Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, September 25, 2006

The Blind Watchmaker thesis

"The Blind Watchmaker thesis"- evolution #6-

The meanings of evolution, from "Darwinism, Design and Public Education":

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

-was put forth by Richard Dawkins, a noted evolutionist. His thesis was/ is supported by many scientists, including many evolutionary biologists, for example Crick. In the book "Darwinism, Design and Public Education", Massimo Pigliucci and William Provine, both evolutionists and both biologists, have chapters that agree with it. Ernst Mayr, in "What Evolution Is", makes it clear that teleology is NOT allowed. PZ Meyers, evolutionist and biologist, is in agreement with the blind watchmaker thesis. Then there are the 38 Nobel laureates...

"Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."


... who although they didn't win their respective Nobel in biology, to even suggest they don't understand the subject defies reasoning, especially in the absence of an explanation- other than "they aren't evolutionary biologists" (neither was Darwin).

It is obvious that the blind watchmaker thesis is NOT an opponents construct. That the Thought Provoker has said this on a few occasions makes me wonder what he is trying to provoke. Oh well.

Also if one disagrees with evolution #6, what exactly, is your position/ how does it contrast with ID?

Especially seeing that there are only 3 options to our existence:

1) Unintelligent, blind/ undirecetd (non-goal oriented) processes
2) Intelligent, directed (goal oriented) process
3) A combination of 1 & 2

8 Comments:

  • At 9:39 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Hi Ron,

    So much for the level playing field. On to other things...

    I let your three options slide when I thought you would present your proposal on equal terms with mine. But now this is practically all there is to discuss.

    May I offer this list...
    1) Unintelligent, undirected
    2) Intelligent, directed
    3) Combination of 1 & 2
    4) Intelligent, competing creators
    5) Intelligent, accidental
    6) Unintelligent, self-organizing
    7) Unintelligent, predictive
    8) Unintelligent, recursive
    9) Unintelligent, supernatural
    10 to 99) combinations of above

    I will explain 4 through 9 unless you, again, decide not to post.

     
  • At 10:01 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Ron,

    Not that I expect you to post this, but just to keep you from pretending to yourself...

    You now know Richard Dawkin's definition for evolution. You are being intentionally deceiving to suggest otherwise. Are you deceiving yourself?

    Behe is an evolutionary biologist too, you didn't list him. Are you pretending that Crick isn't supportive of the ID position?

    I will look up Pigliucci and Provine. What am I going to find?

    If Ernst Mayr made his definition clear, why aren't you quoting it?

    Doesn't it bother you in the slightest that you know all 38 Nobel Laureates would tell you, to your face, that you are wrong.

    How can you even believe yourself when you trumpet their general brillance while dismissing their learned opinion save 23 cherry-picked words?

     
  • At 9:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thought Provoker:
    Doesn't it bother you in the slightest that you know all 38 Nobel Laureates would tell you, to your face, that you are wrong.

    Wrong about what?

    Behe is an IDist. Dawkins gave us "the blind watchmaker". Crick ageed with Dawkins. Mayr agrees with Dawkins. As does Pigliucci, Provine and PZ Myers.

    The fact remains that evo #6 is what is being debated. If you don't support evo #6 then what is your beef with ID?

     
  • At 6:08 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Joe G asked...
    "If you don't support evo #6 then what is your beef with ID?"

    I don't have a "beef with ID". I thought we were having a debate. Please recall what started this. You were complaining about "double standards". I responded with...

    "One of the biggest double-standard that exists envolves defining the terms of the debate (what is 'science"', what is 'Intelligent Design', what is 'Evolution')

    For the record, I am more the happy to debate this topic on a level playing field.

    Deal?"


    You agreed. Now, I think it is silly for us to pick each other's definition. But if that is your idea of a level playing field, here is something straight out of the DI supported ID textbook. Even Behe, under oath, agreed with it...

    "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc (Pandas 1993, 2nd edition, published, pp. 99-100)"

    Now, I happen to think this is as silly of a proposal for ID as what you are proposing for Evolution. I wouldn't want to try and defend it, do you?

    This is why on a Level Playing field, I get to choose my proposal as you get to choose yours.

    Joe G asked...
    "Wrong about what?"

    The 38 scientists would tell you that you are wrong when you claim the definition of evolution includes a requirement that it occured "solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes".

    These intelligent people would explain the difference between a definition and inferences of a definition.

    Fire is rapid oxidation is a definition. Fire is hot. is an inference of that definition.

    These intelligent people would also explain to you, as I have, that it is the responsibility, and the right, of those working in a field of study to define their own field of study.

    Joe G wrote...
    "Dawkins gave us 'the blind watchmaker'. Crick ageed with Dawkins. Mayr agrees with Dawkins. As does Pigliucci, Provine and PZ Myers."

    Great, then use Dawkins' definition of evolution...

    "Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."

    http://books.guardian.co.uk/author/author/0,,-50,00.html

     
  • At 4:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thought Provoker:
    I don't have a "beef with ID". I thought we were having a debate.

    What are we debating? I know what I am debating against- the blind watchmaker thesis. If you don't hold that view then what is your PoV? And it should be noted that if your PoV is not evo #6 I am not sure I have anything to debate with you.

    Thought Provoker:
    The 38 scientists would tell you that you are wrong when you claim the definition of evolution includes a requirement that it occured "solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes".

    Their words demonstrate that I am correct. Read the whole paper- ID is not allowed at all.

    What is "non-random survival"? Even Darwin understood that chance plays every bit a role in survival as does any alleged beneficial trait.

    Dawkins tells us that NS is a blind and purposeless process. The mutations are random, ie undirected. Mayr makes it clear that teleology is NOT allowed.

    Perhaps you could help your case by showing us how many biologists allow for telic processes.

     
  • At 4:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thought Provoker:
    How can you even believe yourself when you trumpet their general brillance while dismissing their learned opinion save 23 cherry-picked words?

    How can you even suggest that is what I am doing? Their learned opinion makes it clear that ID is not allowed. From that alone it is more than safe infer they agree with evo #6. Add those 23 words and that cinches the deal. To even suggest otherwise demonstrates a complete lack of reasoning.

     
  • At 4:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thought Provoker:
    The 38 scientists would tell you that you are wrong when you claim the definition of evolution includes a requirement that it occured "solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes".

    What other non-telic processes are there? Because once teleology is allowed ID is in. Which directly contradicts what those 38 Nobel Laureates state in their paper.

     
  • At 5:27 AM, Blogger emily said…

    this kind of blog always useful for blog readers, it helps people during research. your post is one of the same for blog readers.

    Thesis Papers Writing

     

Post a Comment

<< Home