Evolutionists...?

Question

Evolutionists believe that our minds/brains have evolved to promote survival. Our beliefs and thoughts, therefore, are dedicated to preserving our genes. This may or may not have a relationship to reality...

For instance, natural selection does not care about the instinct or thought-process behind a cockroach running when you turn on a light, as long as that action takes place. (They may believe light causes blindness, etc)

Similarly, natural selection does not care if human senses and thoughts reflect the world accurately, as long as our actions lead us to survive.

So how can an evolutionist be certain that his/her knowledge is a reflection of reality?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApG5_WUFMXwUPF_ZQxm43XXd7BR.;_ylv=3?qid=20070914134436AAWcs5r

About my word choice: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionist

And by "care" I meant it in a non-sentient sense...

Answer 1

Scientists are no as arrogant as you make them out to be. They quite understand that their understanding may NOT correspond to reality. They only claim that model X seems to work, for now. When empirical evidence contradicts their model, they attempt to develop a hypothesis that accommodates what they'd observed before and what the new observations imply.

For example, after noting that light only blinds you in selective circumstances, they drop the putative cockroach optical theory and try develop a more encompassing explanation. The point here is that unlike cockroaches, and other stubborn reality-deniers, they strive to cohere WITH reality. That neither guarantees success, or imply that our intellectual efforts are destined to triumph. But however poor, or short of the mark, It's simply the best we have.

Answer 2

You are sort of lumping thoughts and instinct together. A cockroach doesn't run from light because he thinks about it. The sudden increase in light triggers an increase in the instinct to move/run/do something/etc. There are thoughts and instinct.

For example, when you fall off something tall, you have instinct and thought. Your instinct give you adrenaline, which you can feel. It also heightens your senses. But what you are thinking isn't part of evolution.

And there are things that make our perception of reality different because of evolution. For example, women see about 4 times the amount of red colors compared to men. This would help when doing things like picking berries or notice changes in skin color of babies.

Knowledge however is not physical, and not part of evolution.

Answer 3

Again, someone has used the odd word evolutionist. Is that like a gravitationist or a radiationist?

Natural selection is a natural phenomenon. It is not able to "Care" about anything. The only thing evolution "guides" is reproductive success. Natural selection is a restraining or promoting factor of this.

Evolutionist means scientist, right? I mean, that's the logical person to ask a biology question, eh? Science does not express things in terms of certainty. Theories that correctly explain a natural phenomenon are held TENTATIVELY, pending new or more comprehensive evidence. If you are interested in certainty or proof, stick to law or mathematics. Science is honed by evidence, not by guesswork.

Remember: Thumbs up = I'm right and you agree. Thumbs down = I'm right and you're pissed off because I'm right.

Answer 4

Interesting question.

Scientific knowledge attempts constantly to weed out subjectivity. The evidence of human senses are known to be distorted and fallible. The Scientific Method is to ignore and reject anything for which there is not good evidence, to reward those who manage to overturn previous models, and to question even those facts that have been well-established.

This is a bit of a trial for those who actually have discovered something important and true, but it's worth it to keep out attractive but erroneous data.

An evolutionist's knowledge is a distillation of thousands of people's peer-reviewed, cross-checked and heavily debated information. It's as close as we are able to get to true objectivity. The Scientific Method attempts, successfully, to eliminate the errors that humans are prone to.

That's why it's trustworthy

One thing - WHO 'believes light causes blindness'? The cockroaches? Surely you don't think that cockroaches' actions are the result of conscious deliberation? If you dismantle a cockroach, you'll find wires going straight from their eyes to their legs. A cockroach is a machine.

CD

Answer 5

Actually, the thinking behind the evolution of the human brain is usually associated with sexual selection rather than natural selection. It does not demand a survival requirement, but it passes through because it is a characteristic that is sexually attractive to the opposite sex.

Like the peacock's tail - useless (indeed it inhibits survival), but the ladies will only reproduce with the guys with the good looking tailfeathers.

--

I have no issues with the word evolutionist. Just because Ken Ham wants to monopolize the meaning of a word don't make it so. And "scientist" isn't wrong, is it?

Answer 6

If the cockroach ran because of the light by instinct verses a cockroach that ran because he knew what was going to happen, eventually the one who thought rather than reacted will survive better, because he thought. natural selection will make a difference.

My knowledge is a good reflection of reality and natural selection since i am alive and 55,000 of my generation are not because they bought patriotism above survival. And the other 50,000 that die each year on the road. I am smarter than them. Natural selection.

Answer 7

Professor Adjineri is incorrect returned. (he's very a guy!) you do no longer ought to have a clinical clarification for something in the previous you need to use it. If it quite works, you need to use it. The birds did no longer have an theory of flight, yet they flew. females did no longer understand what made cleansing soap do what it does (many nonetheless do no longer), yet they have been given their outfits sparkling besides. it is the version between a discovery and an invention. Darwin got here across what the animals and plant life were doing via time. He did no longer invent the phenomenon, he in basic terms defined it in a fashion that made extra experience than people who wrote in the previous, which includes Lamarck.

Answer 8

An amoeba is a one cell animal that can not think, it has no brain. However, it has developed into that cockroach. Also,it became a tree, a lion and eventually us.The biggest difference between us and all other life forms on Earth is that we were are self-aware and can develope complex things. Remember, even the Bible says God made in the Earth and all things in 6 days. But it does not say how long God's day was.

Answer 9

Evolution doesn't care about thoughts that don't cause actions.

However, if you do something to get yourself killed because of a thought, then it has an impact on evolution.

Which is why I think religious thought will eventually die out (and it's already less prevelent than it was 1,000 years ago).

Religious people blow themselves up, kill people of rival sects, and even promote AIDS because they have some thing against condoms.

Here's what I know for sure: dogmatic folks (usually religious, but not always, like Stalin) are much more willing to kill themselves and others than non-dogmatic folks.

Answer 10

Survival IS reality. The preservation of our genes is so powerful, that we will populate ourselves into object poverty. Just look at the poorest nations on Earth. They are poorer than dirt, food is a rarity, clean water is almost non-existent, little infrastructure, no jobs...all because they cannot control their population.
It would seem common sense that if you backed off on having so many children, things would improve, but the drive to survive to just too strong.