Thursday, February 12, 2009
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Their view, so far as I understand it, is that since human beings create things of magnificence and beauty, but do not create according to principle of random variation and natural selection, it does not seem plausible to them that anything magnificent and beautiful — such as various natural phenomena — could have emerged through variation or selection, either.
No, creativity often emerges through variation and “selection,” the main point is that some are trying to reduce intelligent selection and sight that we already have knowledge of to blind processes. We know that we see and select by experience but they argue that this is an illusion. The language used to specify the views of Darwinists is consistently contradictory because we are in fact living, seeing, knowing beings who cannot be reduced to blind, dead, ignorant processes. The only people who argue that we can be are those who are dead in the head themselves. They pollute language and speak in contradictions but in so far as they are supposedly saying anything Darwinists argue that humans themselves arose through variation and natural “selection”/culling. They probably imagine that they happened across the truth of things by some happy happenstance in their own biological brain events. But given their admittedly ignorant and imbecilic view of things human beings creating “things of magnificence and beauty” are themselves created by variation and culling. This is why Dawkins believes that it is possible to breed for things like mathematical or musical ability.
So do you similarly agree that the creativity of human beings was created mainly by processes like random variation and natural culling or not?