Let’s make every microsecond an experiment. This is a long way short of any chance of getting our ‘cell’.
If every second and every atomic particle were an experiment in a soup of all the ingredients necessary for the cell to form, this would amount to 10 98 experiments. If the universe actually were 15 billion years old, as Dawkins believes, this would give about 10 18 seconds. To put this in context, there are about 10 80 atomic particles in the universe. Hoyle hypothesised a cell of only 400 enzymes/proteins a real world bacterium has about 2,000! For this hypothetical minimum cell, Hoyle calculated a probability of it forming by natural processes of 1 in 10 40,000. This whole functioning unit has to come into being all at once, before Dawkins’ mutations and natural selection can function (assuming that they then can function at all as Dawkins claims!).įred Hoyle did some calculations on the likelihood of a hypothetical minimum self-reproducing cell coming together, given all the ingredients (this is impossible anyway, by natural, non-enzymatic processes).
#Blind clockmaker full
What is the simplest conceivable such unit? It is incredibly complex and full of information.
.jpg "blind clockmaker")
Note that, for natural selection to work, you have to have a self-reproducing entity. His books are self-confessed attempts at indoctrination. Dawkins is a rabid atheist and his mission in life is to use every tactic, fair or foul, to destroy biblical Christianity. Many of those who cite Dawkins’ book to put down creationists know that it is a large dose of bluff. It fools laymen who know little of the complexities of living things, but it should not fool anyone who is scientifically literate. There are glaring deficiencies in logic in Dawkins’ arguments. Let evolutionary theory explain what shaped our cognitive capacity (Steklis & Harnad 1976 Harnad 1996, but let cognitive theory explain our resulting behavior.A Response to Richard Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker © Creation Ministries International, 1996, 2006 Hence, except in the palpable presence of the irrational (e.g., our sexual urges) where distal Darwinian factors still have some proximal sway, it is as sensible to seek a Darwinian rather than a cognitive explanation for most of our current behavior as it is to seek a cosmological rather than an engineering explanation of an automobile's behavior. It by no means follows from this, however, that human behavior is therefore to be explained only by the push-pull dynamics of Zombie determinism, as dictated by calculations of "inclusive fitness" and "evolutionarily stable strategies." We are conscious, and, more important, that consciousness is piggy-backing somehow on the vast complex of unobservable internal activity - call it "cognition" - that is really responsible for generating all of our behavioral capacities.
Hence Turing-Indistinguishability = Darwin-Indistinguishability. One problem is that - unless we are to be dualists, treating it as an independent nonphysical force - consciousness could not have had an independent adaptive function of its own, over and above whatever behavioral and physiological functions it "supervenes" on, because evolution is completely blind to the difference between a conscious organism and a functionally equivalent (Turing Indistinguishable) nonconscious "Zombie" organism: In other words, the Blind Watchmaker, a functionalist if ever there was one, is no more a mind reader than we are. Many special problems crop up when evolutionary theory turns, quite naturally, to the question of the adaptive value and causal role of consciousness in human and nonhuman organisms.
0 kommentar(er)
