Question for Atheists ( hoping for a interesting debate)
Why do Roses 🌹 have thorns?
36-40, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
Let’s clarify and come to an agreement on this : Science is a method. Not a worldview.
It tells us how things behave — but it cannot tell us why anything exists at all, or whether the universe has meaning.
That’s not an insult to science. That’s honesty.
So when one says things like:
“Evolution doesn't favor anything,”
“There is no guidance,”
“Life is a meaningless byproduct of molecules colliding,”
One is not presenting science — one is presenting philosophical materialism in scientific drag.
It tells us how things behave — but it cannot tell us why anything exists at all, or whether the universe has meaning.
That’s not an insult to science. That’s honesty.
So when one says things like:
“Evolution doesn't favor anything,”
“There is no guidance,”
“Life is a meaningless byproduct of molecules colliding,”
One is not presenting science — one is presenting philosophical materialism in scientific drag.
ElwoodBlues · M
@Heavenlywarrior Just to clarify, I never said those phrases. Here's what I said
“When someone says 'science teaches such and such', he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach it; experience teaches it” — Richard P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, p. 187.
Mutations sometimes gives plants different skin textures. Plants with tougher skins and/or bumpier surfaces got eaten less by herbivores. Thus, without consciousness or intention, natural selection resulted in various features that tended to prolong life and reproduction.
AndA quick look tells me that 1% to 3% of mutations might be beneficial; the vast majority of the rest are harmful. So let's simplify it to 1 helpful mutation and 32 harmful ones.
Do the 32 harmful mutations show purpose? Did something say "I want these 32 gene carriers to die"? How can you impute "purpose" to the one beneficial mutation but not to the 32 harmful ones? They are all mutations. They are all nature rolling the dice.
Do the 32 harmful mutations show purpose? Did something say "I want these 32 gene carriers to die"? How can you impute "purpose" to the one beneficial mutation but not to the 32 harmful ones? They are all mutations. They are all nature rolling the dice.
“When someone says 'science teaches such and such', he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach it; experience teaches it” — Richard P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, p. 187.
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@ElwoodBlues What explains the apparent directional bias toward survival-optimizing outcomes, in the absence of awareness, intention, or foresight? Why aren’t the outputs just neutral or chaotic?
You say:
"Without consciousness or intention, natural selection resulted in features that prolonged life."
But this is exactly the contradiction: You're saying a blind, unintelligent process consistently preserves intelligent-looking solutions — as if “what works” is somehow recognized and preserved over time. But how can “what works” be preserved unless there is some mechanism evaluating “what works”?
You say:
"Without consciousness or intention, natural selection resulted in features that prolonged life."
But this is exactly the contradiction: You're saying a blind, unintelligent process consistently preserves intelligent-looking solutions — as if “what works” is somehow recognized and preserved over time. But how can “what works” be preserved unless there is some mechanism evaluating “what works”?
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@ElwoodBlues Do the 32 harmful mutations show purpose?
No — but neither are they the point. The fact that they get filtered out speaks to a selective process that favors function over dysfunction.
Did something say “I want these 32 gene carriers to die”?
No — that’s anthropomorphic framing. The system behaves as if it selects — not because it "wants" but because certain outcomes survive and accumulate.
How can I impute purpose to the beneficial one?
Because teleonomy is about emergent function, not conscious intent. When a mutation systematically contributes to survival and persists, it reflects a deeper tendency toward adaptive order — not a one-time fluke.
Yes, mutations are like dice rolls. But:
If you roll a trillion dice and always end up with self-repairing, self-replicating machines that adapt and resist decay — the rational response isn’t “it’s just luck.” It’s to ask, “what property of the system gives rise to this reliable directional outcome?”
No — but neither are they the point. The fact that they get filtered out speaks to a selective process that favors function over dysfunction.
Did something say “I want these 32 gene carriers to die”?
No — that’s anthropomorphic framing. The system behaves as if it selects — not because it "wants" but because certain outcomes survive and accumulate.
How can I impute purpose to the beneficial one?
Because teleonomy is about emergent function, not conscious intent. When a mutation systematically contributes to survival and persists, it reflects a deeper tendency toward adaptive order — not a one-time fluke.
Yes, mutations are like dice rolls. But:
If you roll a trillion dice and always end up with self-repairing, self-replicating machines that adapt and resist decay — the rational response isn’t “it’s just luck.” It’s to ask, “what property of the system gives rise to this reliable directional outcome?”
ElwoodBlues · M
@Heavenlywarrior says
@Heavenlywarrior says
And, 99% of all species that ever existed have gone extinct, so we don't actually end up with what you describe. It may look that way during a 5000 year snapshot, but over geologic time every individual is a mayfly, and every species is "a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more."
For example, here are some of the many extinct kinds of horses; similar sequences exist in the fossil record for many modern species and many long extinct species.
Many branches on the equine tree. Notice how the toes shrink among recent species but do not disappear.
Interesting report on extinct 3 toed horses from Tibetan Plateau
https://phys.org/news/2012-04-three-toed-horses-reveal-secret-tibetan.html
Did something say “I want these 32 gene carriers to die”?
The same environmental conditions and processes that killed the 32 gene carriers enabled the survival of the 33rd. They are all equal in that respect.@Heavenlywarrior says
intelligent-looking solutions
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Beauty is a perception in the mind, NOT an objective property of things in the world. Similarly, what you identify as "intelligent-looking" is your internal perception.If you roll a trillion dice and always end up with self-repairing, self-replicating machines that adapt and resist decay
That's not exactly what we end up with. Every creature dies, and few outlive 100 years. The species may seem to persist, but the species is slowly changing over time; it's not constant.And, 99% of all species that ever existed have gone extinct, so we don't actually end up with what you describe. It may look that way during a 5000 year snapshot, but over geologic time every individual is a mayfly, and every species is "a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more."
For example, here are some of the many extinct kinds of horses; similar sequences exist in the fossil record for many modern species and many long extinct species.
Many branches on the equine tree. Notice how the toes shrink among recent species but do not disappear.
Interesting report on extinct 3 toed horses from Tibetan Plateau
https://phys.org/news/2012-04-three-toed-horses-reveal-secret-tibetan.html