Dawkins mathematical concept of Design
in [Logic]
|
Prev: The Compatibility of the Principles of Context and Compositionality
Next: Godel has no idea what truth is so theorem meaningless
From: Nunemica on 10 Nov 2009 09:58 On Nov 10, 6:42 am, ZerkonXXXX <Z...(a)erkonx.net> wrote: > On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:55:05 -0800, Nunemica wrote: both would suffer from such rabid > atheism. Seriously I say ban the word God from all discussion about biological systems so Dawkins would be left speechless and just frothing at the mouth.
From: John Jones on 10 Nov 2009 16:31 Nunemica wrote: > On Nov 9, 6:03 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >> But as the elements or "potentialities" are arbitrarily chosen, there is >> no distinctions made between that set ("life") and any other set. >> THAT was my point. >> > > I disagree with Dawkins but to be fair he is not talking about just > any elements - he does stay within the realm of elements pertaining to > biological systems set. Again, he chooses elements at random. He has no blueprint or model for choosing them. > > And according to Dawkins the elements are said to manifest > arbitrarily - they are then chosen/selected "deliberately" due to > survival benefits. Again, Dawkins makes an arbitrary selection of elements or properties and then calls them "survival benefits". But he has no model for survival or benefits. > Natural Selection is after all an omnipresent, > omnipotent, omniscient force if we take Charles Darwins description > into account. So even Natural Selection is governed by a life > affirming set of elements. I don't think Dawkins would agree with that.
From: John Jones on 10 Nov 2009 16:33 ZerkonXXXX wrote: > On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:55:05 -0800, Nunemica wrote: > >> But I also think that we can discuss 'design" without Discussion of God. > > Shocking. Yet... somehow ..... true. > > By doing this, the vital god meme would be removed. Dawkins, now godless, > his publisher, now Dawkins-less, both would suffer from such rabid > atheism. > > > Yes, that's part of my little project. There's a great storm brewing about design in nature which has nothing to do with God or unseen powers.
From: John Jones on 10 Nov 2009 16:34 Nunemica wrote: > On Nov 10, 6:42 am, ZerkonXXXX <Z...(a)erkonx.net> wrote: >> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:55:05 -0800, Nunemica wrote: > > > both would suffer from such rabid >> atheism. > > Seriously I say ban the word God from all discussion about biological > systems so Dawkins would be left speechless and just frothing at the > mouth. > > Yes, I think that the issue of God has clouded the issue of design. This helps Dawkins atheism because he can use design to promote it. But the very concept of design is problematic for Dawkins I think.
From: John Stafford on 10 Nov 2009 17:00
In article <hdcm6i$h6r$3(a)news.eternal-september.org>, John Jones <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > ZerkonXXXX wrote: > > On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:55:05 -0800, Nunemica wrote: > > > >> But I also think that we can discuss 'design" without Discussion of God. > > > > Shocking. Yet... somehow ..... true. > > > > By doing this, the vital god meme would be removed. Dawkins, now godless, > > his publisher, now Dawkins-less, both would suffer from such rabid > > atheism. > > > > > > > > Yes, that's part of my little project. There's a great storm brewing > about design in nature which has nothing to do with God or unseen powers. I'd not call it a great storm. Not yet. Please read _A New Kind of Science_ by Wolfram. |