EVOLUTION IS BLIND AND PURPOSELESS

[Tank]

Came across this on FB. I'd like some thoughts and feedback. I think you'll see where the author is coming from.


"EVOLUTION IS BLIND AND PURPOSELESS

Evolution is a scientific theory. It explains as much as we can imagine. Of course, it is not about the origin of life. It only explains its diversity. The unity underlying the diversity of all living organisms is a fact. That is the end of the scientific theory and fact called evolution. As the American Biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky puts it "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". By this he meant this is the only theory within which the diversity of life is reducible to unity conceptually and operationally. Nothing more nothing less.


Anything else beyond this factual picture of unity are but alleged philosophical implications or inferences. For instance, the claims that evolution is blind and purposeless are neither scientific theory nor fact. Let us go by one of the much repeated mantra of the atheists themselves; where is the empirical evidence. When we ask what are the empirical evidences for the theory and fact of evolution, they are readily available. The fossil records, genetics and embryology, microevolution among others tell a story that evolutionary theory explains.

But let us ask, what are the empirical evidences that evolution is blind or purposeless? It would be unreasonable to cite the same fossil records, genetics among others as evidence again. So there are none. They are but inferences purely driven by a particular philosophical disposition and not anything scientific. Philosophy is essentially a framework within which we organize our thoughts and experiences underlying our beliefs and disbeliefs about the universe.

Theism is philosophy. And so is atheism. The scientific theory and fact of evolution itself only tell us that the diversity of life we see in Nature has an underlying unity. That is all. Scientists do not always make scientific statements. They also make philosophical ones. When you read their books, separate the statements that are scientific from those philosophical. That is the beginning of the task. Either than that there is no difference between you and the typical religious. You are just occupying different apartments.

Because in most cases, they drive their main points via the philosophical ones cloaked as scientific to the public. Evolution explaining the diversity of life in Nature as having a unity source is scientific. However, evolution as blind and purposeless is unscientific but philosophical. The statement is not testable and repeatable given that these are the sole criteria the atheist themselves trumpet and use to herald acceptability of claim as scientific. There are many of similar philosophical statements dressed as scientific and swallowed by the atheists like immune system booster without question whether knowingly or unknowingly yet............we are to take it that it is always people other than atheists who accept claims without empirical evidence."

https://www.facebook.com/stanley.seshie/posts/10212609364323466?comment_id=10212616368058555&notif_t=comment_mention&notif_id=1500767710348685

[Arturo]

I don't see anything philosophical about this. Philosophy is about having good reasons to believe what you do based on it's truth. He hasn't given any reason to believe any of his claims.

And to say this about evolution is...disturbing in that they are reducing it to a "unity" yet they seem to understand that evolution does not explain the origin of life. I mean that's no different than saying we are united by the universe, or Allah, or the force. The author goes on to explain that evolution explains diversity, yet we are still, somehow united? United by what? Evolution? (Again the same point) We are no less united by evolution then by mother earth, or the flying teapot.

This person is trying to hustle people.

I am also fairly concerned he generalized a whole group of people in a way to show them as hypocrites as if none of us athiests use critical thinking. I find that very common amongst people against our group.

[Tank]

I think the point about unity is there is a common ancestor to all life. In that 'non-woo' sense we are all united.

[Recusant]

There's much more to the scientific findings of evolution than "The unity underlying the diversity of all living organisms is a fact." The argument is based on the faulty premise that "That is the end of the scientific theory and fact called evolution." Indeed, despite the fact that all known life on Earth is DNA based, it's not a given that there is "unity," in the sense that there is a universal common ancestor for all life on Earth (though a relatively recent statistical study points in that direction).

The writer has a valid point though, when he criticizes the statement that "evolution is blind and purposeless." I agree that it isn't a scientific statement, and I don't think you'll find many (if any) scientists making that claim when presenting scientific ideas for peer review. A more accurate statement from a scientific perspective would be that there is no empirical evidence for a claim that evolution is guided and has a definable goal. What he's really criticizing is a pop-science interpretation of this, in assertion form.

He comes back to the claim that "The scientific theory and fact of evolution itself only tell us that the diversity of life we see in Nature has an underlying unity." In reality, the theory of evolution tells us a good deal more. To be generous I suppose we could assume that he's using that statement in a narrow sense in relation to his argument about philosophy. A more accurate statement that would work in support of his argument would be that the scientific theory and fact of evolution has not shown whether or not there is a direction and purpose to life. Again being generous, perhaps he's avoiding making that statement because he doesn't want to be accused of affirming the consequent. More likely he doesn't make it because he believes that there is a direction and purpose to life, but wants to avoid having to defend that belief. It's clear that he's clever and knowledgeable enough to be aware that is just as much a "philosophical" position as the one he's arguing against, and one that's even more "unscientific."

[Dave]

Yes, I agree that we have a "unity", are related to, all other DNA based life here in Earth.

However I have met this "blind and purposeless" concept so often and I have thought about it.

"Blind" implies "without vision", with no "picture" of the ultimate aim or destination - that makes "purposeless" almost tautologous in my mind, yet I will come back to it. Evolution is, as I understand it, a theory that attempts to explain a sequence of chance events, in the history of life, due to environmental changes, such as those in solar radiation as it strikes the atmosphere and surface. Evolution does not predict such, only "provides", in a random fashion, enough variation in the gene pool to give one, or more, of those variations a chance to survive.

Therefore, to all intents and purposes, evolution is "blind and purposeless" as a predictive or intentional force yet serves a "purpose" well in adapting life fir survival. Maybe the concept of "purpose" exists only in our minds, thus it is certainly more the subject of philosophy than science - as Lavoisier was scripted as saying in "E=mc²", "Can you measure it?" when brought anecdotal evidence of the visusliaation of heat. If you can't measure or predict it it ain't scientific, but it is still there as a concept that has meaning and use!

Evolution as a scientific theory and as a philosophical concept may not meet but each can further the understanding of the lay person. Unfortunately this explaining of the complex, the nearly ineffable, in everday, anecdotal terms is probably how religions got born!

[Tank]

Interesting thoughts. Keep them coming.

[Old Seer]

The author of this information is incorrect. An Atheist is most likely to be one that puts things in categories like a file cabinet or a parts bin. In this case---evolution, it goes into it's own lineage of understanding. A theist combines material with religion, while a Atheist will keep material in it's side of things, religion belongs in the psychological side of things. In their concept a psychological being created the material universe, while  atheist will s the two separate them. We know that material can be tested via methods referred to as science which is a study of things. Psychological things are normally studied as a separate science not dealing with things not understood an/or regarded as material. That puts religion in the area of acceptance  of things not provable via material science, except in the evidence of "the mind to material connection, which of course the physical body is the medium between the two, that being body and mind.

That is to say, a physical action is evidence of what one observes originating from the person/mind. An observer then, observes  a physical action and from it can determine what took place in the mind, and in turn determine intent. Being the physical is the median between the person and the exterior. In the case of evolution, a person can determine a course of events from the evidence. One cannot determine the course of events strictly from a mind to the production of the material, as there is no evidence of a mind in the process because one cannot physically see a mind itself existing in space. Therefore then, any claim that such a mind exists cannot be supported by evidence.
  Then religion can only exist if there is an originator of the concept, as no one alive can see or detect such a person existing without a physical body, and the claimant would have to produce such evidence and it cannot be done. The the question is---who made the original claim. That person by evidence today cannot be produced unless that person still exists today---to be questioned of his/her discovery. We know from history that, that person  the claimant, is not likely to exist at this time from life span evidence. 
  All information must have a source, if the source has ceased to exist then there can be no proof. Unless there is a record of who made the claim. The evidence is--that since this claim has been made nothing has changed. If one was to claim that such a person existing without a physical body contacted them---question---"what for". If contact was made then the contact entity had  to have a reason to do so. (back to evidence) The message receiver has made no statement pertaining to "what" the massage was. It becomes apparent then, that the contact entity made no specifications of anything worth while. If the contactee given instruction of what to change if anything, and change was the reason for the contact---evidence is---nothing changed.

Today we still have those claiming to have "divine Revelations". But how so. When one examines the evidence those who claim such would have to be enlightend to the original information the the first contactee received. IF, contact was made to the first party, then ohe only logical reason the contact could have been made for would be to change something. With all the divine revelation that has been made more evidence is, divine revelation cannot be an accordance with the original contactee------nothing has changed.
So, if nothing has changed then even though/if there is/were such an entity existing there's no logical point to religions.

Dilemma-- If the ones with divine revelation didn't get the message to make any changes to man's predicament (if that's what the message was for) they don't have divine revelations, the entity doesn't exist, the original message didn't get to it destination ---the ones with the divine revelation.

Dilemma for the revelators---They have to produce the original message and messenger.

One then, is left with physical evidence to ponder. Evolution true or false, has to be considered in accordance with the evidence. Or, the religions (in order to remain existing ) have to morph their teaching to fit. If they do, then they didn't have divine revelation as they claim to begin with--because they would have known.

[Tank]

Well if nothing else it peaked your interest!