• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

evolution and chemical accidents

If I were challenging his statement, I would ask if he accepts that much (perhaps most) of what we do is automatic - neither rational or irrational.

My foot, when I'm not thinking about it, is doing something. And I yawn without intent; I blink my eyes without rational choice. But I can also move my foot or close my eyes intentionally. In the first examples, I am running on automatic. I assume he'd accept that, at least some of the time, and even for very complex behaviors involving choice - like driving home - I actually accomplish a lot without analysis or introspection. If he accepts this, he then has the duty to show why other situations are different in some material, detectable fashion.

In the end, and just like with free will, we can't tell if we have a "real" choice or not. How could we, if whatever is going on is going on behind the scenes? I think I consider all the options and choose, but I always seem to choose the best option available. Like the spectator who picks a card at the magician's behest, I may very well feel as though my choices are free when they are not.

But, most importantly, since I cannot detect the trick, the situation is exactly the same whether I have free will or not; rationality or not.
 
Jason Lisle is truly a piece of work isnt he? also he makes these claims about how if evolution is true we cant know if our senses are reliable, or they just the side effects of photosynthesis, is that a really bad rip-off from alvin plantinga's anti-evolution arguement?
 
wakawakawaka said:
Jason Lisle is truly a piece of work isnt he? also he makes these claims about how if evolution is true we cant know if our senses are reliable, or they just the side effects of photosynthesis, is that a really bad rip-off from alvin plantinga's anti-evolution arguement?
Click to expand...

That's a new one to me, can you flesh it out a bit?
 
he claims that we cant know if our senses are reliable because they might be just side effects of photosythsis
 
wakawakawaka said:
he claims that we cant know if our senses are reliable because they might be just side effects of photosythsis
Click to expand...


I'm still not getting the connection. Do you have a link to where he says this?

(Maybe it's an interesting idea, who knows?)
 
wakawakawaka said:
here look at this http://www.jasonlisle.com/2013/09/06/are-you-epistemologically-self-conscious/
Click to expand...

Is this the section you are referring to:

Should we trust that our senses are basically reliable? Not in the secular worldview. According to evolution, our sensory organs are merely the result of accidental mutations – those that did not decrease our survival value and were therefore not eliminated. Some people might suppose that our sensory organs are reliable because they have survival value. But this does not follow logically. Chlorophyll has survival value in plants; but this does not imply that chlorophyll reliably informs the plant about the outside world.
Click to expand...

It appears to be nonsense based on a strawman argument, with extracts from his flawed understanding of evolutionary theory added for good measure.
 
Kotatsu said:
Is this the section you are referring to:
Quote:
Should we trust that our senses are basically reliable? Not in the secular worldview. According to evolution, our sensory organs are merely the result of accidental mutations – those that did not decrease our survival value and were therefore not eliminated. Some people might suppose that our sensory organs are reliable because they have survival value. But this does not follow logically. Chlorophyll has survival value in plants; but this does not imply that chlorophyll reliably informs the plant about the outside world.
Click to expand...

It appears to be nonsense based on a strawman argument, with extracts from his flawed understanding of evolutionary theory added for good measure.
Click to expand...

Even worse, he sounds like he has never heard of photo-orientation in plants. For example (http://jeb.biologists.org/content/206/12/1963.full):
In photosynthesizing plant cells, chloroplasts change their arrangements and/or positions in response to light irradiation. These photo-orientation movements of chloroplasts are believed to play important roles in optimizing the photosynthetic activity of plant cells.
Click to expand...

So yes, chlorophyll is very much involved in "sensing" the environment. The strawman is built around the idea of "reliably informs." And the answer as far as evolution is concerned is: "reliable enough." Plants don't need eyes with lenses, they only need to sense sunlight.

This is a great exercise in critical thinking. Keep them coming!
 
Kotatsu said:
Is this the section you are referring to:



It appears to be nonsense based on a strawman argument, with extracts from his flawed understanding of evolutionary theory added for good measure.
Click to expand...

oh this is nothing check out this horrible strawman, i would expect ray comfort or one of his buddies to use such a horrible strawman, i would think an actual PHD would know better http://www.jasonlisle.com/2012/05/17/on-the-origin-of-articles/ oh and look at some of the responses and how lisle "rebuts" them too if you want a few laughs
 
wakawakawaka said:
oh this is nothing check out this horrible strawman, i would expect ray comfort or one of his buddies to use such a horrible strawman, i would think an actual PHD would know better http://www.jasonlisle.com/2012/05/17/on-the-origin-of-articles/ oh and look at some of the responses and how lisle "rebuts" them too if you want a few laughs
Click to expand...
Well, that article certainly shows no sign of intelligent design, so it's not completely wrong... ;)

What I've seen of Mr. Lisle's writings suggest a degree of deliberate malicious deception and/or provocation. He seems reasonably intelligent and it's not credible to me that he doesn't realise the errors, flaws, and fallacies of his 'arguments'. He's doing it to annoy and provoke, and to receive the plaudits and admiration of his groupies.
 
Last edited:
oh you have no idea,like i said at the beginning of this thread he does nothing but make up nonsense like with alling people chemcial accidents
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom