Monday, September 19, 2011

Rosenberg: Evolution Produces Awareness of Evolution

One of the amazing things about evolution, aside from spontaneously creating everything, is its creation of conscious automata which in turn figured out that they, and everything else, had evolved. As Duke’s Alex Rosenberg informs New York Times blog readers:

“On the Origin of Species” revealed how physical processes alone produce the illusion of design. Random variation and natural selection are the purely physical source of the beautiful means/ends economy of nature that fools us into seeking its designer. Naturalists have applied this insight to reveal the biological nature of human emotion, perception and cognition, language, moral value, social bonds and political institutions. Naturalistic philosophy has returned the favor, helping psychology, evolutionary anthropology and biology solve their problems by greater conceptual clarity about function, adaptation, Darwinian fitness and individual-versus-group selection.

There you have it. Rosenberg reveals that he is the result of physical processes alone which he then became aware of. And fortunately naturalists have applied this insight to reveal the source of emotion, morality and everything else. That’s just the Stuff of Good Solid Scientific Research.

26 comments:

  1. CH - I'm not seeing a problem with what Rosenberg is saying here. You appear to have forgotten to refute it at all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. CH
    One of the amazing things about evolution, ...... is its creation of conscious automata which in turn figured out that they, and everything else, had evolved

    It is amazing, that is why science is so cool.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There you have it. Rosenberg reveals that he is the result of physical processes alone which he then became aware of. And fortunately naturalists have applied this insight to reveal the source of emotion, morality and everything else. That’s just the Stuff of Good Solid Scientific Research.

    Yup...unfounded assumptions are considered good solid scientific research to evolutionists.

    ReplyDelete
  4. NV -

    Yes, assuming naturalism until proven otherwise IS good science.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cornelius Hunter:

    "There you have it. Rosenberg reveals that he is the result of physical processes alone which he then became aware of."
    ====

    Indeed, he must be one of the Ascended ones from the Stargate.
    ----

    Cornelius Hunter:

    "And fortunately naturalists have applied this insight to reveal the source of emotion, morality and everything else."
    ====

    Indeed, they became like a god, knowing good and bad for themselves. Our planet today is literally populated with billions of such gods. Seriously, just watch the news.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Do you mean the news about priests that rape children, ministers/priests/pastors that rob and/or rape their followers, do drugs, lie, have sex with prostitutes, and the news about religious zealots that let their children suffer and/or die because they don't believe in medical care, and the news about religious people who kidnap and/or torture children and adults, and the news about religious people who wage wars, terrorize and murder people, and destroy cultures, and the news about churches that cover up the horrible things that they do and have been doing for centuries, and the news about religious people that do (and have done) every kind of rotten thing that anyone could possibly do?

    Yeah, the news is very revealing of just who thinks that they are gods.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ritchie: CH - I'm not seeing a problem with what Rosenberg is saying here. You appear to have forgotten to refute it at all.

    He doesn't have to present it explicitly. That's because it's smuggled into his post and is shared with his target audience. Rosenberg's assumption is obviously wrong because the entire idea is "silly". After all, it evolution supposedly spontaneously created everything, and the bible informed us that God did it.

    Of course, I'd suggest that the underlying explanation behind Neo-Darwinsm, the scientific method, etc, is that knowledge was created by variation and error correction.

    So, we created the knowledge that we are the result of physical processes. This isn't magic, as Cornelius is attempting to project.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Eocence: Indeed, they became like a god, knowing good and bad for themselves.

    I'm afraid I'm not following you, as it seems that you've left out your argument as well.

    Are you suggesting we're not supposed to create knowledge of what's good or bad for ourselves? If not, then exactly how will this knowledge get created?

    Eocence: Our planet today is literally populated with billions of such gods. Seriously, just watch the news.

    Ignorance is a significant problem, but why would you expect otherwise? Also, you seem to suggesting that problems such as we observe today are not solvable. Why is that?

    Because knowledge isn't created - rather, it's divinely revealed? And we're not paying attention to the specific holy text you think contains true divine revelation?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ritchie said...
    "Yes, assuming naturalism until proven otherwise IS good science."
    How convenient. What proof would prove otherwise? How about if someone were to rise from the dead? Would that do it for you?
    Assuming naturalism rules out all proof that would disprove naturalism. How scientific is that?
    But now you are left with the arbitrary task of defining natural verses super-natural causes and yes, you are entirely arbitrary about it.
    You see a 747 and you conclude it is the result of intelligent causes because you could if you wanted identify the humans who designed it.
    But you see a butterfly and conclude it only has the appearance of design, not real design, because if it's cause were intelligent, then the intelligence is God, which you have already ruled out by not proof, but assumption. You theorize (on flimsy micro-genetic evidence) a "natural" process that produces birds from nothing. [All actual genetic evidence points to rigorous preservation of species, not the macro changes you assume "must have" occurred due to your... assumption.]
    Your science is bastardized by assumption, not proof. And you have made your ToE to be the god/creator. When your theory is driven by assumption, what is that?
    Could your assumption be wrong?
    How would you know since you sublimate all negating evidence not with proof, but with just-so stories to your...assumption?
    The SCIENCE of ID is the detection of Intelligence behind design. You rule ID out not by proof, but by assumption.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Red Reader,

    Why don't you apply your words to YOUR assumptions? Where's YOUR proof? Where's YOUR evidence? And where exactly is the "SCIENCE" in ID? Explain ID's scientific way of determining that a butterfly is designed by your chosen god, or any other god.

    And why haven't you answered my questions in the other thread?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Red Reader said...

    The SCIENCE of ID is the detection of Intelligence behind design. You rule ID out not by proof, but by assumption.


    You don't have a SCIENCE of ID. You don't even have a THEORY of ID. You have a speculative HYPOTHESIS of ID that to date has not one single piece of positive evidence to support it.

    You've cowardly run every time I ask you for details of the mechanisms of ID. Should I ask you again and see if you flee for a sixth time?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Red Reader -

    "Assuming naturalism rules out all proof that would disprove naturalism. How scientific is that?"

    Fair play to you, this is actually a good point. Science DOES assume every force is natural. We explain phenomenon via theories of natural forces or they remain a mystery. Science would never recognise a supernatural event as supernatural, even if it saw one.

    On the other hand, science's great strength is that it does at least seem to work. Let's not forget that your point undermines not just the odd scientific theory of your choosing, but the WHOLE of science. Every theory, from atomic theory, the theory of gravity, germ theory... everything comes crashing down if it was indeed true that the world was not wholly governed by entirely natural forces.

    And yet science is so damned productive. We have walked on the moon, cloned animals, decoded the human genome, created cars, computers, the internet, eradicated diseases, performed heart transplants... In the mere 300-ish years of modern science, we have achieved truly remarkable results - all on the assumption of naturalism. If naturalism were untrue, there would be no reason at all for science to work. How can it be so accurate, so productive, if one of its central tenets is wrong?

    Let me be absolutely clear - if you oppose assuming naturalism (and you are of course free to) then you oppose ALL of science, not just the particular theories you WANT to oppose. You oppose medicine, chemistry, ecology, physics, the theories of relativity, atomic theory, germ theory...

    It's all or nothing. Are you really anti-science? Or are you an intellectual hypocrit who is willing to accept the theories he wants to accept (such as all the science behind modern medicine when he gets ill), but plays the 'Assuming naturalism is fallacious' card when faced with a theory he, for religious reasons, doesn't WANT to be true?

    "You theorize (on flimsy micro-genetic evidence) a "natural" process that produces birds from nothing. [All actual genetic evidence points to rigorous preservation of species, not the macro changes you assume "must have" occurred due to your... assumption.]"

    Micro-evolution has been directly observed many times. The evidence is far from flimsy - it is as rock-solid as you could rationally ask for.

    And macro-evolution is no different from micro-evolution. The mechanisms are identical. The only difference is scale. Allowing for the former but not the later is like accepting that a person can be my brother, but not accepting that a person can be my cousin.

    "And you have made your ToE to be the god/creator."

    Utter nonsense.

    "Could your assumption be wrong?"

    Yes, it could. In which case, it is incredibly curious that science work at all. And yet, it does. We are reaping the benefits of the science of our age at this very moment, in the form of the internet.

    "The SCIENCE of ID is the detection of Intelligence behind design."

    ID, in allowing for miracles, is not science.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well said Ritchie, and I'd like to add a point or two about this comment from Red Reader:

    "Assuming naturalism rules out all proof that would disprove naturalism. How scientific is that?"

    Red Reader, you have no "proof" that would disprove naturalism. If you think I'm wrong, all you have to do is show the proof. What's stopping you? Let's see it.

    What's stopping any of you religious ID zealots from finding and showing "proof" of your claims? Are you waiting for science to do it for you?

    Why don't you do your own research and experiments, and show your "proof"? Nature is all around you, so what's preventing you from studying it and finding the so-called "proof" of your grandiose claims? Maybe a prayer would help? Surely your chosen god will help you prove your claims if you ask it/him/her?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ritchie said,
    "Science would never recognise a supernatural event as supernatural, even if it saw one."
    Thank you.
    So, what we need is a scientific method of recognizing a supernatural event if we *thought* we saw one.
    For example, what IF the design of a butterfly is not just apparent but real, not just the result of surviving random events, but actual design by an intelligent agent?
    REAL science wants to KNOW that, right? Of course it does. What science advances by saying, "We CANNOT know the answer to this and only this question"?
    The assumption of Naturalism rules out intelligent design not by proof but by assumption, so it can't even consider the possibility. IF the butterfly really IS the result of some intelligent agent's purposeful design, and we consider only "natural" causes, then we will NEVER arrive at the truth. We can only tune the epicycles UNTIL OUR ASSUMPTIONS CHANGE.
    If nothing else, we need to rule OUT Intelligence as the possibility by some sort of real, scientific test.
    Currently, your side rules out the possibility, not by test, but by assumption, assumption, quite frankly (as Dr. Hunter points out almost every day) faith-based on a particular metaphysical commitment.
    ID seeks to quantify and describe not only the properties and characteristics of design caused by intelligence, but also the properties and characteristics of design caused by random processes so we can answer the question: "Is the design of this thing--for example, a butterfly--the result of intelligence?"
    As has been iterated and reiterated countless times, ID does NOT seek to identify the intelligent agent (the whole truth) or the details (Thorton) of the design production.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Red Reader said...

    If nothing else, we need to rule OUT Intelligence as the possibility by some sort of real, scientific test.


    Which is a logical impossibility, as a sufficiently powerful Intelligent Designer could always create something that was indistinguishable from naturally occurring non-intelligent design. The best we can do, and what science has already done, is show that an eternal intelligent designer is not necessary.

    Currently, your side rules out the possibility, not by test, but by assumption, assumption, quite frankly (as Dr. Hunter points out almost every day) faith-based on a particular metaphysical commitment.

    I wish I had a dollar for every time some IDiot repeated that falsehood. Science does not automatically rule out Intelligence as a cause. Science continues to say there's no positive evidence that an external guiding Intelligence was involved, and lots that one wasn't necessary.

    What science does rule out is supernatural intervention, because the supernatural by definition is not part of science, any science.

    ID seeks to quantify and describe not only the properties and characteristics of design caused by intelligence

    OK, then list the properties and characteristics of designs caused by the Intelligent Designer of life. Be sure to include an explanation of how you determined them.

    ID does NOT seek to identify the intelligent agent (the whole truth) or the details (Thorton) of the design production.

    Then what possible scientific good is ID when it has no explanatory power, no predictive power, and provides no details? What would you teach in an ID class at school? "This looks designed!" will take all of 15 seconds. Then what?

    Sorry RR, but you IDC clowns' attempt to sneak your religion into science classes just isn't going to work. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Red Reader -

    Yesterday I was in my garden and saw a very curious sight - I saw an apple fall from my apple tree. It got me to thinking - why do objects, when they are released, fall down? Why don't they remain suspended in the air, or fly about randomly? There does, you have to admit, seem to be a force which pulls everything down...

    Now, being a good little scientist, I want to run lots of experiments and see what I can discover about this force. Do all objects fall, or is it just apples? Do some objects fall faster than others? What qualities affect how fast objects fall? Do big objects always fall faster than small ones? Do heavy objects always fall faster than light ones? Do red objects always fall faster than blue ones? So many experiments, so little time...

    But elbowed into this series of experiments is the assumption that gravity is a regular, constant and natural force. If I sincerely allow that miracles and supernatural events happen, then how do I know I am not witnessing one when I do an experiment?

    In my experiment the bowling ball fell faster than the feather. But how do I know that wasn't a miracle? Maybe feathers actually fall faster than bowling balls and what I was witnessing was a supernatural event...? It does no good to repeat the experiment, since if the bowling ball is faster again, I could just be witnessing the another miracle. How do I know there is a force pulling objects down at all? Perhaps the natural law is that everything falls up, and whenever I witness something falling down, it is another miracle at work...?

    My point is that if we allow for miracles and the supernatural, then all science stops, since any data, any observed phenomenon, the result of any experiment, could in fact be a miracle, and is therefore useless.

    Science functions by gathering data, making hypotheses which explain the data, and then running experiments to test these hypotheses. If experimenting is useless and all data unreliable, then all you have is hypotheses - ideas, possibilities, guesses. No good to anyone.

    There is a reason science assumes naturalism, and it isn't religious bias. It is necessity. It is because, to perform science at all, scientists need to be able to trust their own data. Allow for miracles, and they can't.

    "REAL science wants to KNOW that, right? Of course it does. What science advances by saying, "We CANNOT know the answer to this and only this question"?"

    If what you seek is to identify, explore and understand the supernatural, then what you seek is not science. I don't even know what it would be, but whatever it is would not be scientific.

    "ID seeks to quantify and describe not only the properties and characteristics of design caused by intelligence, but also the properties and characteristics of design caused by random processes..."

    And how does it do that, exactly? It cannot use any data, since according to ID, any piece of data could in fact be the result of a miracle, or some random supernatural occurrence. It cannot perform any experiments, unless it can be sure to safeguard its experiments from interference from supernatural forces. So what does that leave besides useless armchair hypothesising?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Red Reader:

    "If nothing else, we need to rule OUT Intelligence as the possibility by some sort of real, scientific test.
    Currently, your side rules out the possibility, not by test, but by assumption, assumption, quite frankly (as Dr. Hunter points out almost every day) faith-based on a particular metaphysical commitment."
    =====

    Here's how it works in the real world when it comes to scientific experimentation. First rule out the "Scientific Method" and it's idealistic definition. It ultimately never works in a game where the cards are stacked against you in the first place.

    Nothing bespeaks bred-in-the-bone corruption more than the way Evolutionists have rigged what is and what is not scientific explanations. Empirically observed Scientific Method experiments should be the fundamental cornerstone of scientific conclusions, but it's not. Biased control over definitions, methods, rules for giving explanations with no outside thought allowed gives you real power. And what does power do? Power corrupts. Hence, we get the Scientific community we have today which is presently bastardizing our planet and it's natural resources.

    Like the subject of eugenics for which it's core beliefs were derived from the supposedly observed "Survival of the Fittest" found in nature, IF Evolution is true, then there is no ultimate authoritive standard by which we morally judge what is wrong or right with regards Eugenics. Therefore, according to evolution, eugenics is not wrong, since such a judgement would be mere opinion of an individual/s. If one group or another views it as wrong or right, then whatever ruling Fittest majority wins out in the power struggle, has the right to actually set the standard for whether or not eugenics is right or wrong.

    The same would be true for 'LYING' embellishing or fudging the truth when it comes to evolutionary experiments. Whoever controls science controls what is decided and mandated upon as truth. Lying therefore could be merely considered to be an adaptational survival strategy for the supporting and promoting the the actual evolutionary dogma itself. Viciously control Science and you control the politically correct understanding by nothing more than the ruling majority running it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Eocene -

    "Here's how it works in the real world when it comes to scientific experimentation. First rule out the "Scientific Method" and it's idealistic definition."

    And from that moment on, you are no longer doing science.

    "IF Evolution is true, then there is no ultimate authoritive standard by which we morally judge what is wrong or right"

    ToE is a scientific theory. It says nothing at all about morality. Just like the theory of gravity says nothing at all about morality. Scientific theories are concerned only with what IS, not what OUGHT TO BE.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Richal:

    "And from that moment on, you are no longer doing science."
    =====

    Then you've just condemned your own lying side.
    ----

    Even Richer:

    "ToE says nothing at all about morality."
    ====

    What are you, DENSE ??? That's what I just stated. IF Evo-World were true, then the fittest group would decide what standard of morality would exist and ultimately, Eugenics would NOT be wrong. It would be natural.
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "Just like the theory of gravity says nothing at all about morality."
    ====

    Has zero to do with this discussion other than dogma pimping.
    ----

    Rich:

    "Scientific theories are concerned only with what IS, not what OUGHT TO BE."
    ====

    Beautifully explains the present deterioration of our Earth since what 'OUGHT TO BE' is NEVER addressed(in fact would/should be considered biggoted & judgemental), implimented or enforced upon an unruly self determing global human population who go about setting whatever feel good standards they see fit to follow without interference from other human beings with differing standards. Very well put Ritchie!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Eocene -

    "Then you've just condemned your own lying side."

    What? Have I? How?

    It's a simple equation: throw out the scientific method = you're not doing science any more.

    "IF Evo-World were true, then the fittest group would decide what standard of morality would exist and ultimately, Eugenics would NOT be wrong. It would be natural."

    Survival of the fittest is not survival of the meanest. Many of the most intelligent and successful animals on Earth - including humans - are social animals. Co-operation and sociability are highly successful strategies.

    "Has zero to do with this discussion"

    Yes it does. You claimed "IF Evolution is true, then there is no ultimate authoritive standard by which we morally judge what is wrong or right" which is obviously absolute toot since ToE has naff all to do with morality.

    "Beautifully explains the present deterioration of our Earth..."

    Now you're BLAMING the state of the world on ToE because it isn't a basis for morality? Why not throw that same accusation at the theory of gravity, germ theory, atomic theory, the theory of general relativity...

    ReplyDelete
  21. eocene, you're sounding an awful lot like a combination of kairosfocus (on UD) and bornagain77 (here and on UD).

    Do yourself a favor and get away from your computer and go out into nature all by yourself for awhile, and get a grip.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ritchie:

    "What? Have I? How?

    It's a simple equation: throw out the scientific method = you're not doing science any more."
    =====

    Correct, then why does your side do it ??? That pathetic Gerald Joyce excuse of a Scientific Method for an experimentation is supposed to be repeatable by anyone to arrive at the same conclusions. And what are those ultimate conclusions ??? That's right, "No Intelligence Alllowed". Unfortunately, any conscious rational human being would never be able to arrive at the same religious conclusions Gerald Joyce and those other Parishioners came to of it being proof of blind undirected purposeless evolution. A truly logical rational conclusion would be that it takes a manipulating intelligence(be it God, Human, Alien, or other goal driven entity) to rig and purposely accomplish intended outcomes. Only a tea leaf reading religious person would read the experiment otherwise.
    ----

    "Survival of the fittest is not survival of the meanest. Many of the most intelligent and successful animals on Earth - including humans - are social animals. Co-operation and sociability are highly successful strategies."
    ====

    So then when the NAZIS were at the top of their game, then their morality was right because majority rules won out.

    Then when the Allies fought them and won, their sense of morality won out and things like the Final Solution were wrong. With the exception of Eugenics, because the Scientists of every allied Nation gladly took the NAZI Scientist's research and applied it to their own homeland Eugenics program. Most ran for decades, like Sweden which forced certain specific human beings deemed unfit to pass their personal genetic material onto future generations of mankind. Then in 1976, a new majority opposed to Eugenics came to power and passed laws against Eugenics and suddenly that majority rules morality took over and Eugenics changed again from being right to wrong!!!
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "Yes it does. You claimed "IF Evolution is true, then there is no ultimate authoritive standard by which we morally judge what is wrong or right" which is obviously absolute toot since ToE has naff all to do with morality."

    Now you're BLAMING the state of the world on ToE because it isn't a basis for morality? Why not throw that same accusation at the theory of gravity, germ theory, atomic theory, the theory of general relativity... "
    =====

    Public Response

    ReplyDelete
  23. Eocene -

    "Correct, then why does your side do it ?"

    What? YOU were the one advocating throwing out the scientific method, just a few posts ago!

    "That pathetic Gerald Joyce excuse of a Scientific Method for an experimentation is supposed to be repeatable by anyone to arrive at the same conclusions. And what are those ultimate conclusions ??? That's right, "No Intelligence Alllowed"."

    That's not a conclusion. It is a premise. And a perfectly scientific premise at that. All scientists start off assuming naturalism.

    "A truly logical rational conclusion would be that it takes a manipulating intelligence(be it God, Human, Alien, or other goal driven entity) to rig and purposely accomplish intended outcomes."

    Go bakc to my apples experiment. I set up an experiment in a lab to measure gravity. I have robot arms to drop apples, I have motion-censor equipment to record the spped at which the apples fall, I might evn use fake apples rather than real ones. Does anything about this experiment imply I have DIRECT CONTROL of gravity itself?

    Your argument is the equivalent of arguing that since my apples experiment is set up, then I am demonstrating gravity is not a natural force, and apples need direct interference to fall down.

    Do you see how foolish that is?

    "So then when the NAZIS were at the top of their game, then their morality was right because majority rules won out..."

    You're still thinking of right and wrong as objective properties. They are not. Eugenics has no objecvtive moral value. People have moral judgements about it. But that's all.

    "Public Response"

    Cute. But not rebuttal. It still seems to me I am right. You are BLAMING the state of the world on the fact that ToE is not moral. When it comes to science and religion, you are deeply, deeply confused.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'm right says Ritchie:

    "It still seems to me I am right."
    =====

    ROFLMAO!!!

    This is the ONLY factual statement you've made the whole time.

    ReplyDelete