DOCSLIB.ORG

The Blind Watchmaker and Weasel Assignment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Blind Watchmaker and Weasel Assignment Due: Thursday 18th October Worth: 50 pts. Rationale: The Blind Watchmaker is a software program written to support Richard Dawkins book of the same title. The intent of the program is to demonstrate the ease with which complex ‘biomorphs’ can be generated by iterative application of simple rules, under the influence of (in this case) artificial selection. Obviously, it helps if you have read the relevant sections of Dawkin’s book first! The Exercise: A simplified version can be found as an applet (i.e. you can run it directly from your web-browser) at: http://www.emergentmind.com/biomorphs The Weasel applet demonstrates the same general concept - the ability of evolutionary processes to solve very complex problems - in a different way. It can be accessed at: http://www.vanallens.com/exchristian/weasel/ (requires Java) A more sophisticated implementation (doesn’t require Java) can be found at: http://evoinfo.org/weasel.html The Assignment: (a) Your assignment is very simple. Familiarize yourself with the Blind Watchmaker applet, and produce a biomorph of “animal-like appearance” (this is entirely subjective – you choice) by selecting a “parent” and breeding from it, then selecting the most animal-like offspring and repeating the procedure. How many generations did it take to reach something that you judge suitably animal-like (you have seen Dawkins’ examples)? Next, reset the applet and try direct "God-like" intervention; i.e. adjust the genes directly to see what they do. Finally, reset the applet, and proceed again by random selection. Does complexity continually increase from generation to generation? In what ways does the simulation provide a realistic approximation to organic evolution on Earth? In what ways does the simulation differ from real-World evolution? (Note: To print your biomorphs, maximize the display, and use your "Print Screen" key to save to the clipboard, then paste into an open Windows document. Mac users - you are on your own!). (b) Run the Weasel applet. Start with a short phrase or single word. How many tries does it take the applet to find the solution? Repeat the exercise with the same word or phrase. Does it take the same number of tries to find the solution? If not, repeat the exercise enough times to determine the mean and range of the number of tries. Now run the applet with progressively longer phrases. What is the relationship between length of the phrase and the mean number of tries? c) The following extract is from “The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution” by Henry Morris (Institute for Creation Research). But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200- component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200- part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts." The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021. All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible! Explain why this reasoning is incorrect (or, if you agree with it, defend it). Hard copy of your (concise!) report due in class Thursday 19th October. .
Recommended publications
  • Richard Dawkins

    Richard Dawkins

    RICHARD DAWKINS HOW A SCIENTIST CHANGED THE WAY WE THINK Reflections by scientists, writers, and philosophers Edited by ALAN GRAFEN AND MARK RIDLEY 1 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © Oxford University Press 2006 with the exception of To Rise Above © Marek Kohn 2006 and Every Indication of Inadvertent Solicitude © Philip Pullman 2006 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2006 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should
  • Critical Approach to Evolutionary Perspective of Richard Dawkins

    Critical Approach to Evolutionary Perspective of Richard Dawkins

    World Journal of Environmental Biosciences All Rights Reserved WJES © 2014 Available Online at: www.environmentaljournals.org Volume 6, Supplementary : 78-82 ISSN 2277- 8047 Critical Approach to Evolutionary Perspective of Richard Dawkins Ghodratollah Shirzadi , Dr.Mahdi Dehbashi Department of Islamic philosophy and kalam, Khorasgan (Isfahan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran ABSTRACT This paper presents an analytical descriptive study to review and criticize the evolutionary perspective of Richard Dawkins. Using his own interpretation of the theory of Darwinian evolution he denies religion, God and other metaphysical beliefs. Dawkins criticism is based on rational approach and it is believed that Dawkins theory suffers from rational methodological weaknesses and lacks adequate explanation needed to prove his claim. He also deals with major proof that acts as a basis for his theory and leads to a vicious circle to prove his theory. Dawkins theory lacks internal consistency because he presents many of its claims including complexity of God's existence without providing any logical proof and merely by considering it as incontrovertible which presents his system’s weakness more than before. Keywords: Dawkins, evolution, denial of God, natural selection, cumulative selection Corresponding author: Alireza Sargolzaei existence, he has rejected them all. The important point in criticism of Dawkins thoughts is that although it is possible to explain the complexities of the universe from the perspective of INTRODUCTION biology, this cannot lead to the denial of the designer and order in the universe. After presenting the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin in History 1859 and its completion by the evolutionary biologists as his It may be thought that Darwin's theory is the first theory that followers, some scholars like Richard Dawkins decided to believes in the evolution of species but this is contrary to fact rejects theism by providing naturalistic and atheistic because this view of the different species existed before Darwin.
  • Dawkins's Gambit, Hume's Aroma, and God's Simplicity

    Dawkins's Gambit, Hume's Aroma, and God's Simplicity

    PHILOSOPHIA CHRISTI VOL. 11, NO. 1 © 2009 Dawkins’s Gambit, Hume’s Aroma, and God’s Simplicity ERIK WIELENBERG The editors of a recent anthology on natural theology observe that since the time of David Hume, “the vast majority of philosophical attacks against the rationality of theism have borne an unmistakable Humean aroma.” Hume’s aroma became particularly pungent with the publication of Rich- ard Dawkins’s book The God Delusion in 2006. One of Dawkins’s more well-known remarks is that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”2 In the same paragraph in which he makes that remark, Dawkins credits Hume with effectively criticizing the logic of the design argument, but suggests that Hume’s writings nevertheless would likely leave the atheist feeling “unsatisfied” and that it was only the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species some eighty-three years after Hume’s death that put the atheist at ease. It is somewhat ironic, therefore, that the central atheistic argument of The God Delusion is remarkably similar to an argument advanced by the character Philo in Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. In this paper I analyze the central atheistic argument of The God Delu- sion and expose its Humean roots. It turns out that Dawkins’s argument is a fragment of a more comprehensive critique of the rationality of theism that is ABSTRACT: I examine the central atheistic argument of Richard Dawkins’s book The God De- lusion (“Dawkins’s Gambit”) and illustrate its failure. I further show that Dawkins’s Gambit is a fragment of a more comprehensive critique of theism found in David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
  • M.A. Philosophy Programme Is a Two Year Course Divided Into Four-Semester

    M.A. Philosophy Programme Is a Two Year Course Divided Into Four-Semester

    UNIVERSITY OF DELHI MASTER OF ARTS (Acronym for the Course) (Effective from Academic year 2018-19) PROGRAMME BROCHURE (M.A.) Department of Philosophy Faculty of Arts University of Delhi Delhi-110007 2 University of Delhi Examination Branch Date: 18 June 2018 Courses: M. A. in Philosophy Check List of new Course evaluation for AC Consideration S.No. Parameters Status 1. About the Department 2 Introduction to CBCS 3. Programme Structure 4. Codification of Papers 5. Scheme of Examinations 6. Pass Percentage 7. Promotion Criteria 8. Division Criteria 9. Qualifying Papers 10. Span Period 11. Attendance Requirements 12. Course content for each Paper 13. List of Readings 2 3 I ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT Faculty of Arts, North Campus, Delhi University The History and Profile of the Department of Philosophy, University of Delhi. Located in the heart of the main Humanities Block of the Arts Faculty, North Cam- pus, facing an inner quadrangle garden, the Department of Philosophy is one of the oldest in the University of Delhi. This building constructed in the early part of the twentieth century is well known for its red brick colonial structure. This Department began as a combined Department of Philosophy and Psychology in the year 1953. The Department of Psychology became independent in 1962. Since then the Department of Philosophy is an Autonomous Department. Various distinguished scholars who have either taught or been associated with the Department of Philosophy, Delhi University include N.V. Banerjee, S.S Barlingay, R. C. Pandeya, Margaret Chatterjee, S.K. Saxena, Ram Chandra Gandhi and Mrinal Miri. A large number of eminent philosophers from India and abroad have lectured in the De- partment.
  • Read Book the Extended Phenotype: the Long Reach of the Gene Kindle

    Read Book the Extended Phenotype: the Long Reach of the Gene Kindle

    THE EXTENDED PHENOTYPE: THE LONG REACH OF THE GENE PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Richard Dawkins | 496 pages | 01 Oct 2016 | Oxford University Press | 9780198788911 | English | Oxford, United Kingdom The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene PDF Book Genetic Determinism and Gene Selectionism; 3. It would be improved if Dawkins were less preoccupied with defending himself against his detractors, if he better separated his broad points from his technical detail, and if he made clearer distinctions between his criticisms of others and his own positions. Of course, this new approach revolves around the ide In The Extended Phenotype , Richard Dawkins proposes that the expression of a gene is not limited simply to the organism's physical appearance or phenotype, that is the direct synthesis of proteins, or to the organism's behaviour, but also includes the impact of the phenotype and the behaviour on the organism's environment. The book has been awarded with , and many others. It's an expansion of topics covered in The Selfish Gene, which I'd previously enjoyed, but there was too much detail for me to take in. Oct 16, Pink rated it it was ok. So well drilled that we consider something for which that question has no answer to be suspicious if not insidious. He writes, "Organisms process matter and energy as well as information; each represents a dynamic node in a whirlpool of several currents, and self-reproduction is a property of the collective, not of genes With a multitude of examples Dawkins demonstrates that there is no real reason to believe in "gene A of X accounts for X's skin color" and at the same time deny anything like "gene A of X account's for change in Y's behavior".
  • RICHARD DAWKINS "A Su....,I11al Machine"

    RICHARD DAWKINS "A Su....,I11al Machine"

    BOOKS BY JOHN BROCKMAN THIRD AS AUTHOR: By the Late John Brockman CULTURE 37 4fterwords AS EDITOR: - About Bateson Speculations Doi~ Science by John Brockman Ways of Knowi~ Creati'Vity How Thin~s Are A TOUCHSTONE BOOK Published by Simon & Schuster RICHARD DAWKINS "A su....,i11al Machine" w.DANIEL HILLIS: Notions like se(fish genes, memes, and RICHARD DAWKINS: Some time ago, I had a strangely moving experi- extended phenotypes are powerful and excitif111.They make ence. I was being interviewed by a Japanese television company, me think differently. Unfortunately, I~ a lot of time which had hired an English actor and dressed him up as Darwin. argui7111a-gainst people who ha-oe O'OeTinterpretedthese ideas. During the filming, I opened a door and greeted "Darwin." He and I They're too easily misunderstood as explainif111nwre than they then entered into a discussion out of time. I presented modem neo- do. So you see, this Dawkins is a da7111erousguy. Like Marx. Darwinist ideas and "Darwin" acted astounded, delighted, and sur- OrDanDin. prised. There are indeed indications that Darwin would have been • • • pleased about this modem way of looking at his ideas, because we know he was very troubled by genetics all his life. In Darwin's time, RICHARD DAWKINS is an evolutionary biologist; reader nobody understood genetics, except Mendel, but Darwin never read in the Department of Zoology at O~ord Uni'Vef'sity;Fel- Mendel; practically nobody read Mendel. low ofNew College; autlwr of The Selfish Gene (1976, 2d If only Darwin had read Mendel! A gigantic piece of the jigsaw ed.
  • On the Origin of SARS-Cov-2—The Blind Watchmaker Argument Chung-I Wu1*, Haijun Wen1, Jian Lu2, Xiao-Dong Su2, Alice C

    On the Origin of SARS-Cov-2—The Blind Watchmaker Argument Chung-I Wu1*, Haijun Wen1, Jian Lu2, Xiao-Dong Su2, Alice C

    SCIENCE CHINA Life Sciences •INSIGHT• September 2021 Vol.64 No.9: 1560–1563 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11427-021-1972-1 On the origin of SARS-CoV-2—The blind watchmaker argument Chung-I Wu1*, Haijun Wen1, Jian Lu2, Xiao-dong Su2, Alice C. Hughes3, Weiwei Zhai4, Chen Chen5, Hua Chen6, Mingkun Li6, Shuhui Song6, Zhaohui Qian7, Qihui Wang8, Bingjie Chen1, Zixiao Guo1, Yongsen Ruan1, Xuemei Lu9, Fuwen Wei10, Li Jin11, Le Kang12, Yongbiao Xue6, Guoping Zhao13 & Ya-Ping Zhang9 1State Key Laboratory of Biocontrol, School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China; 2State Key Laboratory of Protein and Plant Gene Research, Center for Bioinformatics, School of Life Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China; 3Landscape Ecology Group, Center for Integrative Conservation, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Mengla 666303, China; 4Key Laboratory of Zoological Systematics and Evolution, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China; 5Biomedical Innovation Center, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100038, China; 6Beijing Institute of Genomics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and China National Centre for Bioinformation, Beijing 100101, China; 7Institute of Pathogen Biology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100176, China; 8CAS Key Laboratory of Pathogen Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China; 9State Key Laboratory of Genetic
  • Aquinas' Response to Richard Dawkins

    Aquinas' Response to Richard Dawkins

    Axis Mundi. Vol 9 (2013) The Complexity of a Simple God: Aquinas’ Response to Richard Dawkins MATTHEW MORRIS 2nd Year, PhD Ecology and Evolution University of Calgary Calgary, Alberta Abstract: Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion is a recent popular attack on theism. Rather than rely on empirical evidence, Dawkins attempts to disprove the existence of all supernatural entities through a philosophical argument: anything complex enough to create an organism must itself have been designed. The validity of this argument rests on Dawkins’ use of Thomas Aquinas’ First Way. This paper will explore Aquinas’ First Way and the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity in order to better assess Dawkins’ argument. “A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right.”1 This is the main thesis of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, and Dawkins uses it to disprove the existence of “God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.”2 This paper will show, through the writings of Thomas Aquinas (ca 1225-1274), that both Dawkins’ argument from infinite regress and his definition of God are based on a misunderstanding of Aquinas’ First Way. This paper has three objectives: first, to examine Dawkins’ characterization of Aquinas’ argument for the existence of God;3 second, to explore how Aquinas’ definition of God relates to his First Way; and finally, to address what this understanding of Aquinas means for Dawkins’ main thesis.
  • An Overview of Intelligent Design Theory a Young-Earth Creationist Once Told Me That He Took the Genesis Account of the Creation

    An Overview of Intelligent Design Theory a Young-Earth Creationist Once Told Me That He Took the Genesis Account of the Creation

    AN OVERVIEW OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY David P. Johnson—Department of Mechanical Engineering young-earth creationist once told me that he took the Genesis A account of the creation as literal historical fact: the universe is about 6000 years old and was created in about 4000 B.C. I asked him about evidences of a much older earth and universe: radiometric dating, geological dating, astronometric dating. In his opinion, there are flaws in all of these techniques which render them unreliable. In fact, he thought there was a vast conspiracy in the scientific community hiding the fact that earth and its surrounds were created by God. I hope this article is not perceived like that. My intent is to add to My intent is to add the conversation about evolution’s implications and possible limitations. to the conversation Observation leads me to accept evolution in the physical world; I accept theology on faith. I believe that these two positions are compatible. about evolution’s Intelligent design (ID) theory of late adds context to this belief. Since many implications and of the observations of the ID community draw heavily on engineering and computer science, my background in engineering permits me an possible limitations. interesting perspective from which to review material coming from ID. Perhaps the biggest reason I want to add to this conversation is what I see happening to the public view of science. As I discussed in my previous paper (Perspective, Volume 6 Number 2), the American public tell pollsters in overwhelming majorities that they believe in some form of creation.
  • The God of the Gaps, Natural Theology, and Intelligent Design

    The God of the Gaps, Natural Theology, and Intelligent Design

    The God of the Gaps, Natural Theology, and Intelligent Design Erkki V. R. Kojonen University of Helsinki Abstract: The “God of the gaps” critique is one of the most common arguments against design arguments in biology, but is also increasingly used as a critique of other natural theological arguments. In this paper, I analyze four different critiques of God of the gaps arguments and explore the relationship between gaps arguments and similar limit arguments. I conclude that the critique of the God of the gaps is substantially weaker than is commonly assumed, and dismissing ID´s biological arguments should rather be based on criticizing the premises of these arguments. Introduction The term “God of the gaps” is used in many ways, usually as a critique against some theistic explanation. This critique is most frequently made against creationism and Intelligent Design (ID), when phenomena like the origin of life are explained as a divine miracle, or at least as the product of an unidentified intelligent designer.1 The critique of God of the gaps is often made in a cursory manner, and yet is believed to be so strong that (as Del Ratzsch notes) “merely labeling an explanation as ‘God-of-the-gaps’ is often taken to constitute an unanswerable refutation of it” (Ratzsch 2001, 47; Larmer 2002). However, the phrase “God of the gaps” (GOG) is understood in many different ways, and the same critique is made even against all theistic argumentation by some atheists. In such critiques, it has been argued that all theistic explanations are examples of GOG, and we should expect science to ultimately banish GOG altogether (e.g.
  • Religious Skepticism, Atheism, Humanism, Naturalism, Secularism, Rationalism, Irreligion, Agnosticism, and Related Perspectives)

    Religious Skepticism, Atheism, Humanism, Naturalism, Secularism, Rationalism, Irreligion, Agnosticism, and Related Perspectives)

    Unbelief (Religious Skepticism, Atheism, Humanism, Naturalism, Secularism, Rationalism, Irreligion, Agnosticism, and Related Perspectives) A Historical Bibliography Compiled by J. Gordon Melton ~ San Diego ~ San Diego State University ~ 2011 This bibliography presents primary and secondary sources in the history of unbelief in Western Europe and the United States, from the Enlightenment to the present. It is a living document which will grow and develop as more sources are located. If you see errors, or notice that important items are missing, please notify the author, Dr. J. Gordon Melton at [email protected]. Please credit San Diego State University, Department of Religious Studies in publications. Copyright San Diego State University. ****************************************************************************** Table of Contents Introduction General Sources European Beginnings A. The Sixteenth-Century Challenges to Trinitarianism a. Michael Servetus b. Socinianism and the Polish Brethren B. The Unitarian Tradition a. Ferenc (Francis) David C. The Enlightenment and Rise of Deism in Modern Europe France A. French Enlightenment a. Pierre Bayle (1647-1706) b. Jean Meslier (1664-1729) c. Paul-Henri Thiry, Baron d'Holbach (1723-1789) d. Voltaire (Francois-Marie d'Arouet) (1694-1778) e. Jacques-André Naigeon (1738-1810) f. Denis Diderot (1713-1784) g. Marquis de Montesquieu (1689-1755) h. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) B. France and Unbelief in the Nineteenth Century a. August Comte (1798-1857) and the Religion of Positivism C. France and Unbelief in the Twentieth Century a. French Existentialism b. Albert Camus (1913 -1960) c. Franz Kafka (1883-1924) United Kingdom A. Deist Beginnings, Flowering, and Beyond a. Edward Herbert, Baron of Cherbury (1583-1648) b.
  • Did Dawkins Reveal a Blind Watchmaker?

    Did Dawkins Reveal a Blind Watchmaker?

    Did Dawkins Reveal a Blind Watchmaker? Michael Hoffman SECTION ONE I. Introduction Over the last two thousand years, Christians, as well as other theists, have attempted to prove the existence of God. The motivations and expectations of these proofs have varied. In the Enlightenment, people believed that they could prove God's existence in the same way that I could prove that the three angles of a triangle equal one hundred and eighty degrees. They did not only think that these proofs could succeed. Some even believed that a logical proof was a necessary foundation for the Christian religion. Today, theologians are more concerned with showing the probability or plausibility of the belief in an omnipotent being, in order to defend themselves from modern skeptics. A good proof for the existence of God can show that theistic religions are not illogical absurdities, but logically defensible positions. There are many different types of proofs for the existence of God, but the form that I find most promising is the argument from design. The most famous version of the design argument was formulated by William Paley. Basically, it claims that the complexity of different aspects of the universe, especially in biology, demands a creator. Many philosophers, like Hume and Kant, criticized this argument, but the design argument faced its most formidable opponent after 1859 with the publication of The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. Darwin's theory of evolution claims that complexity found in organisms is the result of physical forces. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that if complexity is caused by blind forces, then it was not created by higher being.