The new study from the University of Freiburg, published in Current Biology, provides evidence linking teleological thinking, conspiracy theories and the rejection of scientific facts about evolution. Perhaps more than any other well-established scientific finding, evolution is in a constant struggle with misconceptions arising from teleological thinking. In fact, teleological thinking is so widespread that there is ample evidence that it impairs one's ability to learn the concept of natural selection in the first place.
Author: Stephan Lewandowsky, Head of Cognitive Psychology, University of Bristol, UK.
Translation: Avi Blizovsky
Ask a three-year-old girl why she thinks it's raining, and she might answer "because the flowers are blooming." Her brother may also tell you that trees have leaves to provide shade for people and animals. These are cases of teleological thinking, the idea that things were created for a purpose.
Teleological explanations of natural phenomena are rejected by scientists because these explanations appeal to intentions. The trees do not grow leaves and the rain clouds do not rain water for a predetermined purpose. The rain falls because of physics, and the same physics would apply even if there were no flowers or other life on Earth.
If we take the teleology one step further we get Donald Trump, who thinks that global warming is an invention of the Chinese to make US manufacturing less competitive. There is growing evidence that addiction to conspiracy theories causes people to reject scientific findings, from climate change to vaccines and AIDS. Researchers have now found that teleological thinking is the thread connecting beliefs in conspiracy theories and creationism.
Teleological and conspiratorial thought share several common characteristics. The common core of both ways of thinking is giving things a purpose. Flowers supposedly produce a delightful perfume to attract pollinators, climate scientists supposedly invented the climate change hoax at the behest of the "world government", or George Soros.
The emphasis on purpose that comes from teleological thinking is appealing. In everyday life assigning intentions is a completely logical thing. If someone asks why your daughter turned on the TV it would probably be accurate to answer that her favorite show is on now (or she is getting dressed on VOD, AB) but giving such an approximate purpose to trees to clouds and other natural phenomena may create a false understanding.
There is ample evidence that people are fascinated by teleological thinking and find it difficult to leave it behind. One study showed that even scientists, when they are under time pressure, say for example a sentence like "Bacteria mutate to be resistant to drugs" meaning they equate it with intention (when it is clear that there is no intention here. Evolution plays a different role. A bacteria that has undergone a mutation that happens to help it resist the drug , he is the one who survives, there was no intention AB)
Another study found that when students are in a time-poor situation, they easily tend to engage in conspiratorial thinking and develop superstitions.
The new study from the University of Freiburg, published in Current Biology, provides evidence linking teleological thinking, conspiracy theories and the rejection of scientific facts about evolution. Perhaps more than any other well-established scientific finding, evolution is in a constant struggle with misconceptions arising from teleological thinking. In fact, teleological thinking is so widespread that there is ample evidence that it impairs one's ability to learn the concept of natural selection in the first place.
It is tempting to think that giraffes need a long neck to reach the leaves at the top of the trees, so evolution provided them with the long neck. This teleological view contradicts the fact that natural selection had no such purpose. There was natural variation in the population, and taller animals, animals with long necks, had better reproductive success in a high-elevation environment, so the long neck of the giraffe was the standard.
The researchers from the University of Friborg conducted three studies on two thousand participants. The study confirms the findings of previous studies. The findings showed that teleological thinking is related to the rejection of evolution and the acceptance of the pseudo-scientific alternative, creationism. But the researchers also showed a strong connection between creationism and acceptance of conspiracy theories.
People who believed in creationism also tended to believe in conspiracy theories, regardless of their religious or political beliefs. The researchers' conclusion was that searching for meaning in random events, such as the death of Princess Diana in a drunk driving accident, or natural phenomena such as rain clouds or giraffe necks reflects a common way of thinking with religious belief.
Why do you deny science?
These new findings fit well with other studies that have found a connection between the denial of science in many fields. Practically, the use of conspiracy theories to reject scientific findings has been explained as a way to avoid accepting an inconvenient truth.
A chain smoker faced with frightening information about his habit is more likely to accuse the medical establishment of being an oligopolistic cartel (which has a vested interest in continuing the fight against smoking) than to quit smoking. Likewise, people who feel threatened by climate change, for example because it might cause gas prices to rise, may be more willing to think that Al Gore is creating a hoax than to accept the findings of 150 years of basic physics research.
The new study takes the role of conspiratorial thinking in creationism a step further. This suggests that creation itself can be seen as a belief system that is involved in the ultimate conspiracy theory: the purposeful creation of all things.
to the article on The Conversation website
More of the topic in Hayadan:
39 תגובות
Evolution does explain the development from a point on the axis onwards....it does not have an explanation of how it all started....when you have an answer....we will talk. In the meantime... don't rule out other approaches...
Ed
Evolution does not pretend to explain the beginning of life, nor can it explain it. After all, evolution is the result of life - change occurs during the culture under conditions of competition.
But - we have many theories that do explain the beginning of life, and that's the problem! If we had one theory, we'd be set. As soon as there is more than one, we have a difficult, and perhaps unsolvable, problem of choosing the right theory.
I would love to know what evidence you are talking about. Please start with one.
Miracles,
According to my first response to the article, you could understand that the "anonymous" you were referring to is me, Ed. My name was not listed in my later response due to an oversight.
As I said, theories of evolution explain, as far as they explain, sections and partial aspects of the phenomenon of the development of life. In general, the phenomenon of life cannot be fully explained only in familiar materialistic terms. Reality in general, and even purely physical reality, is more complex and multidimensional than the one we simply perceive, and there is no reason to assume that the phenomenon of life - which is particularly complex and multifaceted - can only be reduced to the materialistic dimensions and mechanisms we are familiar with.
It is amazing to see every time anew the phenomenon where people who brilliantly wave the flag of rationalism and pretend to scientific thinking and methodology, are the most extreme fanatics of dogmatic beliefs that deny in advance any truth value from empirical data and the rationales required from it. For them, reality converges only to what it is desirable, for reasons of convenience or ideology, to contain. The world of these people is narrow, and their consciousness is clearly false, but this is exactly what allows them to deny unequivocally, with impressive ferocity, claims, testimonies and evidence that go beyond their worldview, even though they must be examined in all seriousness (if only with the aim of negating their truth value in a way clear and qualified); And as if all of these are "lies" or "imagination", a priori. Such people are in a sense deformed and cannot be corrected, and it is not possible to have a rational conversation with them, certainly not the one who strives for scientific knowledge.
Nissim, you really illustrate your herdsmanship, a classic fundamentalist response.
Avi Blizovsky
The article proves that they are afraid of you.
The enemy of religion is knowledge.
Studying
This is one of the dumbest articles I've read. Whoever wrote the article is not only retarded, he is also evil.
Really - why did you bring this garbage? And what does that mean about you?
Do you have it in the most cynicism?
In any case, a movement of values that actually comes from an assumption that the religion (or a specific variation of it, it doesn't matter) is right and a goal is drawn around it. This is exactly teleology at its best. Nature has no intention, nature does not flow and therefore its solutions for building cabinets are less efficient than man's.
I didn't quite understand what the connection is between defending religion (which is something that is ingrained in millions of people from birth, and no efforts are made to stop it) and the denial of global warming. The story of greenhouse gases is indeed simple physics that has been known for 150 years. Is there a connection between the name of the site - Ratio, and the energy company bearing that name? Because otherwise it is not clear why it is so important for people to deny the fact that they feel when they open the window.
See here an evaluation article dripping with admiration and praise for the current article
https://rationalbelief.org.il/%d7%90%d7%91%d7%99-%d7%91%d7%9c%d7%99%d7%96%d7%95%d7%91%d7%a1%d7%a7%d7%99-%d7%9e%d7%90%d7%9b%d7%99%d7%9c-%d7%90%d7%aa-%d7%a7%d7%95%d7%a8%d7%90%d7%99%d7%95-%d7%a4%d7%a1%d7%99%d7%9b%d7%95%d7%90/
anonymous
And regarding the "death experience" - there are plenty of such stories on the internet, lots!!! But what - they are all lies.
Let me explain something important to you. Today we are no longer in the "information age", we are in the "reputation age". There is a lot of information, and you can find information that will suit what you want. Want to find that the earth is flat? There is "information" about it. Want to find that global warming is a lie? There is also information on this.
But - pay attention. Always, always!, always!!!! - Check the reputation of the information sources.
So what? Now that's interesting 🙂
You will find that there is no reliable information that says there are death experiences, knowledge of languages, and all the old-fashioned stories surrounding that "near-death experience".
People love to tell stories. And more than that - people really believe that they experienced "being outside the body" when they were on the verge of death. But, there is no real case of someone suddenly knowing a new language, or knowing how to play, let alone knowing something that they could not know in a natural way.
Feel free to give me a reliable link to something that contradicts what I said. There is nothing I want more than to believe in life after death.
I will teach you something else: if you want to be convinced of something, try to be convinced that it is not true. Look for refutations of what you believe.
But - then check the reputation of your source of information.
In conclusion - there is no reliable case that shows what you describe. There are thousands of stories….
anonymous
Let's talk first about the "theory of evolution" (by the way - in correct Hebrew you should say the theory of evolution, I will explain later).
To say that the Torah is "unscientific" is what is called in English a red herring - a scattering of chaff. Let's say it's not scientific - does that mean it's not what's happening? There is no connection between the two things. It's simply an attempt to dismiss the idea before discussing it.
Evolution is observation: life forms change. Like the lyrics of the song
"A wise farmer knows,
And he applied it to the army,
that the variety is to be praised..."
Almost everything we eat does not exist in nature. There are no: cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli, brussels sprouts, kale or kohlrabi - that's how these were developed by man. There are no cows, no horses, no chickens and no sheep - all these were developed by farmers from other animals. Poodle, Saint Bernard, Chihuahua, German Shepherd, Labrador, Dekalb and so on - they are all descendants of the wolf.
That is - there is a change in the species of creatures in the world (I use the word species very loosely here).
This is the first thing Darwin saw.
The second thing - he noticed that in different regions of the world there are different species. For example - in Australia there are marsupials, in Madagascar there are lemurs, in the American continents there are cats that are very different from the cats of Africa and Asia.
Third thing - in close areas - there are similar but not identical species. For example - Darwin saw that in the Galapagos Islands, there are many finks. And in each island - the finks are slightly different. And more than that - he noticed that where there are plants with large seeds - there are finches with a large beak, and vice versa.
Fourth thing - when you look at fossils - you see that the species of creatures has changed along the timeline.
This is evolution - an observation of the world.
Darwin thought about what was happening in agriculture, and threw it at nature. Farmers plant a lot of apple trees (for example), and take seeds only from the trees that produced a lot of cows. That is, the person makes a choice (this is how improvements have been made for thousands of years).
And he noticed something interesting. The vast majority of living creatures fail to reproduce! He took as stump the elephant, which is slowly multiplying. He calculated what would happen if every filly that was born gave birth to offspring as she would like (say once every two years). And what will happen? In a few hundred years the whole world will be full of elephants!!!
Therefore - there is a selection mechanism in nature - which we do not call "natural selection". The mechanism is very cruel, and it causes terrible wars between items of any kind. Lions, for example, kill cubs that are theirs. Elephant seals fight for the females to the point of blood and so on.
And now something genius: Darwin realized that a trait that helps reproduction (like strength in the lion, or the ability to find water in the elephant) - if this trait is inherited, then this trait will be in many offspring. And now the competition is tougher! So "nature" is constantly looking for new tricks.
Darwin did not know how traits are inherited, but he did know that traits change.
100 years later they discovered the mechanism that passes the traits from generation to generation: the genes. And not only that - we discovered that there are gene mutations, and this is how new traits are created.
Today we know an amazing thing - everything that defines what kind of creature will develop is inside these genes. Today we know how to take traits of one species and put it into another species. We even know how to create new species in the lab!
And to end this section - the word "theory" in English does not speak of a hypothesis. A hypothesis in English is a "hypothesis". A theory is a description of how a certain mechanism works. The opposite of theory is practice.
Why Torah in Hebrew? Anyone who knows mathematics has studied the "theory of groups", "theory of groups" and so on. And so from now on say "the theory of evolution".
Raphael
I understand you. Man's first sin was the desire to know. The preachers teach you not to repeat this mistake huh?
Miracles,
The following is a reference (late...) to your response from 24.8.18 about my words in a previous response from that day:
I can discuss with you every point where you criticized my words, but the words are long, and I admit that I don't have time for that these days (my office partner is on vacation and I'm almost the only one standing in the rush of work). Some of the claims have been discussed in the meantime by some commentators who criticize the evolutionary theory as a scientific theory, as opposed to a speculative hypothesis or a materialistic belief.
I will limit myself to just one reference, which, among other things, also has a personal aspect, but it embodies a truth that is an absolute certainty for me.
You write about near-death experiences like this: "You wrote "such as people who remember languages or abilities or knowledge that they never learned or heard in their lives and they "remember" them from a previous life. There is not a single such proven case. There are many stories, but it's just stories.”
I am completely amazed at this attitude of yours, because it shows a lack of orientation on the subject. The material on near-death experiences on the Internet is quite extensive, and currently covers tens of thousands of cases. In my opinion, although a (not large) part of the publications is indeed false, to one extent or another, because it was explicitly created by interested parties who initiate religious propaganda. But, and this is a very important but, most of the reports convey completely personal experiences of people who do not have any ideological or material motivation. Some of these reports have been checked by people with scientific authority (doctors, psychologists) using accepted documentation and analysis methods, and they seem completely acceptable and reliable. The reports, which are independent, repeat certain formats, and this cannot be ignored, according to any standard of logical and even scientific plausibility. Some of the reports, and they are very convincing, report on real "material" information obtained by the person during the experience of consciousness on the brink of death, even though there was no likelihood or possibility of obtaining it by that person in a natural way (for example: a person who tells about the invention of an object on the roof of the hospital, or an object housed in a certain place, observed by the person while in a state of consciousness "observing from above", outside the body). In my opinion, material explanations that pretend to show that these are hallucinations, do not stand the test, certainly not in the type of cases where real information was given that could not be obtained in a natural way. By the way, I myself had a near-death experience, and I was aware of objective events that occurred during the experience in the environment and outside the closed trauma room - events that I was able to tell about in detail and with perfect accuracy after I left the near-death experience, even though there was no possibility of knowing them in any natural way (the beginning of the experience For me, it is quite similar to the one told by Minister Yossi Sharid, who had a near-death experience. By the way, he denied its meaning, for "ideological reasons", but confirmed its existence and described it impressively on a factual level. My case also corresponds to a certain model known from many reported cases, although in my case the main part of the experience was not around the "journey" but around the "meeting", which was full of much discourse.
In my response I also referred to the abilities and knowledge found in certain people even though they never "acquired" them. I will give an example: a young (Israeli) woman with mental illness (schizophrenia) in which one of the characters she plays is a blind girl who plays the piano at a fairly high level. The case is well documented on the net. Factual - this woman has never learned to play the piano, but she details the piano while playing this particular character. Or: a boy in a hypnotic state knows a language (Sasanian Persian) that has never been heard in his environment and he must not have learned it, or a girl, a member of a kibbutz in Israel, in a hypnotic state who speaks a native Indian language and performs oily acts of worship that were a practice in Central America in the past. There are parallels to such phenomena in other countries as well, and they are many. Such phenomena, which often revolve around existence in a "past" life - are widely known by hypnotizing psychologists who return consciousness back in time. I'm not a psychologist, but I managed to develop a certain technique (for legal reasons I prefer not to call or relate or conduct it as "hypnosis") that reveals a "past" life - also for me. I have often had the opportunity to check objective data that came up in such sessions, against verified historical and geographical evidence (for example, the presence of a certain quarter with a concrete name in Alexandria of the second century BC), and I have already stopped being surprised and amazed at the level of accuracy of the findings.
There are other phenomena that cannot be explained in material perspectives. Beyond immediate phenomena tangible to each of us - consciousness, will, choice, it is possible to note the existence of extraordinary intuitions (these indeed have a strong presence in science and business). It is not uncommon, for example, to argue that ideas, scientific and otherwise, "come into the world" with incredible simultaneity, as if it were a kind of "quantum entanglement". The infinitesimal calculus from the foundation of Newton and Leibniz is one of many examples of this in the field of science. An example from another field - Zoharim ideas in the Book of Zohar and an Indian philosophical method, in both cases became famous in the world in the 13th century. The intuitive topic is very broad, and the time here is short to review it.
These phenomena teach, in my opinion, about non-material dimensions of reality in which the phenomenon of "life" exists, dimensions in which consciousness has existence, the conscious being has different mental and rational abilities, and there is a dimensional medium in which consciousness functions and communicates. The phenomenon of life is the connection between the material and the super-material, found in hitherto unexplored dimensions; And it cannot be explained as long as this connection is not investigated.
It is very difficult for the science known today to get out of the hermetic material box in which it is found. People who consider themselves rational, prefer to adopt strategies of denial, repression and evasion in relation to phenomena and problems that should be investigated in all seriousness. These people prefer to fence themselves in a dogmatic materialist prison in which speculative theories about the origin of life or about the essence of the phenomenon of life or the development of life - become a comprehensive and proven scientific truth, despite the problems inherent in them. The motive of such people is neither practical nor rationalistic in the deep sense of the term, but ideological. Therefore, the pretension of such people to grasp scientific truth is merely an engineering of false consciousness, directed towards themselves and the environment.
Raphael
Have you ever tried to discuss with me? Have you ever considered the content of what I'm saying? The answer is no.
But, it's not just you. Most of the religious people I have talked to are unable to discuss reality. They live in their tolem and hide behind their faith.
And this is precisely the problem with religious belief. We believe in something, and if reality shows us wrong, then we have proven reality wrong!
Instead of personal attacks - please find an error in what I say.
Raphael
Have you ever tried to discuss with me? Have you ever considered the content of what I'm saying? The answer is no.
But, it's not just you. Most of the religious people I have talked to are unable to discuss reality. They live in their tolem and hide behind their faith.
And this is precisely the problem with religious belief. We believe in something, and if reality shows us wrong, then we have proven reality wrong!
Miracles,
Come on, leave. Arguing with you is pointless.
Raphael
Do you think I said something wrong?
Lol…
Tol Cora from your eyes!
Raphael
If you have no way to attack my words, then you descend into personal attacks.
Miracles
You held back well at first, but in the end you got the miracles...
Let's just look at the sentence "When you look at an organ like the heart, it is immediately clear that all its parts exist and work for one purpose, which makes it planned."
There are all kinds of hearts in the living world, and sometimes their structure is different. So it's a bit strange that the genius from above didn't choose one for everyone who needs it.
The heart deteriorates quickly, and there is no redundancy in it. From an engineering point of view, is it bad planning to install such a critical system without backup?
Are you aware that there is one nerve that the heart wraps around? Evolution can explain this poor design. Did your wonderful planner not see his mistake?
Maybe you'll go back to your hole? You are a stupid arrogant person who gives a bad name to all religious people (and now you will deny that you are religious…..).
Being stupid is not pleasant. I'm fed up with you. But why are you lying too?
Transcendental Anonymous
I haven't heard such stupidity in a long time. You probably haven't been here for a long time.
The only thing that rivals your stupidity is your lies.
In response to the article, it should be noted that the science of evolution deals with "denial" and "ignoring" which are known psychological problems.
-
Evolution is an existing fact. There is no point in debating facts and indeed from this point of view creationism is wrong.
But there is point in arguing about the explanation of the facts.
The "scientific" theory of evolution, which is nothing but the theory of the denial of logic, claims that evolution occurred without any intervention and by itself.
Indeed, modern science, which sees matter as absolute and the only explanation for the existence of reality, has no other choice, and must assert firmly, aggressively, and contrary to all logic, that the origin of life and its development is only in matter.
From this point of view, modern science is modern idolatry for all intents and purposes.
-
When you look at an organ like the heart, it is immediately clear that all its parts exist and work for one purpose, which makes it planned.
It is understood that there is no and it is not possible that the parts of the heart had prior information to exist and create one whole that is the heart.
The same applies to every component of life, an organ, and organ systems, which demonstrate the pre-existence of something planned.
But science has a story: it draws attention to increasingly simple hearts down to the worm and in general, and claims that it is a self-development from the simple to the complex through the influence of environmental properties.
Science treats the environment like an engine manufacturing plant that includes a collection of goal-oriented features that is the engine. A factory that contains all the knowledge required to create an engine.
The problem is that the environment has no constructive properties at all but only destructive properties and certainly has no goal oriented properties.
The environment can be compared to a paper shredding factory. What goes in comes out cut apart from a piece of metal that happened to be added to the trash.
Science calls this piece of metal evolutionary development.
The environment also doesn't have any goal oriented features. All its features are random and do not include any prior information about the formation of the finished product and its features.
But science has no problem with facts and logic. All he has to do is tell a story and call the story "science".
- By planned, it is meant to know in advance the properties of the thing which is not possible from the properties of its parts alone.
For example, from a collection of bricks, it is not possible to conclude about the existence of a pyramid. From various materials on the existence of an airplane, computer, chair, etc.
Mud on the existence of a cell, and the existence of a cell on the existence of a human brain.
But from a grain of wheat it can be inferred about wheat, because the properties of the components of the grain include the properties of the wheat.
This is the difference between logical thinking and irrational thinking.
Science adheres to irrationality.
Science says:
Self-replication+random change+environmental properties=new information that did not exist in the properties of its parts.
But science only says. He does not conclude. The inference is completely forbidden from him. His conclusions are never included in his premises.
Self-replication+random change+environmental traits are never equivalent to a human. A text that covers scientific helplessness.
Science says:
A random mutation includes all the features required to turn a single cell into a person. And how does science know this? Science says: it is a fact that there is a person\X.
That is, he assumes what he wants.
And is the assumption of science refutable according to the famous rebuttal principle?
Well, science says, a change in itself that includes all the possibilities cannot be refuted, but in combination with the properties of the environment it can be refuted.
If the properties of the environment were different, then man would not exist.
Indeed, for example, if the temperature was 6000 degrees, there would be no solid objects present.
Popper says, if an assumption is scientific it is testable, and it is testable when it can be disproved.
But what happens when a hypothesis is disprovable but not related to the topic at hand? In such a case it is a manipulative deception attempt.
Well, this is the situation here, the properties of the environment are only a condition that allows the existence of a thing. They are not its cause. Temperatures of 100 degrees allow the existence of an airplane, but they are not the reason for its existence.
The reasons for its existence are its features that were brought into existence by its planners.
A temperature of 100 degrees allows a glass of ice and a glass to exist together, but at 100 degrees only the glass will exist.
The temp doesn't create the cups. It is not the reason for their existence but their non-existence and a condition that enables their existence. The temperature has nothing to do with the very formation of the glasses.
If X exists, no Y necessarily follows from it. When it is known that Y stems from something else, then clearly X has nothing to do with Y. But the theory of evolution tries to convince that Y comes from X.
The theory of evolution tries in every way to convince that environmental conditions are the cause of the finished product - life. This is a simple lie.
When looking for an explanation, look for the reasons and then the conditions.
An explanation that only includes conditions is not an explanation.
What is used as a reason in the theory of evolution is accidental properties (mutations) of matter.
Accidental properties can be assembled into a design whose properties are beyond human reach, such as a brain, according to the theory of evolution and without a shred of proof.
Microscopic changes are not the source of new features and new creatures.
Prevented from accidental changes to create complex systems that demonstrate information planning at the highest level, such as a mosquito, a bee, a bird, a person...
prevent accidental change from being other than meaningless accidental change.
Attributing constructive meanings to random change is meaningless, and searching for specific content within random change using supercomputers is a completely different thing from evolution.
A detailed proof, for example, will bring all the mutations necessary to transform a monkey's brain into a human brain and show that they are possible at every stage without destroying the production, blessed is the believer.
It is about a story, faith, hallucination, clowning.
It can be concluded that the scientific theory of evolution is aimed at the goal of presenting life as "naturally" planned and created by itself.
This is the next stage of the development of the "scientific" theory of evolution, which is based on deception, eye catching, manipulation, ignoring, denial, fooling around and lies.
When matter takes on properties that are comparatively more designed than any computer or human thought, then the conclusion is that it was created by superhuman design.
Science sticks to chance.
-
(ep)
Asaf
The question is - what do people who deny science do on this site? You can't have a productive discussion with them, so why are they reacting? Note that they always descend into personal attacks.
Gentlemen who respond,
First of all, everyone should know that evolution is not a theory but a process,
There are explanations and theories of how the process takes place, how evolution occurs,
Darwin tried to a large degree of success to explain evolution,
to explain a process that happens in nature, a process called evolution,
As for "people in other dimensions" etc.,
The writer will forgive me, but these are nonsense
which to a large extent prove/confirm the main claim in the article.
As for the "goals", well, there is no point arguing with believers
Because every discussion against faith becomes a pointless debate,
for the simple reason that:
Science can prove existence
but
It is not possible to prove a negative...
Ed
There is no connection between evolution and probability. Evolution is not random! What is random is mutations. But - this is just a technical detail.
Here is an example that explains: one of the things to sort a large series of numbers is called "quicksort". In this method, one of the numbers is chosen at random, and the rest of the numbers are divided into two groups: those that are smaller than the number and those that are more odd. Now - if each of the groups - do the same process again. This process will always get the numbers right 🙂
You wrote "these assumptions are wrong" - but you didn't explain why. You are wrong, and I will explain a little why.
You wrote "It is impossible to explain on the basis of this principle the development of a complex trait that requires the joining, matching and simultaneity of many "useful" developments required for the formation of the complex trait." - This is a well-known claim of creationists, and it is simply not true. I would be happy if you would give me one such feature that cannot be explained by the way of evolution.
You wrote "It is correct to say that given the accumulated scientific knowledge, what is known as the "evolutionary theory" is a collection of learned hypotheses, but not a scientific theory. ". Again, you don't understand what evolution is, nor what "theory" is.
Evolution itself is an observation. Almost everything we eat does not exist in nature, but is developed by humans. In nature - there is no broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts or collard greens. Bananas in the wild are not edible. There are no birds that lay eggs every day and so on. Fossil evidence also shows us that over the years life forms have changed.
Darwin hypothesized that just as man was the selection factor in agriculture, so the problem of survival is the selection factor in nature. He noticed several things. First thing - the absolute majority of living creatures die without reproducing. Second thing - environmental conditions change, therefore the features that help survival change over time. And the third thing - inherited traits.
In science, and not only in science, the word "theory" has a different meaning than most people think, especially those who do not speak English. The opposite of theory is practice. A theory is an explanation of how things work - for example: how an internal combustion engine works. Practice describes how to operate the car.
What's more - "natural selection" itself is a hypothesis. There is no argument that natural selection causes the evolution of species. The hypothesis is its importance relative to the other factors (and there are several).
You mentioned the second law of thermodynamics. This law is not valid in an open system.
You wrote "such as people who remember languages or abilities or knowledge that they never learned or heard in their lives and they "remember" them from a previous life." Not even one such proven case. There are many stories, but it's just stories.
What you wrote about the experience of death is also stories. There is no case that a patient knew something that he could not know. The story about the teeth is just bullshit. On the contrary - several studies were carried out on the subject, and it was proven that it was all her grandmother's stories.
Ed - don't be mad at me. I have books of information that back up every word I wrote. I would be happy to discuss each point separately.
Raphael
1. You didn't understand what I meant. What I'm saying is, if you think humans have goals, then plants and animals have goals too.
My claim is the opposite: I claim that there are only reasons. That is - every phenomenon, every act, every "desire", is because of something, and not for something.
2. I answered exactly the original question, you are the one who did not understand my answer. The problem is that you conclude in advance that there are goals - I explained that in my opinion, there really is no such thing. There are only reasons. Raphael - You also changed your goals in life, right? You changed them because things happened, or you learned things. Your life circumstances have determined who you are.
3. So I understand that you oppose the so-called "scientific method". But, I think you don't understand the method. The method is very simple: first step, I come up with some idea in my head, or some explanation for the phenomenon I saw. Second step - I look for a way to show that the idea is not good, or the explanation is wrong.
If I tried to sell you something, you would try to show how good it is, and hide the bad things. Science is not trying to sell, but is a method for investigating reality. Dishonest scientists are a terrible thing...
I am not saying that what is not proven does not exist. little I do say that if you say something that doesn't make sense to me (because of my prejudices, my education, my knowledge) then I expect you to convince me that you are right.
These are not conspiracy theories, after all the associations must ultimately report where they got the money from and in all the tests they did, it turned out that it was the Koch brothers who support (or actually initiate) any venture that opposes anything that hinders their business.
I didn't know that my father created it, with all his conspiracy theories about the Cole brothers being Republicans and rich with different opinions than his own.
What is teleological in doubt and what am I doing wrong?
Before there was man the climate was stable and comfortable
+
We measure climate changes accurately in recent years and quite accurately for more than a century and estimate thousands of years back with reasonable accuracy
+
The amount of greenhouse gases emitted from the use of fuels and coal is a human necessity in a wasteful Western consumer society
and hence
We can draw a line of expected warming
and hence
We are able to estimate what will happen as a result of the change
and hence
We were able to estimate exactly what change is needed to stop the warming
***conclusion***
If we reduce the emission of pollutants by 2.5% in the developed countries during the next decade, this will reduce the expected warming to a level that is not dangerous
Success for all of us
Ed,
I liked your response.
Asaf
If you are a skeptic then why don't you cast your attitude and that of your kind? It only proves that you are the one who considers himself "in the know" while I am the skeptic who questioned what people like you sell him.
Second thing, you also still haven't answered the fundamental question: how does it happen that processes that happen without a purpose lead to results (humans, animals, plants) that are conducted only according to a purpose??? (do you spell that?)
Good article. Summing up many hours of debate in one question, do you believe that everything has a purpose? Which is the same as whether there is a god I suppose but more refined.
Raphael
"the knower", ?
I didn't think my reaction would cause that, but it turns out I touched a nerve?
The difference between me and you is that I'm a skeptic, while you turn out to know,
Referring to me in the plural - "like you" or "your friends" - clarifies your approach
(unless you are also referring to the biomass in my stomach)
As a matter of fact,
Read the scripture again and again and maybe you will understand that
There is no purpose in nature, the development of the human race is also accidental
and not out of a goal or striving for a certain direction,
Therefore, whoever declares his knowledge of the existence of a (higher?) purpose
for the formation of life and the development of plant and animal species
joins the creationists,
Joining that means
Waving brightly...
Raphael
"the knower", ?
I didn't think my reaction would cause that, but it turns out I touched a nerve?
The difference between me and you is that I'm a skeptic, while you turn out to know,
Referring to me in the plural - "like you" or "your friends" - clarifies your approach
(unless you are also referring to the biomass in my stomach)
As a matter of fact,
Read the scripture again and again and maybe you will understand that
There is no purpose in nature, the development of the human race is also accidental
and not out of a goal or striving for a certain direction,
Therefore, whoever declares his knowledge of the existence of a (higher?) purpose
for the formation of life and the development of plant and animal species
waving brightly and...
Miracles,
1. If you say that "a tree in the forest grows tall to get exposure to the sun. It grows roots to be stable and to absorb mineral water. He grows fruits so that birds can eat them and spread the seeds." So in fact you oppose the idea of the author of the article who writes "trees do not grow leaves... for a predetermined purpose". good to know.
2. You didn't answer the fundamental question: How does it happen that processes that happen without a purpose lead to results (humans, animals, plants) that are conducted only according to a purpose???
3. "Your way" is many things, but for the sake of simplicity it means that this is the way that states that what cannot be scientifically proven does not actually exist at all in reality and anyone who does not align according to this is actually ignorant.
Raphael
A completely biological explanation can be given as to why a person has goals. And not only man, even the "lowest" plants and animals have goals. A tree in the forest grows tall to get exposure to the sun. It grows roots to be stable and to absorb mineral water. He grows fruits so that birds can eat them and spread the seeds.
In humans it is much more complicated of course. But Raphael - don't look at yourself. For a great deal of human history, and for some people today, the goals are nothing more than to survive in order to reproduce.
You can look at it in all kinds of ways. For example - today we believe that the function of our brain (mainly the front part) is to stop the more "primitive" brain. This is really what separates us from animals. That is why we have goals, desires and intentions.
And if you want - you can look at it hormonally: love produces oxytocin, certain activities produce epinephrine, other pleasures - dopamine.
So scientifically, we don't have a paradox because people have goals.
And regarding what Assaf said - he shouldn't have written like that. But, you don't have to talk about Assaf's friend. He does not represent his friends.
And yet - what did you mean by "your way"?
The problem with this article is that it starts from the assumption that the theory he calls the "evolutionary theory" provides a complete explanation for the phenomenon of species diversity and what appears to be their dangling from each other. In this spirit, the article assumes that "natural selection" is the mechanism that establishes an evolutionary process.
These assumptions are wrong. There are various evolutionary theories, and the mechanism of natural selection in itself, or the residual/maximum adaptation principle that came to replace it - cannot provide a complete explanation. It is possible to explain, for example, the development of a simple feature within a certain species of a complex animal (example: longer neck), on the basis of the matching principle, but from a probabilistic point of view it is impossible to explain on the basis of this principle the development of a complex feature that requires joining, matching and simultaneity of developments Many "benefits" required for the formation of the complex feature.
It is correct to say that given the accumulated scientific knowledge, the so-called "evolutionary theory" is a collection of learned hypotheses, but not a scientific theory. Indeed, the diversity in species is a fact, and the genetic and biomolecular connections between them are clear. But to understand these connections additional/other potential principles and mechanisms are needed. It is possible that these are far from the limit of the explanatory power of science based on material perspectives only. The creation of life, which cannot be explained on the basis of spontaneous processes (the probability of this is, from a practical point of view - zero), and their consistent conduct, up to a certain point, contrary to the second law of thermodynamics, indicates the existence and influence of extra-material perspectives.
I would like to refer to the article by the researchers of the University of Freiburg in a more principled way, that is, to the very materialistic concept that excludes all non-material perspectives regarding life. Well, there are phenomena of consciousness that indicate immaterial perspectives, in a direct intuitive way: awareness, desire, choice. Beyond that, there is a huge collection of testimonies of people about other lives or in other dimensions - such as people who remember languages or abilities or knowledge that they did not learn or hear in their lives and they "remember" them from a previous life. And such as people who have had near-death experiences and provide information about immaterial existential situations and information that they could not have acquired while they were clinically dead (the claim that these are "hallucinations" as a result of chemical breakdowns in the brain during clinical death - simply cannot hold water - because how does the person know exactly where The nurse placed his dentures while he was clinically dead, and how does he know about the shoe that is on the roof of the hospital, and also has absolutely accurate information?)
Current science avoids dealing with these phenomena, in the worst case, and in the worst case, it tries to deny and explain them with artificial material explanations that fail on their face. But I suppose that a day will come and science will expand its scope beyond material empiricism. I would not be surprised if some of the explanations for the phenomena would also be teleological, mercifully, in contrast to the dogmatic scholarship of Freiburg researchers and others.
Really interesting. Natural processes that happen without any purpose create in the end a person who only acts according to goals. Suddenly at some point a concept called desire and choice was created.
As a note to Asaf, the ignorant here is you and your friends and the reason is that you are convinced that your way is the only one and anyone who does not think like you is ignorant. Such an attitude locks you in and does not allow you to think freely so you remain ignorant and with the land.
It is only interesting and important that:
When teleological thinking is attributed
For children who have not yet learned to think logically - let's say,
But when dealing with adults
It is appropriate to replace the concept
teleological thinking
In the morning...