4 ms·
Agreed. Evolution doesn't even have a purpose, let alone a higher one. Also, fusion doesn't have a purpose, nor does gravity.
by sageikosa 10y ago
Agreed. Evolution doesn't even have a purpose, let alone a higher one. Also, fusion doesn't have a purpose, nor does gravity.
- zw123456 10y agoExactly. >"Myth number three: Evolution couldn’t have a purpose, because it doesn’t have a direction." " >"on balance evolution tends to create beings of greater and greater complexity" Just because something has a direction doesn't mean it has a purpose. A warm body cools, that is a direction, but there isn't an invisible man in the sky causing that, it is simply a law of thermodynamics.
- gus_massa 10y agoAlso agree. This is a disguised theological idea. I guess some weak version, where god is not in charge of moving each atom, god only makes some initial setup and give a purpose to everything. Replacing god with aliens doesn't make it scientific or more sensible. This is the power of the Ockham's razor. Just assume no god and no aliens and not whatever. How far can you get with this? Is there an experiment where the no god/alien/whaterver hypothesis fails?
- projektir 10y agoI don't see how it's a disguised theological idea, yet you're turning it into one and then arguing against that. It's an argument for a process being treated as an agent even if it's blind. The disagreement there is more philosophical (I currently don't know why most people seem to believe that blind agency is not valid, I imagine it's related to beliefs in free will at some level) and not at all theological, at least, from my perspective. If anything, gods were likely created to make various observed processes more understandable by giving them agency without going through a bunch of philosophical hoops. I would say that's very reasonable. A lot more reasonable than pretending that the process does nothing and poises no danger.