The Strange Inevitability of Evolution • Hacker News Board

Re: The Strange Inevitability of Evolution

#11

Post by Red_Tarsius » Sun, May 03, 2015, 9:37 PM UTC

solipsism wrote: post #6

pcunite wrote: post #2

A quote from the article: "You don’t have to be a benighted creationist ..." Can we please keep these type of articles off HN please? I don’t come here to be insulted. I have other sites for that! Sir Isaac Newton was not a simple nor stupid man and he gave honor to the Creator. Just because science has not figured God out, does not deny His existence. A whole lot of reasons for what allowed the Internet, HN, science…

Just because science has not figured God out, does not deny His existence. Science isn't trying to figure god out any more than it's trying to figure fairies out. Science focuses its efforts on understanding reality.

Science describes reliable models of reality. Its language is mathematics.

Religion wonders about the ultimate meaning of such models. Its language is philosophy.

The first religions bundled model and meaning out of necessity. However, post-Roman Christians were keen logicians and experimenters who laid the foundation of the modern sciences. They would be ashamed of creationists' shallowness.

Re: The Strange Inevitability of Evolution

#12

Post by woodchuck64 » Sun, May 03, 2015, 9:39 PM UTC

"Evolution need only take a random walk along a web of neutral (or at least almost neutral) mutations, that, without impairing the fitness of an organism, surrounds it with very different neighbors: innovative solutions to selective pressures that are there for the taking when the circumstances compel it."

Wow, that starts to explain the amazing creativity of rapid evolution (like whale evolution in 10 million years). So how to turn this into software? This seems like it could be a new class of evolutionary algorithm.

Re: The Strange Inevitability of Evolution

#13

Post by Dewie3 » Sun, May 03, 2015, 9:46 PM UTC

shasta wrote: post #8

Rexxar wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because science has not figured God out, does not deny His existence. The big question of science is "How ... ?" The big question of religion is "Why ... ?" The two solve different problems and could coexist without so many animosity on each side.

The big question of science is "Why...?" The big question of religion is "Who...?"

I don't know. Some religions don't seem so hung up on prime movers and anthropomorphizing any "higher being(s)". Buddhism, for instance (just my impression).

Re: The Strange Inevitability of Evolution

#14

Post by zornthewise » Sun, May 03, 2015, 9:50 PM UTC

Rexxar wrote: post #9

shasta wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big question of science is "Why...?" The big question of religion is "Who...?"

I disagree here. For example, relativity and quantum mechanics explain how our world behave but we have no idea why these theories are true or even why can the universe be described with mathematical equations ?

What kind of answer would satisfy your questions of why these theories are true anyway. I am not sure I can even imagine an ideal answer and this might be a clue that we are asking the completely wrong question.

Re: The Strange Inevitability of Evolution

#15

Post by Retric » Sun, May 03, 2015, 9:55 PM UTC

Red_Tarsius wrote: post #11

solipsism wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because science has not figured God out, does not deny His existence. Science isn't trying to figure god out any more than it's trying to figure fairies out. Science focuses its efforts on understanding reality.

Science describes reliable models of reality. Its language is mathematics. Religion wonders about the ultimate meaning of such models. Its language is philosophy. The first religions bundled model and meaning out of necessity. However, post-Roman Christians were keen logicians and experimenters who laid the foundation of the modern sciences. They would be ashamed of creationists' shallowness.

Religions evolve to self propagate, that's about all they have in common. Ex: The shakers died out for fairly obvious reasons.

Ps: The have been a lot of tiny or dead religions some of which where vary odd by modern standards. But, if you limit yourself to religions with say 20,000,000+ followers today then clearly there going to need to be able to spread.

Re: The Strange Inevitability of Evolution

#16

Post by javert » Sun, May 03, 2015, 10:25 PM UTC

Red_Tarsius wrote: post #11

solipsism wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because science has not figured God out, does not deny His existence. Science isn't trying to figure god out any more than it's trying to figure fairies out. Science focuses its efforts on understanding reality.

Science describes reliable models of reality. Its language is mathematics. Religion wonders about the ultimate meaning of such models. Its language is philosophy. The first religions bundled model and meaning out of necessity. However, post-Roman Christians were keen logicians and experimenters who laid the foundation of the modern sciences. They would be ashamed of creationists' shallowness.

> Science describes reliable models of reality. Its language is mathematics.

That's not right. It's language is... well, language. Including, but not limited to, mathematics.

> Religion wonders about the ultimate meaning of such models. Its language is philosophy.

I don't think this is really being fair to philosophy. I do view religion as a kind of proto-philosophy. Philosophy is what religion should have been.

Re: The Strange Inevitability of Evolution

#17

Post by Retra » Sun, May 03, 2015, 10:30 PM UTC

Red_Tarsius wrote: post #11

solipsism wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because science has not figured God out, does not deny His existence. Science isn't trying to figure god out any more than it's trying to figure fairies out. Science focuses its efforts on understanding reality.

Science describes reliable models of reality. Its language is mathematics. Religion wonders about the ultimate meaning of such models. Its language is philosophy. The first religions bundled model and meaning out of necessity. However, post-Roman Christians were keen logicians and experimenters who laid the foundation of the modern sciences. They would be ashamed of creationists' shallowness.

The problem with religion is that it describes facets of human mental, cultural, and emotional processes (as all fictions do,) but attributes them to non-human parts of reality. Thus it is, in any rational sense, a terrible model of anything.

Your mistake is in claiming that religion is about 'meaning' where science and mathematics aren't. Anywhere you use language, you study meaning. Meaning is a feature of language, and religion tends to use the least reliable and most inconsistent language of any of those subjects. If religion is a search for meaning, it is an incredibly stupid way of doing so.

So the one thing you've claimed it is useful for is something that it is demonstrably bad at.

Re: The Strange Inevitability of Evolution

#18

Post by alexqgb » Sun, May 03, 2015, 10:34 PM UTC

pcunite wrote: post #2

A quote from the article: "You don’t have to be a benighted creationist ..." Can we please keep these type of articles off HN please? I don’t come here to be insulted. I have other sites for that! Sir Isaac Newton was not a simple nor stupid man and he gave honor to the Creator. Just because science has not figured God out, does not deny His existence. A whole lot of reasons for what allowed the Internet, HN, science…

Slapping "In God We Trust" on everything was not only a fairly recent development, it was a cynically calculated response by a chastened business class that found itself coming under extraordinary scrutiny in the wake of the Great Depression.

The redemption of capitalism by Christianity demanded a heavily modified version of the religion that basically abandoned all the parts about people looking after each other and created a new ethos in which getting rich was both a duty and a reward.

Given a bunch of plutocrats who would pay well for effective propaganda and some creative but unscrupulous preachers willing to do their dirty work, a distinctly American (and conspicuously un-Christian) version of Christianity was born. It's been polarizing our politics and supporting the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands ever since.

A couple of recent books by Nicole Aschoff and Kevin Kruse have done a good job unpacking this reprehensible hustle. If you have any interest in finding out just how much bullshit has gone into shaping your world view, Elizabeth Bruenig has reviewed both of them here: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121564/gods-and-profits-h...

You can also read Kruse himself, who has summarized his effort (How Corporate America Invented Christian America) here: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/corporate-ame...

On a separate note, Newton's total disregard of evolutionary theory is not a product of any disagreements he had with the theory itself. Rather, it's due to the fact that died more that 130 years before "On the Origin of Species" was first published. Class dismissed.

Re: The Strange Inevitability of Evolution

#19

Post by Retra » Sun, May 03, 2015, 10:35 PM UTC

Rexxar wrote: post #7

solipsism wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because science has not figured God out, does not deny His existence. Science isn't trying to figure god out any more than it's trying to figure fairies out. Science focuses its efforts on understanding reality.

Just because science has not figured God out, does not deny His existence. The big question of science is "How ... ?" The big question of religion is "Why ... ?" The two solve different problems and could coexist without so many animosity on each side.

There are not two different problems.

And more importantly, religion has never actually answered a "why" question in a reasonable manner. So it is objectively useless. It is not how you answer "why" questions.

Assuming your distinction is actually meaningful, here's a question for you: "How do you properly answer 'why' questions?"

Re: The Strange Inevitability of Evolution

#20

Post by lotsofmangos » Sun, May 03, 2015, 10:36 PM UTC

pcunite wrote: post #2

A quote from the article: "You don’t have to be a benighted creationist ..." Can we please keep these type of articles off HN please? I don’t come here to be insulted. I have other sites for that! Sir Isaac Newton was not a simple nor stupid man and he gave honor to the Creator. Just because science has not figured God out, does not deny His existence. A whole lot of reasons for what allowed the Internet, HN, science…

I half agree with you. I do think that the language used to describe religious viewpoints includes off the cuff insults far too often. The word benighted was unnecessary in that sentence and does detract from the article. I don't think it was egregious enough to demand the article not be posted, but I do agree that it is a form of philosophical point scoring that serves neither the article, nor the wider discussion.

The first person to derive the Hubble constant and one of the main developers of big-bang theory was Georges Lemaître, a devout Catholic who would later become president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, who described the idea as "the Cosmic Egg, exploding at the moment of the creation", though he didn't like the Pope relying on it in proclamations. I think it would be fair to call him a creationist.

Also, Hoyle, who was not a creationist, coined the term 'Big-Bang' to take the piss out of Lemaître's idea and promote the steady-state theory, which he preferred. Hoyle however believed that a god was guiding the fine tuning of the constants to help the evolution of life, so was effectively a proponent of intelligent design, while not being a creationist. Weirdly, the two ideas do not have to go together.

I am not saying this from the article offending myself in any way, I am what most people would think of as strongly athiest, though personally I have come to dislike the label. I just think it is a lazy form of signaling that detracts from the argument and also demonstrates an ignorance of the wide variety of religious and philosophical viewpoints held by those throughout the scientific community.