Natural Selection

2009-11-17 05:35:00

Quoting JJ from a previous message, Dan first wrote:

"The idea that choice [evolution via natural selection] can be made without consciousness is both illogical and unscientific."

Dan then continued by writing:

"First of all notice that I added what is in square brackets above to clarify what I think your point is.

"Are you saying that the very existence of 'evolution by natural selection' itself is evidence of intelligent design?

"This is a simplistic example but I think it adequately represents ONE of the means, according to my understanding of the textbooks, by which 'evolution due to natural selection' is said to occur:

"Bill and Bob are out for a walk when the path meanders near a cliff. Bill, due to his inferior eyesight, trips - falling off the cliff, and thus sires no children. Bob, due to his superior eyesight, doesn't fall and goes on to sire many children, propagating his genetic predisposition for superior eyesight to successive generations by increasing the frequency of the alleles responsible for it in the shared gene pool of his group.

"I cannot detect choice, intelligent of otherwise, on either Bill or Bob's part here - so you must be saying that the intelligence (consciousness) (choice) resides in the design of the system (evolution by natural selection) itself - whereby those of lesser ability fail to produce as many progeny, or equally and conversely, those of greater ability produce more offspring - whatever the extent conditions? Or do Bill and Bob not adequately exemplify the concept you are pointing to?"

JJ:

Good questions, Dan.

In fact, after I made that post I saw how someone could come up with the same points that you did and I expected someone to bring them up. No one ever did. A lot goes over the heads of those at the Statesman forum but not much is overlooked by the Keys members. If there is any flaw in my reasoning or a gap of some kind, I will usually be called on it here.

The conundrum comes in when you consider that natural selection as defined by the evolutionists takes place with no apparent intelligence or conscious choice involved. For instance, Bob did not choose to survive because of good eyesight. He just survived because he had good eyesight and Bill did not.

Even so, for true evolution to occur consciousness and choice has to be present. Let me illustrate.

Two sandcastles are built by the sea. The first is a regular castle built of wet sand and the second has a paste added to reinforce its strength. The tide comes up and quickly washes away the first. The second survives the night.

Obviously the second sandcastle did not survive the night because it made a choice. However, there was choice involved. Someone decided that he would make a better sandcastle.

In addition the surviving castle has no power to duplicate itself. If a duplication occurs, it comes from a decision made by the builder to fashion more such sandcastles.

According to atheists evolution occurs with no intelligence at play, but without the application of intelligence an even more sturdy generation of sandcastles cannot occur.

On the other hand, atheists believe that improvements in form can occur with no decision or consciousness involved. The problem is that this cannot be demonstrated in the real world.

The intelligence of God permeates all time and space and this consciousness and intelligence is responsible for all evolution and improvement of form. In the process of evolution the more appropriate forms survive and the one ill equipped fade away, but both forms were created by intelligent choice.

The form which is useful in one age may not be in another.

  

"A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true."
  -- Sir Isaac Newton