Hello Evolution, Nice to Meet You (nature displays genius, Evos forced to personify)

Discovery Institute ^ | June 2, 2009 | Logan Gage

[GodGunsGuts]

Hello Evolution, Nice to Meet You

I believe it was Philip Johnson who once said that if you replaced the word "evolution" in biology textbooks with the word "design," almost nothing of substance would change. I think he was right.

We wonder at nature, not because we are so ignorant, as some people think, but rather because it is so amazing. As Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt explained in A Meaningful World, nature displays true genius. And it is this plain fact that drives design-deniers to deify, or at least personify, Evolution.

Take as just one example this extremely fascinating article, "To Be a Baby," (a play on Thomas Nagel's question of what it is like to "be a bat") from Seed Magazine. The article is an interview with Berkeley psychologist Alison Gopnik, author of The Philosophical Baby: What Children's Minds Tell Us About Truth, Love, and the Meaning of Life.

Gopnik notes that the helplessness of young children seems to be an evolutionary disadvantage and thus would never have developed via the Darwinian mechanism (recall that in humans this period of helplessness is longer than in many other species). Yet her fascinating research led her to see that babies have such a richer mental life (especially rich in imagination) than we typically give them credit for. And this period where they are helpless actually affords them a lengthy period to develop thoughts about the world.

Thus Gopnik concludes:

The way that evolution seems to have solved this problem is by giving us this period of childhood where we don’t have to do anything, where we are completely useless. We’re free to explore the physical world, as well as possible worlds through imaginative play. And when we’re adults, we can use that information to actually change the world.

Rather than see the amazing design of the world, the Darwinian is forced to the absurd position of personifying "Evolution." Evolution intended this and that. And yet this rings hollow when you read of the genius of child development Gopnik ably describes.

Yet she would have lost nothing except the superfluous personification had she just opened her eyes to design.

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[freedumb2003]

In related news from an equally reliable source:

ALIENS HELPED INDIANS BEAT CUSTER - http://weeklyworldnews.com/alien-alert/8654/aliens-helped-indians-beat-custer/

WINGED CAT! — http://weeklyworldnews.com/mutants/8484/winged-cat/

[pogo101]

I thought Bat Boy was at Little Big Horn.

(Little Bat Horn?)

[PressurePoint]

Presumably evolution doesn’t always break in favor of the continuation of the species. I think that’s what explains humanity’s greatest threat to its existence: liberals.

[freedumb2003]

>>I thought Bat Boy was at Little Big Horn.

(Little Bat Horn?)<<

That explains a lot! :)

[TexasRepublic]

Please allow me to introduce myself
Im a man of wealth and taste
Ive been around for a long, long year
Stole many a mans soul and faith
And I was round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But whats puzzling you
Is the nature of my game.....

[blowfish]

Of course, just because a psychologist invokes evolution doesn’t make it so. Likewise I could invoke evolution to explain my missing socks...

[AZ .44 MAG]

Or missing links.

[FormerRep]

Your article claims that prolonged childhood is a selective disadvantage and therefore proof against evolution? To prove this he chooses to use a child psychologist?? That’s silly to the absurd. Had he chosen to provide a compare/contrast dissertation about the advantages of rapid development vs. slow maturity in a natural setting it may have been at least compelling. I’m sorry, GGG. This one wasn’t worth your time to post. I’d like to see more of the literature research study article that you sometimes post. They are much more informative.

Thanks for posting this anyway.

[AndrewC]

In related news from an equally reliable source:

Strange that you should finally see through the just-so stories of Darwinists.

Since the book by Gopnik is not yet released we must use the quotes from the "Seed" article. That said, the statement made by Gopnik excluding the final sentence, "The way that evolution seems to have solved this problem is by giving us this period of childhood where we don’t have to do anything, where we are completely useless. We’re free to explore the physical world, as well as possible worlds through imaginative play." seems to apply completely to Darwinists in the adult stage.

Gopnik seems not to have gone through the baby(toddler) stage, since it surprises her that babies can be smart. She also must not be a parent since she seems to be surprised that they can learn to do things. Finally, my grandson reminds me that toddlers have innate curiousity about the world. He quickly gravitates towards making any device with buttons and knobs perform actions undreamt of by their makers.

Just to comment further, babies are not useless.

[freedumb2003]

As I said, my source is as reliable as the OP.

Thanks for agreeing.

As far as childhood somehow undermining TToE — only when you don’t understand science. This is the most specious “analysis” I have ever seen — even from one of these sister-to-WWN sites.

[freedumb2003]

You think we should mention that all advanced animals go through a “childhood” period? Or do we want to just let them continue to think Humans are the only ones?

[GodGunsGuts]

It is a popular-level article—not a science paper—that focuses on how the Evos often personify evolution in order to make sense of biological features that don’t make sense via the Darwinian mechanism of slow, incremental change.

[GodGunsGuts]

==seems to apply completely to Darwinists in the adult stage.

LOLOLOL :o)

[GodGunsGuts]

LOL...published by Evos no doubt:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html

[freedumb2003]

That article has nothing to do with anything.

Just like this one.

[GodGunsGuts]

Sure it does. It demonstrates that the Evo-atheists are statistically the most likely publisher stories about Indian-loving aliens and winged cats.

[FormerRep]

You’re right. It’s tends to the masses. I guess it’s just my preference. Thanks.

[freedumb2003]

>>Sure it does. It demonstrates that the Evo-atheists are statistically the most likely publisher stories about Indian-loving aliens and winged cats.<<

You can’t read very well, can you?

*slaps self* Who am I talking to?

I withdraw the question.