Though such topics do occasionally get mention in college textbooks. Take for example Futuyma’s Evolution:
Philosophical Issues
Thousands of pages have been written about the philosophical and social implications of evolution. Darwin argued that every characteristic of a species can vary, and can be altered radically, given enough time. Thus he rejected the essentialism that Western philosophy had inherited from Plato and Aristotle and put variation in its place. Darwin also helped to replace a static conception of the world—one virtually identical to the Creator’s perfect creation—with a world of ceaseless change. It was Darwin who extended to living things, including the human species, the principle that change, not stasis, is the natural order.
Above all, Darwin’s theory of random, purposeless variation acted on by blind, purposeless natural selection provided a revolutionary new kind of answer to almost all questions that begin with “Why?”. Before Darwin, both philosophers and people in general answered “Why?” questions by citing purpose. Since only an intelligent mind, with the capacity for forethought, can have purpose, questions such as “Why do plants have flowers?” or “Why are there apple trees?”—or diseases, or earthquakes—were answered by imagining the possible purpose that God could have had in creating them. This kind of explanation was made completely superfluous by Darwin’s theory of natural selection. The adaptations of organisms—long cited as the most conspicuous evidence of intelligent design in the universe—could be explained by purely mechanistic causes. For evolutionary biologists, the flower of magnolia has a function, but not a purpose. It was not designed in order to propagate the species, much less to delight us with its beauty, but instead came into existence because magnolias with brightly colored flowers reproduced more prolifically than magnolias with less brightly colored flowers. The unsettling implication of this purely material explanation is that, except in the case of human behavior, we need not invoke, nor can we find any evidence for, any design, goal, or purpose anywhere in the natural world.
It must be emphasized that all of science has come to adopt the way of thought that Darwin applied to biology. Astronomers do not seek the purpose of comets or supernovas, nor chemists the purpose of hydrogen bonds. The concept of purpose plays no part in scientific explanation.
He’s of course completely correct. It’s not that science can really claim that there are no spooks hiding behind the scene making stuff happen for some nebulous future goal(and they generally don’t waste space making such claims), it’s just that we don’t need such speculations to explain what we see. It is not necessary, it is superfluous.
What he meant was scientifically literate people need not invoke, nor can we find any evidence for, any design, goal, or purpose anywhere in the natural world.
If it is what he meant, then he was dead wrong. I invite you to undertake an honest search of all these immense scientists who saw evidence for a superior mind in the workings of nature. I can give you a first name: Albert Einstein.
“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it”
“Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order.”
I can’t find anything by Einstein where he talks about evidence for a superior mind, let alone describes such evidence. I would be extremely surprised is he wrote anything about any “design, goal or purpose” in the natural world.
You should undertake your own honest search for any evidence of design, goal or purpose cited by Einstein (and stop moving goalposts), and cite the evidence, not opinions, before accusing others of being less than honest.
Antony Flew, who used to be one of the most famous atheist philosophers, eventually changed his mind and became a theist. He wrote a book entitled « There is a god: how the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind » where he gave an account of the « pilgrimage of reason » which had led him from atheism to belief in God. In this book, he devoted several paragraphs aiming at falsifying the dishonest claim by Dawkins and other « new atheists » proponents that Einstein was at best an atheist or at worst a pantheist. In these paragraphs, Flew showed that « Einstein clearly believed in a transcendent source of the rationality of the world that he variously called ‘superior mind’, illimitable superior spirit’, ´superior reasoning force, and ´mysterious force that moves the constellations’. See below the aforementioned paragraphs
Is that your opinion, or are you parrotting some-one else’s?
And what has Antony Flew got to do with protein origins or Albert Einstein or scientists? It appears you are introducing new claims because you can’t back up your previous ones.
How come I never heard of him? I mean he is not as famous as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Dan Barker, Dan Dennett, Jerry Coyne, Sam Harris, Larry Krause, yada yada
I have, from Christians who insist he used to be one of the worlds most famous atheist. That seems be the impact he’s had on the worldwide atheist community: A prop for Christian evangelists to wave around as that famous atheist who changed his mind. Meanwhile an ever growing proportion of atheists are former believers.
What’s even more amazing is the way in which his function as a prop is employed: As an authority propping up other authorities. In Gil’s post we have multiple pictures of a book in which world famous atheist Anthony flew, details the thoughts of world famous scientist Albert Einstein.
Only people who can’t, or are scared, of thinking for themselves, find this kind of namedropping blather even remotely interesting, much less convincing.
I don’t care how famous the person who speaks about this putative evidence is. I’m more interested in what this evidence is supposed to be. Though I think it should get it’s own thread, because this one is supposed to be about the origin of proteins.
You are completely missing the logic of my exchanges with @Timothy_Horton and @Roy. So let me help you.
First, at 123, @Timothy_Horton suggested that only scientific illiterate people would find any evidence for design, goal or purpose anywhere in the natural world.
I answered him at 124 that he was wrong for many prominent scientists explicitly claimed to have seen evidence for a superior mind in the workings of nature. I gave him Einstein an example.
At 125, @Roy contested that Einstein ever had the view I gave him. Feeling compelled to give him proof of what I was saying, I then offered him at 126 some Einstein’s statements supporting my claim.
You may find the point remotely interesting, but I disagree. Indeed, regarding the issue of whether there are evidences of design or purpose in nature, it is frequent to see people opposing this view trying to end the debate by resorting to this patently false argument according to which only « scientific illiterate people» could defend it.
So, you see, my take is that when in a conversation someone is wrong, it is useful to put the record straight. This is how progress happens.
Yes indeed, this thread is about the origin of proteins.
So let’s go back to this topic.
At 116, I asserted that according to evolutionary theory, all extant proteins have evolved to their present forms through some unguided and blind natural process when for many of them we have zero evidence to support this extraordinary claim. As an example, I cited the case of ATPsynthase. So the burden of proof is on the shoulders of evolutionary biologists to demonstrate that this vital nanomachine came into existence by the RV+NS mechanism. Good luck
There are many cases where we don’t know how some particular protein evolved. That is true enough. It’s not an extraordinary claim to say that it did, though, because proteins evolving is not an extraordinary event. And we know of many different mechanisms by which proteins can evolve. It’s just that it can be difficult to determine which, if any, of these different mechanisms is the one that happened in actual history.
As an example, I cited the case of ATPsynthase. So the burden of proof is on the shoulders of evolutionary biologists to demonstrate that this vital nanomachine came into existence by the RV+NS mechanism. Good luck
What you actually provided was some difficult-to-read statements purportedly by Einstein that don’t support your claim, and a reference to some words taken out of context. None of them support your assertion that Einstein “explicitly claimed to have seen evidence for a superior mind”.
You’re wrong. Evolution is not an unguided process. It’s guided by natural selection to favour forms that enhance survival and reproduction.
You’re wrong. There is some evidence that ATP synthase evolved. You were shown this evidence before making your claim.
Luck is irrelevant. It’s impossible to demonstrate anything to some-one who won’t look.
Meanwhile, the burden of proof for "IC is a serious problem for evolution, a good example being the ATP synthase." lies squarely on your shoulders, but you are doing absolutely nothing about it.
