Quote# 103144

Darwin looks for an explanation of the origin of species and the teleology of the parts of animals, that is, to explain their design and the perfect fittedness of each organ to its purpose without a designer. He wants creation without a Creator in the same way Marx wants a story without a storyteller. What his theory predicts is not borne out by the evidence around us: where are the birds who only build half a nest, or the newt with only half an eye, who are halfway to evolving real nests and real eyes? Those things that are presented as transitional or preevolutionary halfway marks, such as light-sensitive spots or bird who mash down grass without weaving a proper nest, still evince a teleology, a that-for-the-sake-of-which, which the bird or critter in question did not himself decide or determine. Either the organs and instincts are purposeless, or there is purpose in nature. But nature cannot hold a purpose unless nature is an intelligent being, that is, a being capable of making self aware decisions, which is what a purpose is.

John C. Wright, John C. Wright's Journal 51 Comments [9/3/2014 3:52:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 22
Submitted By: David
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3 | bottom

anevilmeme

This guy is an endless source of entertainment.

9/3/2014 4:16:56 AM

Mister Spak

"Darwin looks for an explanation of the origin of species and the teleology of the parts of animals, that is, to explain their design and the perfect fittedness of each organ to its purpose without a designer."

Without a designer there is no teleology, so you failed in the first sentence.

9/3/2014 4:49:48 AM




9/3/2014 4:54:59 AM

Miles

Yeah... No... What?

Circular reasoning at its most circular.

9/3/2014 4:56:06 AM

dionysus

where are the birds who only build half a nest, or the newt with only half an eye, who are halfway to evolving real nests and real eyes?

Yes, because all creatures evolve every single trait independently. I agree, if that's how evolution worked, it would be ridiculous. However, it doesn't. Not even close. And the fact that you have to distort the theory so much just to make it seem silly shows that you're afraid that it's far too good of an explanation on its own. By contrast, all an atheist has to do is read directly from the Bible to make it seem ridiculous.

9/3/2014 4:59:58 AM

breakerslion

Strawman in the first sentence, and pandering to the ignorant afterwards. Marx wants a story without a storyteller? You want a creator without a creator. Who is the bigger idiot?

9/3/2014 5:14:12 AM

Doubting Thomas

where are the birds who only build half a nest, or the newt with only half an eye, who are halfway to evolving real nests and real eyes?

Well, we do have John C. Wright with half a brain.

9/3/2014 5:21:49 AM

Evgir Unslaad

... I'm done.

I'm done.

I refuse to continue to explain basic biological concepts. You don't understand it. You don't want to understand it. And I'm done.

Have fun reveling in your ignorance.

9/3/2014 5:34:33 AM

Prager

Nature doesn't have a purpose - it just is.


9/3/2014 5:37:55 AM

Hasan Prishtina

He wants creation without a Creator in the same way Marx wants a story without a storyteller.

Just as with science, "goddidit" is not an adequate explanation for the course of history. And just like nature, history has no purpose. It just was.

9/3/2014 6:04:56 AM

Nomen Nescio

and this is why there's a difference between philosophy and the natural sciences. philosophers commenting too deeply on the facts of what is, in objective reality, tend to get bogged down in abstract concepts that don't really apply to simple tangible fact; like "purpose", for instance. it's got nothing whatever to do with natural selection, or the notion of "fitness" used in evo bio, but somebody who's spent all their time in the philosophy department might well have their mind stuck on the word --- and the concept --- as it is used in philosophical theories.

evolved structures, as we see in living things, are "purposeless" the way a philosopher would use the word. nobody consciously designed them to serve any stated purpose. (except in human-created organisms, perhaps; like maize. corn cobs have a purpose, one we humans have determined, and we made those things out of teosinte --- not that most folks would guess it, to look at that wild grass.) philosophers might have trouble getting over the notion of complex structures like that being purposeless, but that can usually be fixed by passing a few more basic biology courses.

9/3/2014 6:33:16 AM

Nemo

That's not how evolution works. In any case, if you want a partial eye, look no further than lizards and their parietal eye.

"Either the organs and instincts are purposeless, or there is purpose in nature."

Why does there have to be a purpose in nature? Maybe organisms with a tendency towards certain behavior will be more likely to pass on those traits than others? Evolution is not entirely random; it is not chance that caused the smaller, avian dinosaurs to survive the hostile environment where the others had died. It is not by chance that social animals thrive in environments where cooperation is key.

Also, what do you mean Marx wanted a story without a storyteller? Marx clearly wanted people to take an active role in shaping their society. He didn't say "workers of the world, just sit there and relax!".

9/3/2014 6:36:26 AM

Citizen Justin

"Where are the birds who only build half a nest?"

They're called plovers. If that is even half a nest.

9/3/2014 7:33:10 AM

John_in_Oz

You cannot brain, your hurt heads.

9/3/2014 7:44:27 AM

Jonathon

Allow me to redirect that question. If we lived in a God-centric universe, and God was perfect, then why would He make imperfect creatures?

9/3/2014 8:02:07 AM

Goomy pls

There is no "progress meter" or "end goal" for evolution. Otherwise, we wouldn't have sickle cell anemia.

And your last statement is faulty. Not only is the conditional statement invalid, but you haven't shown either that nature has purpose.

9/3/2014 8:03:30 AM

Alencon

And they say ignorance is bliss...

9/3/2014 8:19:37 AM

Pule Thamex

Yes. The problem you've got is erm...you're trying to understand things wot you are not meant to know. Most people are meant to know whatever they want but you, unfortunately, are not.

The reason is, your brain has been adulterated by Bible goo and now is incapable of understandings most real things, even things as uncomplicated as counting your own toes.

So tough shit, life goes on apace, learning, studying and understanding, leaving those gooey brained unfortunates to malinger indefinitely in a welter of ignorance and superstition.

9/3/2014 9:30:50 AM

Anon-e-moose

"eyes"

...ah yes, that old chestnut the Cre(a)ti(o)nist fundies always like to wheel out as their 'proof' of (un)'Intelligent Design'; part of their being in that river in Egypt about Reality: Evolution.

Thanks for therefore admitting that the Mantis Shrimp is far superior to even we humans - including you - so there's the notion that we represent the 'pinnacle' of your (un)'Intelligent Designer's creation, and thus you John C. as per your actual surname, proved...:


9/3/2014 9:53:56 AM

freako104

You still don't understand evolution

9/3/2014 9:55:36 AM

Professor von SCIENCE!!!

Marx is an idiot posturing from a misunderstanding of human nature... much like you do. Darwin (and later scientists) have used good old fashioned research and observation to logically explain how life works.

9/3/2014 10:28:17 AM

John

where are the birds who only build half a nest, or the newt with only half an eye, who are halfway to evolving real nests and real eyes?

They're all over the place. There are birds who build very crude nests that are little more than a pile of hay or flattened patch of grass. There are no newts with half an eye for the simple reason that the early ancestors of newts already had full eyes. But there are animals that share a common ancestor with newts that have only light sensitive spots, light sensitive spots in a cup that directs the light, light sensitive spots in a ball with a pinhole opening, etc.

9/3/2014 10:32:53 AM

Jezebel's Evil Sister

The takeaway from this is that John C. Wright only has half a brain, if that much.

9/3/2014 10:40:46 AM

Sangfroid

And every word -every single word including "to" and "is"- of Wright's screed is a huge pile of BS.

9/3/2014 11:36:03 AM

Swede

Which is why we don't have a tailbone, and why whales don't have hipbones, right?

9/3/2014 11:48:34 AM

1 2 3 | top: comments page