Comment on Embrace this Truth and enjoy life

• Sergio@slrpnk.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I’ll go farther and say that its wrong.

  Well, it’s debatable but I think it comes down to defining your terms.

  • “Evolution is blind” suggests no guidance at all, and as you say there is randomness, but an important part of the evolutionary process is survival and propagation which are guided by the environment. so arguably evolution is NOT blind.
  • However the evolutionary process is reactive and does not involve long-term planning so you could argue that “blind” means “looking ahead, considering more than what you can immediately sense.” so arguably evolution IS blind.

  Either perspective agrees that there is no “Grand Architect” and/or “God’s Plan” which I think is the general point being made. But it’s just a little distracting.

  source

  • shneancy@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    evolution is blind because all of it is an accident. life forms that survive long enough to make more life forms get their genes to live on. any life form that doesn’t, well, doesn’t. better survivability because of an error in copying genes? more offspring. worse survivability? less offspring

    there is no intention to evolution, it’s simply a consequence of the fact that some primitive life forms at some point felt a desire to copy their genes and the process of doing so is imperfect. That desire, probably a product of random copying itself, is what made all living things today

    source
  • Saleh@feddit.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    On what basis comes the conclusion that there is no architect behind it?

    Do students in elementary school understand why they have all the subjects? Do students in secondary school understand yet, that if they want to pursue higher education as an engineer they need good math and physics? Do students who prefer the humanities yet understand the focus of studies such as sociology vs. anthropology vs. ethnology? Does me as an engineer not understanding why i had to learn how to analyze poems in grade 7-10 invalidate the necessity of that education for someone who later studied linguistics and literature?

    Opposing religion is not scientific. Any good scientist understands the limits of his knowledge. Opposing religion is a matter of faith just as embracing religion is a matter of faith.

    source

    • Sergio@slrpnk.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      On what basis comes the conclusion that there is no architect behind it?

      That’s a great point - if there are divine beings, they wouldn’t necessarily build the universe using a bunch of elves or something – better to spark a Big Bang with the right starting conditions and let everything develop from there. I think it’s more correct to say that evolution and modern physical cosmology provide an explanation of how and why the universe exists without necessarily needing divine intervention.

      source
    • EvenOdds@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Requiring evidence for any religious claims that are made is not “opposing religion”. When religious claims can be proven using the scientific method, then opposing religion in science will be unscientific.

      Currently the best explanation for evolution does not include anything religious.

      source
• UnhingedFridge@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  It’s blind because in nature, it often fucks up, and the extreme fuck ups die off without continuing the process.

  source

  • johsny@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Which is, I think, exactly what happened to the homo sapiens branch. Dinosaurs lasted hundreds of millions of years, we are barely at 300k and we are killing ourselves. Dead end. (For us)

    source