Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Religious Nature of Evolution, or Lack Thereof
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 23 of 212 (108753)
05-17-2004 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by almeyda
05-17-2004 1:12 AM


I suggest that you take a step back and try to state and make your case. Most importantly you need to go back to the "Peer Review Conspiracy" thread since it is clear that your arguments here stand or fall by your ability to answer the points raised there. If you cannot support the specifics discussed there then you have no grounds for the more general claims you make here.
Some points you need to take into account:
1) Many christians accept evolution as scientific - including the vast majority of those who are scientists working in relevant fields.
2) The Big Bang has nothing to do with biological evolution - as should be quite obvious the high energy physics relating to cosmology has very little to do with Earthly biology. To insist that biological evolution relies on the Big Bang is to say that the ONLY two ways that the Universe could come into existence are the conventional scientific view or the YEC 6-day creation view. While the scientific evidence for the Big Bang is such that there is no widely-accepted alterantive within science there are numerous possiblities for Divine creation (including views which accept the Big Bang).
3) The beginning of life is also not properly part of evolution. Since evolution requires certain characeristics - notable replication - the origin of those characteristics is outside of evolutionary theory. And even if God did create the first life, exolution could still proceed from there. Unless you wish to insist that God is incapable of creating life with the capacisty to evolve.
4) Evolution is not the foundation of humanism and never was. Evolution offers a scientific explanation for the biological life we see but it has little relevance to humanist ethics (perhaps the most important thing it can offer on that ground is the simple affirmation that all humanity is a single species).
5) evolution can be and is being tested in the present. While the changes we can see are relatively small (not surprising given that we have only a few decades of limited observation) there is no doubt that natural selection works, that mutations can and do increase the range of potentially useful variation within a species and that populations can become incapable of interbreeding.
6) "Evolving into different kinds" is not a useful criterion. By the only available definition of "kind" all related species are the same "kind".
7) I strongly advise looking into the history of science. The Young Earth Creation view had completely collapsed as a scientific proposition by the start of the 19th Century because the evidence was so strongly against it. The mainstream scientific view on the other hand was built up based on the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by almeyda, posted 05-17-2004 1:12 AM almeyda has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 29 of 212 (108778)
05-17-2004 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by almeyda
05-17-2004 8:26 AM


Almeyda, you wanted this thread because supposedly you had points that you needed to make for the "Peer Review Conspiracy" thread. But so far all you are doing is making assertions - many of them highly questionable - and without offering anything in the way of support.
In contrast the "Peer Review Conspiracy" thread was - eventually - actually getting down to discussing evidence.
It seems to me that you've got it quite the wrong way around. If you can come up with some specific points that you can actually support in the other thread then you can use those to support your claims in this thread. As it stands it looks like you were either hoping to evade a discussion which you are not equipped for - which also means that you have no sound basis for your assertions in this thread either - or you were simply hoping to hector us into accepting your opinions.
I strongly suggest that you pick some specific relevant point and support it - going back to the "Peer Review Conspiracy" thread would be a good idea since there are substantive posts awaiting your reply there. You have to go beyond repeating your opinions and then expressing surprise that people don't automatically agree with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by almeyda, posted 05-17-2004 8:26 AM almeyda has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 46 of 212 (109208)
05-19-2004 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by almeyda
05-19-2004 12:02 AM


Well lets go over your ponts to me
1) The underlying assumption is that either Genesis is entirely fiction or a literally true account. That is a very restrictive view which fails to take into account the nature of the Bible. Is it not at least possible that Genesis was primarily written to make theological points to the people of that time ? In our culture we have a great deal mre scientific knowledge - and relatively few people have an understanding of the peoples and cultures of the time Genesis was written - even a knowledge of other Middle-Eastern creation stories is unusual. So how can you say that your understanding of Genesis is the only one when you cannot hope to see it as the original audience did ?
And we don't even need evolution to refute YEC interpretations of Genesis - the Earth was known to be more than 6-10 thousand years old before Darwin published. If Christianity requires rejection of scientific results that have stood for two hundred years, then too bad for Christianity. You may find theistic evolution theologically unacceptable but Kenneth Miller has built it into his theology.
2) You are still absolutely wrong. Evolution requires that a universe exists - but not how it got here. Your assumption here is that the only alternatives are current science of YEC creation. That obviously isn't true. While the Big Bang itself is pretty well established there is still a possibility that it could be replaced. Equally there are other possibilities within creation. If, for instance, the whole universe were created ex nihilo at the time the first life appeared on Earth (2-3 billion years ago) - as it would have been given the conventional scientific view - with the first life form already existing it would make absolutely NO difference to evolution.
This is why it is so important to support your points. Your claim here is obviously false - and if you actually tried to find supporting arguments you might at least see why it is not automatically accepted.
3) Your answer here contradicts your answer to 2). If God could start the first life then there is an alternative to abiogenesis by natural means - and in fact for the whole history of the universe up to that point. You can erase the whole thing and substitute a completely different means of getting to the same position and evolution is entirely unaffected.
4) Humans were recognised as being part of nature from before Darwin. Even Linnaeus recognised human affinities with the apes. And you just quote statements - you don't actually show the importance of this statement at all.
If you actually read the manifestos [URL=http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html]Humainst Manifestos I & IIp.url you will see something different. As would be expected they are primarily statements of belief and little supporting argument is provided. This in itself is fatal to your use of them since they are lacking in the very area you wish to quote them.
And your quote from Humanist Manifesto 2 is completely out of context - in context it is seen that the scientific knowledge of evolution is used only as a minor supporting point for the denial of salvvation and dmnation. Hardly the overwhelmingly important role you wish to assign it.
Here is what Humanist Manifest 2 says about ethics:
quote:
THIRD: We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life. Human life has meaning because we create and develop our futures. Happiness and the creative realization of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment, are continuous themes of humanism. We strive for the good life, here and now. The goal is to pursue life's enrichment despite debasing forces of vulgarization, commercialization, and dehumanization.
Where is evolution mentioned there ?
It isn't - because it is not the foundation of humanist ethics.
Let us also note that we are dealing with religious (not secular) humanism here. It in itself is a religion that makes use of scientiifc findings. If the scientific findings were different then humanism - if it existed - would be different, too. And since the roots of humanistic thought go back to the classical civilisations it is not so unlikely that some movement of that sort would exist. But this does not establish that evolution is itself religious. The fact that Kenneth Miller can employ evolution in his Christian theology shows that evolution can be accepted and even play a significant role in quite different religions.
So we are still left with no real argument that evolution - as science - is religious, any more than the germ theory of disease which denies that plagues are sent directly by God is religious.Humainst Manifestos I & IIp.url you will see something different. As would be expected they are primarily statements of belief and little supporting argument is provided. This in itself is fatal to your use of them since they are lacking in the very area you wish to quote them.
And your quote from Humanist Manifesto 2 is completely out of context - in context it is seen that the scientific knowledge of evolution is used only as a minor supporting point for the denial of salvvation and dmnation. Hardly the overwhelmingly important role you wish to assign it.
Here is what Humanist Manifest 2 says about ethics:
quote:
THIRD: We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life. Human life has meaning because we create and develop our futures. Happiness and the creative realization of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment, are continuous themes of humanism. We strive for the good life, here and now. The goal is to pursue life's enrichment despite debasing forces of vulgarization, commercialization, and dehumanization.
Where is evolution mentioned there ?
It isn't - because it is not the foundation of humanist ethics.
Let us also note that we are dealing with religious (not secular) humanism here. It in itself is a religion that makes use of scientiifc findings. If the scientific findings were different then humanism - if it existed - would be different, too. And since the roots of humanistic thought go back to the classical civilisations it is not so unlikely that some movement of that sort would exist. But this does not establish that evolution is itself religious. The fact that Kenneth Miller can employ evolution in his Christian theology shows that evolution can be accepted and even play a significant role in quite different religions.
So we are still left with no real argument that evolution - as science - is religious, any more than the germ theory of disease which denies that plagues are sent directly by God is religious.
[]Humainst Manifestos I & IIp.url you will see something different. As would be expected they are primarily statements of belief and little supporting argument is provided. This in itself is fatal to your use of them since they are lacking in the very area you wish to quote them.
And your quote from Humanist Manifesto 2 is completely out of context - in context it is seen that the scientific knowledge of evolution is used only as a minor supporting point for the denial of salvvation and dmnation. Hardly the overwhelmingly important role you wish to assign it.
Here is what Humanist Manifest 2 says about ethics:
quote:
THIRD: We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life. Human life has meaning because we create and develop our futures. Happiness and the creative realization of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment, are continuous themes of humanism. We strive for the good life, here and now. The goal is to pursue life's enrichment despite debasing forces of vulgarization, commercialization, and dehumanization.
Where is evolution mentioned there ?
It isn't - because it is not the foundation of humanist ethics.
Let us also note that we are dealing with religious (not secular) humanism here. It in itself is a religion that makes use of scientiifc findings. If the scientific findings were different then humanism - if it existed - would be different, too. And since the roots of humanistic thought go back to the classical civilisations it is not so unlikely that some movement of that sort would exist. But this does not establish that evolution is itself religious. The fact that Kenneth Miller can employ evolution in his Christian theology shows that evolution can be accepted and even play a significant role in quite different religions.
So we are still left with no real argument that evolution - as science - is religious, any more than the germ theory of disease which denies that plagues are sent directly by God is religious.Humainst Manifestos I & IIp.url you will see something different. As would be expected they are primarily statements of belief and little supporting argument is provided. This in itself is fatal to your use of them since they are lacking in the very area you wish to quote them.
And your quote from Humanist Manifesto 2 is completely out of context - in context it is seen that the scientific knowledge of evolution is used only as a minor supporting point for the denial of salvvation and dmnation. Hardly the overwhelmingly important role you wish to assign it.
Here is what Humanist Manifest 2 says about ethics:
quote:
THIRD: We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life. Human life has meaning because we create and develop our futures. Happiness and the creative realization of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment, are continuous themes of humanism. We strive for the good life, here and now. The goal is to pursue life's enrichment despite debasing forces of vulgarization, commercialization, and dehumanization.
Where is evolution mentioned there ?
It isn't - because it is not the foundation of humanist ethics.
Let us also note that we are dealing with religious (not secular) humanism here. It in itself is a religion that makes use of scientiifc findings. If the scientific findings were different then humanism - if it existed - would be different, too. And since the roots of humanistic thought go back to the classical civilisations it is not so unlikely that some movement of that sort would exist. But this does not establish that evolution is itself religious. The fact that Kenneth Miller can employ evolution in his Christian theology shows that evolution can be accepted and even play a significant role in quite different religions.
So we are still left with no real argument that evolution - as science - is religious, any more than the germ theory of disease which denies that plagues are sent directly by God is religious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by almeyda, posted 05-19-2004 12:02 AM almeyda has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 55 of 212 (109860)
05-22-2004 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by almeyda
05-22-2004 7:59 AM


Try these simple facts.
Real science says that there was no Flood. It is not simply a difference of presuppositions - the Flood view is believed despite the scientific evidence.
Real science says that the Earth is old. The arguments to the contrary omit relevant facts - as the Helium-loss argument did. The idea that the Earth is young is believed despite the scientific evidence.
Creationism is religious apologetics - not science.
If you want to argue to the contrary then produce the creationist arguments. Don't simply rely on what the creationists say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by almeyda, posted 05-22-2004 7:59 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024