agnosticism is the only rational position to take on the question of the existence or not of a god – atheists are in exactly the same boat as believers – they have no proof and choose to believe anyway.

Wright’s ideas about “god” are about the evolution of the human understanding of god. it would be nice if any of the atheist hordes would actually read what he wrote.

Thank you for straightening me out on what Bick really meant when I questioned the logic of one of his assertions. I get the impression from your note that Bick is a young man, probably still in college and perhaps a bit wet yet behind the ears. I myself am, well, a person of some maturity, who spent a fair number of years in the early part of my career as a manager of communications (running newpapers, ghost writing speeches for executives, putting out press releases, etc.) for several very large corporations. Tell Bick not to be disturbed my misinterpretation. I found early on that readers will often interpret something 180 degrees opposite to what you as a writer are trying to say — even when syntax and choice of words are impeccable. (Boy, do I write like an old fogey!)

But if you happen to see Bick anytime soon, would you mind telling him that I have a more substantive question regarding his piece. He seems to place emphasis on the point that it’s nature’s way “to create complex things from simple things.” Well, that may be the way nature often works, but is he saying that evolution always proceeds in that fashion — from the simple to the complex? It seems to me, admitedly from what little I’ve read, is that evolution’s sole function is to preserve species and that the evolution process, as a force for adaption, has no intrinsic concern about whether what its doing is making simple things more complex or complex things more simple — its purpose, if one may be allowed such a word in this context, is survival of the species. Since, as you say, Bick has great talent for understanding genetics and molecular biology, perhaps he could straighten me, an old English major, out. Bottom line: are there any examples in bioglogy of evolution working successfully to assure the survival of some living form
by making it less complex in some way? Or, if there are no such examples, is this idea even theoretically plausible? Or maybe, as I half suspect, nature doesn’t recognize such man made concepts as “simple” and “complex” — it just does what has to be done, and it sometimes fails.

I’m sure he would also appreciate your compliments on his description of Darwinian logic. I happen to know, however, that he failed his expository writing class as a college freshman, but did manage to ace genetics and molecular biology. So you’ll have to cut him some slack.

Maybe Nodnar, with his talent for the succinct, would not mind explaining the meaning of these sentences: “Its results are massively complicated, but we know what their sources are. Still not a reason to turn around and hail that source, instead of its products, as divinely manufactured.” As explained in my next paragraph, the source (no pun intended) of my confusion focuses on the word “instead.”

I take it that the “massive results” are the outcomes of natural selection (i.e., all living things). And the source we know about is — am I right? — again, natural selection, the engine that produces these massive results. Nodnar suggests that this knowledge of source and outcomes should not lead us to “hail that source as divinely inspired,” But before that he implies, in an aside, that instead we should hail its products (all living things) as divinely manufactured. If the source is not divine in some sense, how can its products be? Yes, I can understand being in awe of what natural selection is able to “manufacture,” but in my mind this doesn’t bring in the divine So at bottom, it’s the word “instead” ” that hangs me up. I might have used “nor” rather than “instead of.”

(do you see the analogy?)

agnosticism is the only rational position to take on the question of the existence or not of a god – atheists are in exactly the same boat as believers – they have no proof and choose to believe anyway.

Wright’s ideas about “god” are about the evolution of the human understanding of god. it would be nice if any of the atheist hordes would actually read what he wrote.

What is amazing (to us) about evolution is the way its system of design differs from our human system. The way it makes things – with an input of lots of time and lots of material it takes simple things and adds complexity by trial and error – is antithetical to our own, which is to minimize trial and error by conceiving of something that will work and then building it. Nature doesn’t have the luxury of “conceiving” of things, and so has to build first and then test. In doing so, it manages to create complex things from simple things, which is something that humans have so far failed to do (every invention of the human brain is still simpler than that brain).

However, we are capable of understanding natural selection and all of its sub-principles, and even of harnessing them – witness some of the “directed evolution” efforts going on in modern labs, experiments that have, by automating and speeding up natural selection (with a scientist, instead of the threat of death, applying the selective pressure), at times resulted in things like enzymes with many times the activity nature has so far managed to achieve.

If it’s a principle we can understand and manipulate, then it’s less complex than our own minds. I see no requirement for a divine explanation for a system so simple. Its results are massively complicated, but we know what their source is. Still not a reason to turn around and hail that source, instead of its products, as divinely manufactured.

…

Unless there’s something I’m missing, like the fact that we still haven’t found a rock-solid (ha ha) fossil chain leading straight to modern man. Maybe evolution does work in ways that are divinely complex and far beyond my understanding, enabling it to hop over those gaps! In that case, sure, God, the ultimate directed evolution biochemist, did it. He was getting bored of the lemurs and wanted to speed up the process so that we could get to this debate a little faster. At least now there are living organisms considering the possibility of his existence. All those stupid lemurs did was eat leaves all day.