However, the long answer (which really depends on what one's concept of "God" is) from me will have to wait until I get back from holiday in a couple of weeks!
In short, I agree with you on this. And I think the programme covered a number of topics not just an account of the rather simplistic opposing positions of creationists and atheists.
The really interesting aspect of the discussion, which I admit wasn't so very obviously dealt with but did come into towards the end of the programme was the development of the ideas of "process." On the one hand atheists see process as evidence of a material machine whereas others see that the process of evolution seems to adopt common patterns that are not inherited; in individual cell lines and in communities.
One of the examples given in this programme was the way songs seem to have common properties across various species. We are lead to ask the question: Who made the principles of music before the lovesong was sung?
Norbu
Very cheeky, Norbu:D.
But it only has relevance if we believe in the foundation of memes, huh?
RxXx
Mmm... the idea of memes and genes is that they are just information that self replicates. Genes and memes are mindless in themselves. Genes are codes on DNA and memes are [reducible to] patterns of neurological activity. Some genes and memes replicate more and survive better than other genes and memes.
The interesting thing is that these mindless mechanical processes based on genes seem to build cells, organisms and communities. All of these things seem to be greater than the sum of their parts. in many ways the order, complexity and mind that arises seem to undermine the ideas of selection and replication that are at the base of the theory of memes and genes in the first place.
Norbu
Well, I suppose terms that we create to possibly help us understand our being more must originate from somewhere and the fact that a 'meme' is a Dawkins' term is just something I will have to accept, or not.:rolleyes:
So I can see how a meme is used to explain/justify cultural behaviours and so on but I am still left with the underlying feeling of, so what? But only because it is not a necessary element on my path. We all differ.:)
This, however, is an interesting statement, Norbu. Maybe you would expand on it more?
in many ways the order, complexity and mind that arises seem to undermine the ideas of selection and replication that are at the base of the theory of memes and genes in the first place.
RxXx
This, however, is an interesting statement, Norbu. Maybe you would expand on it more?
OK
First I think we have to make a distinction between fact from theory.
The following are facts: Information is stored in sequences of base pairs on DNA and this information is replicated each time a cell divides. This information is passed on from cell to cell in cell lines. This information is used by the cell as a library of instructions that can be used to make proteins if and when required by the cell. Sometimes replication of DNA is not accurate (biologists call this "mutation"). Often mutations have no effect on the cell and no effect on the organism. Sometimes mutations are fatal to the cell and sometimes fatal to the organism. Sometimes mutations cause advances in cell activity which results in the organism being better equipped to survive. Sometimes this beneficial mutation enables more effective cellular action and sometimes it leads to an structural or functional improvement of an organ. Sometimes this mutation leads to a change in behaviour that results in improved cooperation between individuals, sometimes of the same species and sometimes of different species.
At first sight this looks like a nice explanation for life and evolution that is based on a mindless process. I am defining the mindless process here as one that is subject to mechanical cause and effects of parts that interact. Sometimes there are random factors but to a great extent these processes are mechanical and do not have purpose. This is the prevailing scientific view. However when you look more closely there are a number of things that don't add up.
Convergent evolution: This happens when species that are unrelated evolve in similar ways. The Thylacine (marsupial wolf) is an example. There seems to be a blueprint for "dog-like carnivore" that evolution has shaped completely unrelated lineages to fit. Not only are there enormous numbers of examples of convergent evolution in individual species there seem to principles that define the way an ecosystem can evolve. For example peat bogs are found widely across the world. Each one of these peat bogs in different continents has different species that have evolved to fit very similar niches in a very similar ecosystem.
When we go back to the cell itself the theory that genes build life begins to look more and more problematic. What actually seems to be happening is that cells use genetic information more like a library. To say that genes build organisms is a bit like saying you are working on reproducing Shakespeare's combined works when, all you've done is give a chimpanzee a typewriter. Cells are mindblowingly complex and this complexity includes the library of information stored in DNA, but claiming genes build organisms is about as ridiculous as suggesting that books build libraries, librarians, cataloging systems as well as visitors to the library.
There are many things that just don't add up if you say that "genes build" organisms. Randomness and mechanical processes just don't add up probabilistically to explain how organisms build themselves and how evolution takes place. There seems to be a "ghost in the machine" even at this level of reductionist analysis.
Of course "THE ghost in the machine" is even more of a problem. The mind itself seems to be entirely elusive and beyond any reductionist explanation. Not only this but the state of mind seems to effect the way the machine functions. If the mind is full of patterns of thinking that sustain strong emotions that related to stress the body suffers. If the mind is full of ideas that relate to peace and happiness the body fairs much better.
One of the most challenging ideas to the orthodoxy that selection pressure on a population only operates at an individual level is that some genes are important to programming behaviour that then enables cooperation between individuals. This cooperation between individuals makes cooperating individuals more successful than ones that fail to cooperate. This reaches a point where variation in society is actually an advantage for all of society even if some characteristics would render an individual unfit if they had to fend for themselves. Characteristics like cooperation, mutualism, and love even, begin to counteract selective pressures on individuals that would otherwise fail to survive while enhancing the survival prospects of all members of the community.
It seems that cell activity and evolution are not so much mindless automatic processes but are drawn towards harmony, balance and order. Patterns that express these characteristics seem to have no material existence. What's more, these characteristics and their patterns only seem to exist as ideas in the mind that imagines them. Not just a mind that imagines them but a mind that has the capacity for love and compassion seems to be able to recognise these kinds of patterns and behave in a way that facilitates outcomes that these patterns would produce, more readily. In fact, to somehow suggest that randomness and mechanical function (which are just as much mental creations as "harmony, balance and order.") are somehow the law of science is about as reasonable as proposing that God is the creator of all.
Norbu
The last sentence would be better:
"In fact, to somehow suggest that randomness and mechanical function (which are just as much mental creations as "harmony, balance and order.") are somehow the law of science can't be more reasonable than proposing that God is the creator of all."
OK
First I think we have to make a distinction between fact from theory.
The following are facts: Information is stored in sequences of base pairs on DNA and this information is replicated each time a cell divides. This information is passed on from cell to cell in cell lines. This information is used by the cell as a library of instructions that can be used to make proteins if and when required by the cell. Sometimes replication of DNA is not accurate (biologists call this "mutation"). Often mutations have no effect on the cell and no effect on the organism. Sometimes mutations are fatal to the cell and sometimes fatal to the organism. Sometimes mutations cause advances in cell activity which results in the organism being better equipped to survive. Sometimes this beneficial mutation enables more effective cellular action and sometimes it leads to an structural or functional improvement of an organ. Sometimes this mutation leads to a change in behaviour that results in improved cooperation between individuals, sometimes of the same species and sometimes of different species.
At first sight this looks like a nice explanation for life and evolution that is based on a mindless process. I am defining the mindless process here as one that is subject to mechanical cause and effects of parts that interact. Sometimes there are random factors but to a great extent these processes are mechanical and do not have purpose. This is the prevailing scientific view. However when you look more closely there are a number of things that don't add up.
Convergent evolution: This happens when species that are unrelated evolve in similar ways. The Thylacine (marsupial wolf) is an example. There seems to be a blueprint for "dog-like carnivore" that evolution has shaped completely unrelated lineages to fit. Not only are there enormous numbers of examples of convergent evolution in individual species there seem to principles that define the way an ecosystem can evolve. For example peat bogs are found widely across the world. Each one of these peat bogs in different continents has different species that have evolved to fit very similar niches in a very similar ecosystem.
When we go back to the cell itself the theory that genes build life begins to look more and more problematic. What actually seems to be happening is that cells use genetic information more like a library. To say that genes build organisms is a bit like saying you are working on reproducing Shakespeare's combined works when, all you've done is give a chimpanzee a typewriter. Cells are mindblowingly complex and this complexity includes the library of information stored in DNA, but claiming genes build organisms is about as ridiculous as suggesting that books build libraries, librarians, cataloging systems as well as visitors to the library.
There are many things that just don't add up if you say that "genes build" organisms. Randomness and mechanical processes just don't add up probabilistically to explain how organisms build themselves and how evolution takes place. There seems to be a "ghost in the machine" even at this level of reductionist analysis.
Of course "THE ghost in the machine" is even more of a problem. The mind itself seems to be entirely elusive and beyond any reductionist explanation. Not only this but the state of mind seems to effect the way the machine functions. If the mind is full of patterns of thinking that sustain strong emotions that related to stress the body suffers. If the mind is full of ideas that relate to peace and happiness the body fairs much better.
One of the most challenging ideas to the orthodoxy that selection pressure on a population only operates at an individual level is that some genes are important to programming behaviour that then enables cooperation between individuals. This cooperation between individuals makes cooperating individuals more successful than ones that fail to cooperate. This reaches a point where variation in society is actually an advantage for all of society even if some characteristics would render an individual unfit if they had to fend for themselves. Characteristics like cooperation, mutualism, and love even, begin to counteract selective pressures on individuals that would otherwise fail to survive while enhancing the survival prospects of all members of the community.
It seems that cell activity and evolution are not so much mindless automatic processes but are drawn towards harmony, balance and order. Patterns that express these characteristics seem to have no material existence. What's more, these characteristics and their patterns only seem to exist as ideas in the mind that imagines them. Not just a mind that imagines them but a mind that has the capacity for love and compassion seems to be able to recognise these kinds of patterns and behave in a way that facilitates outcomes that these patterns would produce, more readily. In fact, to somehow suggest that randomness and mechanical function (which are just as much mental creations as "harmony, balance and order.") are somehow the law of science is about as reasonable as proposing that God is the creator of all.
Norbu
Hi Norbu,
I find this excellent reasoning! I have only had a chance to read it through once so far, so a quick humble response to honour your time in creating the post on my request:
When you study cells, even at the basic level that I have, you see in front of you a truly fascinating world. I can not see it as a mindless process, in fact quite the opposite, it is amazing. A single cell may be performing mechanical processes but, for me, there is a collective intelligence in action. Each cell has the potential to work in union with another. It always fascinated me how the actions within our bodies represent the outer world too, like a community working in harmony or not as the case may be.
It is another reason why I believe that the answers to life we seek sit within us but not just at the physical level, of course. The mind, body and spirit are so intrinsically interlinked. And so I understand why some are drawn to study our physical existence at such depth. So when you have found the truth to life through your study, Norbu, be sure to drop me a PM with the answers! I can keep a secret.;):)
RxXx