D'Abrera

[Neil Jones]

In message <v01540b01b1ef78c7cbd9@[146.186.16.40]> jrg13 at psu.edu (John Grehan) writes:
> My responses, as an evolutionist, to questions by Pierre le Roux, for what
> they are worth
> 
> 
> >1.Why all the insistence that there is no Creator ?
> 
> If Pierre is referring to the D'Abrera discussions, I for one have made no
> insistence,
> or statements of any kind, about any "Creator".

As far as a creator is concerned to quote Occam's Razor
 "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem."
 Entities should not be multiplied more than is necessary.
A creator isn't necessary for the system to work.

> 
> - to my mind,
> >Evolution as a possible tool by which Creation took place, makes
> >sense and fits into place. Taking things such as  Layered Stability, etc, into
> >account, it is accomodated rather too neatly by the sequence described in
> >the early chapter of the Bible.
> 
> I'm agnostic about the validity of the bible or any other religeous text.
> For those who
> believe, and find their religious texts in accordance, I say thats fine.
> For those who find
> conflict, thats fine too - its up to the individual to decide.

That's fine. I am all for individual liberty.
(If anyone wants to believe that the world is flat and on the back of a
tortoise let them.)
The only problem is which religion is right, and as at least one
religious sect's "holy works" have been shown to be fraudulent, it makes
deciding jolly difficult. (It still has thousands of adherants though.)
 
> 
> >2. Would it be possible that we humans can be likened to a batch of
> >latest-technology desktop computers trying to figure out why and how
> >we were created: Surely the Creator should be exceedingly more
> >complex than his creations, and our interpretations of His reasoning
> >might be good approximations, but to try and paint Him out of the
> >picture totally, is rather unfair?
> 
> That seems to be a statement about the ultimate nature of reality, to which
> I have
> no priviliged insight into one way or the other.
> 
> >
> >THEN: I still want someone to tell me that EVERYTHING is functional,
> >particularly in butterflies, and wasn't intended in a lot of
> >instances just simply to be beautiful. Maybe I evolved to see things
> >as beautiful as well?
> 
> Whether there is any "intention" behind the evolution of organisms or
> structures I am, again,
> not prviliged to know.
> 

Of course evolution is not goal driven, why should it be?
Everything is functional. Humans did evolve to see things as beautiful.

Butterflies are the way they are because evolution shaped them that way.

Why in some parts of the US should scientific textbooks be forced
to carry  mystical medieval disclaimers because of the unprovable beliefs
of certain religious people? 

-- 
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.nwjones.demon.co.uk/
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve