JoshuaZ comments on The Wonder of Evolution - Less Wrong

34 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 02 November 2007 08:49PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (80)

Comments (80)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 17 May 2012 07:50:23PM 1 point [-]

Evolution is seen by many people through the lens of materialism/atheism. That means that while studying evolution these people ASSUME the world has no creator and and is purely physical and closed system, free from anything super-natural....and so on.

In that way, any discovery in biology is treated in this interpretation and millions of dollars of research money is used to search for evidence in that way.

If we found in every single mammal a long conserved sequence in its genome which had its own extra code to help conserve it and it spelled out in easy substitution code the entire text of some religious text, you can be very sure that every biologist would stand up and take notice. Moreover, your claim doesn't really follow since there are many religious biologists (like Ken Miller, a very religious Catholic) who are perfectly ok with evolution and the entire standard understanding of biological history.

Comment author: Ghazzali comment score below threshold [+] (4 children)

Comment author: thomblake 17 May 2012 08:17:30PM * 2 points [-]

The point is we dont know, and the fact that God is not coming down from heaven and telling us he exists is NOT rational evidence that he does not exist and is not the designer of the universe.

Then you think that God coming down from heaven and telling us he exists is rational evidence that he does not exist or is not the designer of the universe? See Absence of Evidence Is Evidence of Absence.

Comment author: Bugmaster 17 May 2012 10:20:20PM 0 points [-]

Your extreme example of evidence in a creator is a valid point, but only to a certain limit. Maybe the grand creator does not want to make things that obvious?

Sure, that is possible. Then, in the absence of overwhelming evidence for a designer, we have at least two possible explanations for the evidence that we do possess:

1). Cellular replication in general and DNA in particular is a result of natural processes, specifically {insert long explanation here}.
2). Cellular replication in general and DNA in particular is a result of both natural processes, as well as supernatural intervention by an intelligent designer for whose existence we have no evidence.

Which explanation is more likely to be true, Bayesically speaking (yes I know that's not a word) ?

Comment author: JoshuaZ 17 May 2012 10:23:53PM 1 point [-]

I don't think you need to invoke any sort of Bayesian issues there. Just ask which is simpler. You also are going one step ahead of what is necessary because as far as I can tell, Ghazzali isn't even ok with theistic evolution.

Comment author: Bugmaster 17 May 2012 10:37:25PM 2 points [-]

Just ask which is simpler.

I want to taboo the word "simpler", because its meaning is vague. "God did it" is certainly a simpler statement than "Here, read this 500-page biology textbook and find out".

because as far as I can tell, Ghazzali isn't even ok with theistic evolution

I think my example still applies, though. Ultimately, we still have purely physical things like fossils, DNA molecules, etc. etc.; as far as I understand, Ghazzali doesn't dispute the fact that these items exist, only the conclusions we can draw from their existence.

JoshuaZ comments on The Wonder of Evolution - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (80)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (80)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login