> > > > > > --- "Jason" <jedi_spock@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Xeno, a lot of Religionists and Spiritualists have > > > misconceptions about Darwin. > > > > > > If you study evolution carefully, you will realise there is > > > a perfect balance between determinism and randomness. It's > > > not entirely deterministic and it's not entirely random > > > either. > > > > > > There is a certain broad set of laws in evolution and within > > > those laws some randomness plays a part. > > > > > > Religionists and Spiritualists confuse Darwin with > > > metaphysics and mystisism. They think Darwin tries to > > > replace it completely. Darwin as a theory only explains the > > > mechanisms how life evolved and adapted. It states nothing > > > about God or Consciousness. > > > > > > > --- "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > You hope. What it states is that god is uneccessary. Consciousness > > evolved like everything else. All life on this planet is descended > > from one cell, a hybrid between two types of bacteria - which is all > > there was for billions of years - there would be no complexity or > > consciousness without that one chance event. That is as hard a fact as > > you'll find, religious types can sit around dreaming otherwise till the > > cows come home. > --- "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: > > "The explanation by standard evolutionary theory of the purely physical > characteristics of organisms is hard enough even if one disregards > consciousness. [T]he physical and functional complexity of the results > imposes very demanding conditions on a reductionist historical explanation. > The theory of natural selection, if it is to rely only on the operation of > physical law, has to postulate that there is a purely physical explanation of > why it is not unlikely that accidental mutations in the genetic material have > generated the range of variation in viable phenotypes needed to permit > natural selection to produce the evolutionary history that has actually > occurred on earth over three billion years. Like any historical explanation, > it will embody a great deal of contingency, so the particular history of life > will not be explained by evolutionary theory alone. But the contingencies and > their effects have to be consistent with the physical character of the > theory. And to complete the link with physics, the explanation has to suppose > there is a nonnegligible probability that some sequence of steps, starting > from nonliving matter and depending on purely physical mechanisms, could > eventually have resulted in a replicating molecule capable of all this, > embodying a precise code billions of characters long, together with the > ribosomes that translate that code into proteins, It is not enough to say, > 'Something had to happen, so what not this?' I find the confidence among the > scientific establishment that the whole scenario will yield to a purely > chemical explanation hard to understand, except as a manifestation of an > axiomatic commitment to reductive materialism." Nagel pp. 48-49 > >
Nagel misunderstood evolution and got it completely wrong. There is a certain set of "laws" in nature and that gives nature a certain intangible intelligence however impersonal it might be. In that context Darwin's theory with all it's proof and evidence is not 'reductive materialism' and it's not reductionist at all. Darwin's theory has to be seen in tandem with all other theories in science starting from quantum mechanics. > > > > --- "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Robin, I just threw that review up there, and here you are with an > > > > essay. The only thing I have read of Nagel's was that essay "What is it > > > > Like to be a Bat?", and that was some 5 or 6 years ago. Philosophers > > > > disagree, so whenever they write something, especially a major work, > > > > you can be sure someone among their peers is going to disagree. For > > > > example, If you recommend something and extol the author, you can be > > > > sure someone will think something is rotten in the state of Denmark. > > > > > > > > I think there is a realisation growing among scientists that scientific > > > > theories are what are called 'effective theories'. For example QED, > > > > quantum electro dynamics, is such a theory. It provides a workable > > > > explanation for certain phenomena at a certain resolution, but cannot > > > > explain anything beyond that level. QED cannot explain the behaviour > > > > observed when protons are smashed together at high velocity, and so > > > > another theory, QCD, quantum chromodynamics takes over. Stephen Hawking > > > > wrote recently that we may never be able to make a theory of > > > > everything, but rather we will have a patchwork of effective theories > > > > which, as it were, overlay each other at the edges, each covering a > > > > certain aspect of reality to a certain depth. > > > > > > > > A good example of an effective theory is the sun rises in the morning. > > > > It is workable within a certain realm of experience, but breaks down > > > > when one discovers the Earth is not flat, and has motions not covered > > > > by the flat Earth theory, but if you take a walk in the early morning, > > > > the sun rises is a perfectly satisfactory explanation. > > > > > > > > Darwin's theory, and its revisions provides an explanation for the > > > > morphology of living systems and the appearance of order and complexity > > > > in such systems. It does not deal with consciousness at all, although > > > > some scientist tinker with the idea of applying it to that. > > > > > > > > >
