanoscale quantum systems.


Originally Posted by no1nose

• Quantum mechanics connects the observer in the macro world to the events at the molecular level.

Arguably, but I'm worried about that use of the word 'observer'; it sounds an awful lot like you're trying to equate a standard human brain and a measuring device (the latter of which is the quantum mechanical meaning of 'observer', not the former).


Originally Posted by no1nose

• Quantum mechanics allows the observer to determine outcomes at the atomic level. (one can choose whether a “thing” is either a wave or an particle.)

I don't know what else to say, other than: no. This is not what quantum mechanics implies, and it is rather explicit about that.


Originally Posted by no1nose

It is a matter of how you interpret these facts. I chose to see this quantum connection as a natural “feedback loop” between the macro world and the world of molecules. I believe that this loop allows a species to adapt quickly to environment factors but not to become a “new” species.
​

The facts say otherwise: speciation (the evolution of one species into another, or a number of others) has been directly observed. It has been observed naturally in the wild, artificially in the lab, and historically through a plethora of means (e.g., the main island of Madagascar has a large number of animal and plant species found nowhere else in the world, yet they are exceedingly similar to those in Mozambique).
__________________

Here is a interesting article:

Does quantum mechanics play a non-trivial role in life"

http://aca.mq.edu.au/PaulDavies/publications/papers.htm

 

[Chesterton]

No, it is not: Mother Theresa could be the most selfish woman in the world, but that wouldn't have stopped her acting contrary to her true feelings.

Consider: I, as a homosexual, am not bound to act as a homosexual. I am perfectly free to get with the opposite sex: I can act as if I were heterosexual, but that doesn't in the slightest mean I am heterosexual. I could just be drunk, or trying to win a bet, or something.

You wish to dig the hole deeper? You're saying a gene not only can "act as if it were selfish", but additionally can choose not to?

Likewise, the selfish gene isn't really selfish, because that requires the gene to have a conciousness that can experience selfishness.

I agree. So tell Mr. Dawkins that. Judging from his book, he's apparently confused on this pivotal matter.

Likewise science proceeds on its uproved supposition.

Which would be?

Generally, the unproved supposition is pantheism. Spefically, it is that genes have a conciousness that can experience selfishness or altruism.

You seem to be confused about what a deity is. You have thus far listed three traits required for godhood:

• "God must be a mind or will controlling or influencing the universe."
  
  I.e., the ability to control and/or influence the universe. Seems very vague, but whatever.
  .
• "...the laws which the deity set in motion would always be a result of that being's will."
  
  I.e., the ability to set physical laws in motion.
  .
• "Living cells on Earth which strive to survive would just be acting upon the "hardwiring" the deity imparted to them, just as if a man wrote a computer program"
  
  I.e., the ability to encode and/or augment behavioural subroutines in an organisms genome, akin to a computer programmer. Not all organisms continuously strive for survival, but whatever.

Is this an accurate summary? If so, are there any more traits required for godhood? If not, what have I misinterpreted?

No, it's not a full summary. The first trait is required, and the second should follow logically from the first. The third one is optional, it could work that way or other ways or a combination of ways, I don't know. Why are you asking me what traits are required for godhood?

Well, not necessarily: they could have created an artificial planet and placed it in a time-acceleration field. The next day, 3.5 billion years have gone past on the planet, and life has spontaneously emerged. Nothing has been copied, so the scientists aren't copycats.

I'm unsure who are the "they" you refer to? This is a science fiction scenario? If so, I know that whoever created an artificial planet would have had to been alive to do so. So who created them? It's the same scenario as my hypothetical life-creating scientist.

But I digress. You haven't addressed my question: I'm not talking about the limitations with which we have to work with; I talking about what we can do with them. If humans, or some other sufficiently advanced species, created some awesome device that was capable of altering physical constants and laws (e.g., G, or π, or whatever), would the operator of the device be classified as a 'deity' by your definition?

I answered this question in my immediately preceeding post. I said no.

 

[Skaloop]

I agree. So tell Mr. Dawkins that. Judging from his book, he's apparently confused on this pivotal matter.

Dawkins states repeatedly in his book, and in other writings, that he does not mean that a gene is consciously or willfully selfish.

 

[Chesterton]

Dawkins states repeatedly in his book, and in other writings, that he does not mean that a gene is consciously or willfully selfish.

Yes and no. Explicitly he will say that, implicitly he says otherwise. A supporter of his would have us believe there are no existing English words to say what it is he wants to say. Very odd. See post #217 and subsequent posts.

 

[sfs]

Here is a interesting article:

Does quantum mechanics play a non-trivial role in life"

http://aca.mq.edu.au/PaulDavies/publications/papers.htm

You should note the applicability here of Hinchliffe's Rule: whenever the title of a scientific paper is in the form of a yes/no question, the answer is "no". (The rule is, of course, best known from the paper, "Is Hinchliffe's Rule True?")

 

[sfs]

Here are the undisputed facts:
Changes in living things occur at the molecular level.

True. Also true of change to most nonliving things.

Mutations to molecules at almost always disadvantageous to the organism.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean (what are "mutations to molecules"?), but it is clearly false. Even most genetic mutations are not disadvantageous to many organisms, and vast majority of nongenetic molecular changes are not disadvantageous. Molecular change is required for life.

Quantum changes occur at the molecular level.

False as stated. Many quantum changes occur at the atomic or subatomic level, not at the molecular level. It is also worth noting that many changes at the molecular level have little to do with quantum mechanics, especially where macromolecules like DNA are concerned. You should read the Davies paper someone else cited later in this thread.

Quantum mechanics connects the observer in the macro world to the events at the molecular level.

Very fuzzily put. Quantum mechanics predicts observations about the micro world.

Quantum mechanics allows the observer to determine outcomes at the atomic level. (one can choose whether a “thing” is either a wave or an particle.)

Also false. The physical kind of observation you make (which is to say, the physical configuration of the measuring apparatus) determines the range of possible outcomes at the atomic level (which, by the way, is different from the molecular level you were talking about, but that's beside the point), but it does not determine the outcome. Quantum mechanics is a very precise theory, and it contains no description of observer choice, or of its influence on atomic phenomena.

It is a matter of how you interpret these facts. I chose to see this quantum connection as a natural “feedback loop” between the macro world and the world of molecules. I believe that this loop allows a species to adapt quickly to environment factors but not to become a “new” species.

I have to say, speaking both as a particle physicist and as a biologist, that your statements throughout this thread about the connection between quantum mechanics and life are simply wrong. They represent a serious misunderstanding of what quantum mechanics actually says. You're free to believe anything you like, but if you want your beliefs to have any connection to reality you need to learn more about this subject before reaching conclusions.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Here is a interesting article:

Does quantum mechanics play a non-trivial role in life"

http://aca.mq.edu.au/PaulDavies/publications/papers.htm

"7. Conclusion
The case for quantum biology remains one of “not proven.” There are many suggestive experiments and lines of argument indicating that some biological functions operate close to, or within, the quantum regime, but as yet no clear-cut example has been presented of non-trivial quantum effects at work in a key biological process."

Now, if you'd get back to the points at hand:

It is a matter of how you interpret these facts. I chose to see this quantum connection as a natural “feedback loop” between the macro world and the world of molecules. I believe that this loop allows a species to adapt quickly to environment factors but not to become a “new” species.
​

The facts say otherwise: speciation (the evolution of one species into another, or a number of others) has been directly observed. It has been observed naturally in the wild, artificially in the lab, and historically through a plethora of means (e.g., the main island of Madagascar has a large number of animal and plant species found nowhere else in the world, yet they are exceedingly similar to those in Mozambique).

• Quantum mechanics allows the observer to determine outcomes at the atomic level. (one can choose whether a “thing” is either a wave or an particle.)

I don't know what else to say, other than: no. This is not what quantum mechanics implies, and it is rather explicit about that.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You wish to dig the hole deeper? You're saying a gene not only can "act as if it were selfish", but additionally can choose not to?

No. I'm simply saying that "A is B" and "A acts as if it were B" are not synonymous statements. A gene is not selfish, yet it acts as if it were. Populations evolve to proliferate their genes, regardless of the continued survival of the host organisms (the Praying Mantis and male Black Widow are well-known examples of this).

So the phrase The Selfish Gene is misleading:genes act as if they were selfish (but, in fact, aren't: they don't experience any emotions of behavioural traits), and this leads to the pun. Genes aren't selfish, but they act as if they were; hence the book's title.

I agree. So tell Mr. Dawkins that. Judging from his book, he's apparently confused on this pivotal matter.

I read Dawkin's book a fair few years ago, and he was quite explicit about that. It is the same as in his The God Delusion: he took pains to identify just what it was and wasn't he was criticising. Nevertheless, overzealous theists took one look at the cover and wrote entire essays disparaging him and his book.

But I digress. Could you cite an excerpt from the book that goes something along the lines of, "Yes, genes really are concious beings, and really are selfish"?

Generally, the unproved supposition is pantheism. Spefically, it is that genes have a conciousness that can experience selfishness or altruism.

As explained above, this is not a presupposition made by science. Indeed, even if you were right, it would only be one made by genetics.

No, it's not a full summary. The first trait is required, and the second should follow logically from the first.

How so?

Why are you asking me what traits are required for godhood?

Because you attempted to show that atheists are, in fact, theists. I was trying to show that this only works by warping the definition of 'god' sufficiently to include something no ordinary theist or atheist would include. Thus, I'm trying to get a concise definition of 'deity' out of you.

I'm unsure who are the "they" you refer to? This is a science fiction scenario? If so, I know that whoever created an artificial planet would have had to been alive to do so. So who created them?

Does it matter? They have still created technology sufficiently advanced to manipulate the laws and constants of our universe. Does this qualify them for godhood, as per your definition?

It's the same scenario as my hypothetical life-creating scientist.

You said you wouldn't be impressed, but that is not what I asked.

I answered this question in my immediately preceeding post. I said no.

Fair enough. Why not? I couldn't see an answer to this question in the preceding post.

 

[hatsoff]

Yes and no. Explicitly he will say that, implicitly he says otherwise. A supporter of his would have us believe there are no existing English words to say what it is he wants to say. Very odd. See post #217 and subsequent posts.

Have you ever taken an intro chem class? If you have, then I'm sure you've heard of atoms "wanting" electrons, and being "happy" with certain electron configurations. Does this mean atomic theory is taught alongside psychology?

example: courses.dsu.edu/intchem/help/Compounds/nplewisdoc.pdf

Calling genes "selfish" is just an analogy to help simplify modeling. I suspect you wouldn't find this so difficult if you didn't have it in for Richard Dawkins.

 

[Chesterton]

As I already said, to ascribe diety to a being I would require a very special feat, and it would involve actual creation, or actual manipulation of physical laws. Creation (not discovery) of a fifth physical force, for example, or a true manipulation of physical laws, such as might be demonstrated by walking on water. If a man built an anti-gravity machine, or a Star Trek transporter, laws are not being manipulated any more than when man built an airplane. It's just a matter of degree. Now, a being with mass walking on the surface of water, because he wills it, and with no external technology involved, this could be attributable to deity. But I've already said this above, and I don't know what you're trying to get at. If you're going to say my criteria for deity doesn't match that of a pantheist, I already agree, and that's one reason I reject pantheism. I'm not one of them, and I don't exactly know what they think they believe, the same way I don't exactly know what Mr. Dawkins believes. But to the extent that I do understand it, I disagree with it.

As I said, my problem isn't solely with anthropomorphic terminology. I understand the necessity. You can see it with something even easier to grasp than electrons. A rock sitting on the ground is "acting" in accordance with it's nature. It's "obeying" the laws of gravity and inertia. We can say it "wants" to remain at rest. We understand the laws which these anthropomorphic metaphors are based upon. The laws pertaining to gravity, inertia and motion have been formulated and are measurable, predictable, and we believe, universal. In evolutionary biology, however, the problem lies in the fact that one can go no further than the anthropomorphic terminology. The anthropomorphisms are not linguistic short-cuts to a comprehensible truth, they are dead ends.

Here's the difference, very simply:

I hear a physicist say that a rock wants to remain at rest. Being an ignorant layperson, I ask "What do you mean, the rock has a mind and will?" He says no, and can go on to technically and accurately describe what he means. He'll tell me what Newton told us, about how an object at rest tends to stay at rest, he can provide relevant mathematical equations, and he could even go the trouble of measuring the pertinent characteristics in order to educate me and reassure that what he's saying is true.

Next I hear a biologist say that a gene wants to pass itself on. I ask the same question, "You mean it has a mind and will?". He'll also say no, but the biologist has no explanation of what he does mean. He is stuck with the anthropomorphic terminology, the same as any primitive mythologist.

I didn't bring up Dawkins, someone else did. I don't criticize him, or any one, because I have it in for him. Besides, the general idea in The Selfish Gene is not his, it is inherent in evolutionary theory since Darwin. I criticize The Selfish Gene only to the extent that criticism is due. Suppose Isaac Newton, instead of writing his Principia, had written The Lazy Rock. Then Newton went on to answer critics by saying, "I just can't express what it is I believe, the best I can do is tell you a rock acts as if it were lazy". When a biologist writes the evolutionary equivalent of the Principia, I'll humbly retract what I've said here. I just want the facts.

 

[gluadys]

Next I hear a biologist say that a gene wants to pass itself on. I ask the same question, "You mean it has a mind and will?". He'll also say no, but the biologist has no explanation of what he does mean. He is stuck with the anthropomorphic terminology, the same as any primitive mythologist.

No, not really. One can express the behaviour just as well through the statistics of reproduction and survival.