Evolution doesn’t have a goal; it has a fairly reliable effect. Having a reliable effect doesn’t change the fact that it’s a completely mindless process.
You might as well say that gravity has the goal of pulling you towards the ground, or that a can of variously sized pebbles has the goal of sorting the pebbles by size when it’s shaken.
Having a goal is not a property that is restricted sentient processes. For example, your motor system has a variety of clear goals that you are entirely unaware of. In many cases these goals use the exact same neural substrate as goals that you are aware of. Presumably there is a point in evolutionary history where you would agree that the creature was not conscious or aware of itself. And yet that creature has goals that are remarkably similar to yours, and in several cases (such as the cerebellum), are fully identical.
I don’t know that gravity can be considered an optimization process, whereas evolution clearly can be.
The word “goal” is loaded; in some contexts I consider the action of your computer when you click the mouse to be the result of a goal; in some other contexts I do not consider any nonsentient process to have a goal.
Given that the usually-presented alternative to evolution is a supposed sentient entity, I feel that describing evolution as having goals introduces confusion and muddies the discussion, without any contrasting benefit at all. So, I do not use a definition of the word which applies to undirected processes in this context.
How about I concede the semantic argument to you; yes, by some uses of the word it can be applied to evolution. Should we be using those definitions in this context, though?
Yes, I agree that the reason you hear many famous proponents of evolution stating that it doesn’t have a goal is that it can be confused with cognitive goals. But the formal description of evolution clearly has it having a goal. I only brought the point up because it was the foundation of the other thread on Christianity/evolution and also brought up by Sophist.
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard! Your beliefs then are just a bunch of man made rules and man made writing, and thinking I doubt you even know what you are talking about. I can’t help but think, you poor deluded person!
alterego: Since the question of whether genes can affect behavior has been transferred to my new thread, let’s get back to the real topic of this one. I’ve poked about a dozen major holes in your theory about the origin of religion, none of which you’ve responded to. Are you still interested in defending your theory, or should I assume that you’ve abandoned it as completely illogical?
If you want to defend it, here’s my summary of the questions you need to answer.
You claim that we have a gene which make us pass on our learning to our children. If so, why do so many people not do so, or only pass on a limited part of their learning?
You claim that we have a gene which makes us “believe, often without merit, what other creatures believe”. If so, then why don’t we? Why do so many people pride themselves on believing the opposite of what other people believe?
You say that “it is entirely possible that there are genes specifically for organized religion”. If this is true, then how do so many people change from being religious to non-religious, or vice versa, while their genes remain the same?
If any of the genes referred to in the first three questions exist, why have they not been found, despite the enormous efforts that have been made to match genes with functions?
You say “we have evolved neural tissue dedicated to social processes”. Where is this neural tissue?
You say “a social evolutionary arms race began, where those whose power of cultural transmission was the most advanced (that is, the ability to be brainwashed by a large body of existing data upon birth) were the most likely to surive.” What evidence do you have to back up this claim?
You say “Extending portions of your identity (e.g., empathy) to others in your group is adaptive”. Why? Where’s the gene(s) for this trait?
You say “The ability to be manipulated by others, and to manipulate others is adaptive”. Why ? Where’s the gene(s) for this trait?
You say “Religion allows people to manipulate each other.” What evidence do you have to back up this claim?
You say “At the very least, however, it seems plausible that our ancestors were in competition and those who were the most social, and dare I say the most religious, were the most adaptive”. How do you know that our ancestors were in competition?
On what’s grounds do you say that “the most religious were the most adpatative”?
You say “Evolution clearly predicts that religious people are so because they have a robust ability to be brainwashed.” How do you justify this statement? Why should I believe? Couldn’t I just as easily assert that atheists are so because they have a robust ability to be brainwashed?
Evolution doesn’t disprove God in the generic sense, but it does disprove certain assertions of specific religious texts.
Religion itself is a evoulition of thought.
Monavis
Religion itself is a evolution of thought.
Monavis