A Mathematician's View of Evolution

The Mathematical Intelligencer ^ | Granville Sewell

[ahayes]

Addendum: Which leads to the interesting speculation that perhaps those Christians who argue so for total self-absorbed hedonism without God are themselves most inclined to be totally self-absorbed and hedonistic and are only restrained by their belief system. What do you think?

[Virginia-American]

... but what's more important knowing whether God exists or the age of the Earth?

The latter, obviously. It's interesting, and a fundamental datum in geology, astronomy, biology and other sciences. The theological question, OTOH, is really rather boring, will most likely never be resolved, is of interest to psychologsts and neurologists and so forth, but has no practical value. Understanding where believers are coming from may help in the War on Terror, but that's not the same question.

[Tribune7]

The theological question, OTOH, is really rather boring,

So your position is that God either doesn't exist or is irrelevant?

[Virginia-American]

Bsically. I've seen no evidence for a Jehova-Allah sort of entity, and the way that so many different people have so many different ideas about it, to me is evidence that it's all in their minds. The compulsion so many have to try to convert others also argues for that.

This is ituitively obvious to me, and I have a suspicion that it is to everyone, bcause God-belief seems to require a whole lot of reinforcement. The way theists "attack" atheists adds to this conlusion; it's rather like the little boy saying the emperor is naked - he wan't very popular with the mob. (I'm surprised he wasn't lynched)

It's *logically* possible that there's some sort of Deist style conscious prime mover, but so far there's no evidence, and it seems to go against Occam.

[Tribune7]

The way theists "attack" atheists

There are atheists who are basically skeptics -- perhaps what you'd call the true atheist -- and I can respect them. OTOH, there are atheist who have a rather strange impulse to mock, criticize and attempt to demean the believer in which can only be described as an attempt to get him to change/lose his faith.

That is not logical. If I were an atheist I'd want every one to still follow Jesus.

that there's some sort of Deist style conscious prime mover, but so far there's no evidence, and it seems to go against Occam.

And how do you figure that?

[Virginia-American]

Me: [can't rule out the possibility] that there's some sort of Deist style conscious prime mover, but so far there's no evidence, and it seems to go against Occam.

You: And how do you figure that?

It's an untestable superfluous assumption.

[Virginia-American]

... OTOH, there are atheist who have a rather strange impulse to mock, criticize and attempt to demean the believer in which can only be described as an attempt to get him to change/lose his faith.

These are often, IMO, the converts to atheism. You know the zeal of converts. A lot of the time, they are bitter about being lied to, manipulated, direspected, ripped off, etc by whatever sect they used to participate in, they feel that a whole lot of irreplaceable time was squandered.

That is not logical. If I were an atheist I'd want every one to still follow Jesus.

I'd want them to behave themselves. Sometimes following Jesus leads to good behavior, sometimes it doesn't. The correlation between religious belief and obeying (secular) laws, keeping ones word, etc, is not very strong.

[Tribune7]

It's an untestable superfluous assumption.

How is it superfluous?

[Tribune7]

A lot of the time, they are bitter about being lied to, manipulated, direspected, ripped off, etc by whatever sect they used to participate in, they feel that a whole lot of irreplaceable time was squandered.

Are you bitter?

[Virginia-American]

Are you bitter?

No. Do I sound bitter?

[Virginia-American]

[the Deist version of God]

How is it superfluous?

If a hypothesis has no testable consequences, it is superfluous. Assuming its truth doesn't change anything (else it would be testable).

More less by definition a Deist deity is unobservable and untestable.

[Tribune7]

Yes.

[Tribune7]

If a hypothesis has no testable consequences, it is superfluous.

That's not what superfluous means.

[js1138]

It's within the bounds of "unnecessary or needless."

[Tribune7]

Knowing the existence of God is unnecessary?

[freedumb2003]

That's not what superfluous means.

It is in a scientific context.

[freedumb2003]

Knowing the existence of God is unnecessary?

Strawman. That wasn't what was being discussed.

That sounded like something Eleanor Clift would come up with.

[js1138]

Here's an interesting statement on evolution from a real mathematician: Yockey. Source. (boldface mine)

---

DATE: 13 Nov 2000 From: Hubert P. Yockey

Subject: Your Review of Information Theory and Molecular Biology Dear Gert: Thank for your review of my book Information Theory and Molecular Biology. This book is now out of print but I am working on the second edition. You seem puzzled by my quotations of the Bible. Please note that I also quote Robert Frost, Homer's Iliad, the Mikado, Charles Darwin, Machiavelli''s The Prince, Plato, The Rubaiyat and other sources. When something was said 2000 years ago, it is plagiarism to say it again without quotation. It is a viscous circle indeed! (*) But that is what we find by experiment. We are the product of nature not its judge. As Hamlet said to his friend: "There are many things, Horatio, between Heaven and Earth unknown in your philosophy." See Gregory Chaitin's books "The Limits of Mathematics",1998 and "The Unknowable",1999 both Springer-Verlag. See also my comments on unknowability in Epilogue. We will never know what caused the Big Bang and we will never know what caused life. By the way, I am indeed an anti-creationist becaue I believe that the origin of life is, like the Big Bang, a part of nature but is unknowable to man. Taken all in all, especially for those who finished reading the review, it is very favorable. Here is a list of my recent publications. If you send me your postal address I shall send you the Computers & Chemistry paper. That will explain why the recent data on the genomes of human and other organisms provide a mathematical proof of "Darwinism" beyond a reasonable doubt. (**) I suggest you read the paper in Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. Perhaps you would then like to read some of Walther Löb's papers. Stanley Miller was not the first to find amino acids in the silent electrical discharge. Yours very sincerely, Hubert P. Yockey

[freedumb2003]

That is EXTREMELY interesting.

Thanks for the post (and the bolding).

[Tribune7]

It is in a scientific context.

Unless you are saying science can address God, that's not the context in which the statement was made.