Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   too intelligent to actually be intelligent?
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 264 of 304 (391631)
03-26-2007 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by fallacycop
03-26-2007 10:14 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
fallacycop writes:
May be 'why' is the wrong question to ask.
In the end I suppose that "why" is more important than how, but that is a subjective opinion.
It seems to me though that the Atheistic view of things is no better than the YEC crowd. Young Earth Creationism rejects science and Atheism rejects philosophy and theology.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by fallacycop, posted 03-26-2007 10:14 AM fallacycop has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Woodsy, posted 03-26-2007 3:52 PM GDR has replied
 Message 269 by nator, posted 03-26-2007 5:40 PM GDR has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 266 of 304 (391640)
03-26-2007 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Woodsy
03-26-2007 3:52 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
Woodsy writes:
Philosophy comes in many different flavours, some of which are more useful than others. To which were you referring?
Specifically any philosophy that disagrees with the Atheistic worldview. It seems to me that materialism doesn't accept anything as evidence that can't be verified empirically.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Woodsy, posted 03-26-2007 3:52 PM Woodsy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Parasomnium, posted 03-27-2007 2:39 AM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 273 of 304 (391720)
03-26-2007 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by sidelined
03-26-2007 6:45 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
sidelined writes:
Do you delude yourself into thinking that I am incapable of feeling that same sense of peace and that you, by believing it to be something originating in an ID'er to which you can offer no evidence, have some greater appreciation of the event?
I apologize as I seem to have left you with the opinion that you would feel less of a sense of peace than I would. The point I was trying to make is that we both feel the same sense of peace but that we would ascribe a different root cause for that emotion.
I assume that you would ascribe a totally natural reason for what you feel, whereas I believe that, although it registers neurologically, the reason is still something spiritual.
I hesitate to call myself a Theistic Evolutionist strictly for the reason that I don't have sufficient knowledge of biology to argue either for or against it. Frankly I just accept it as the little I have read, and the balance of the opinion of writers I respect, generally support the theory.
I'm going to quote Francis Collins who as head of the Human Genome Project does know a great deal about biology amongst other things.
Francis Collins writes:
There are many subtle variations of theistic evolution, but a typical version rest upon the following premises:
1. The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago.
2. Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over long periods of time.
4. Once evolution got underway, no special supernatural intervention was required.
5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
6. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.
If one accepts these six premises, then an entirely plausible, intellectually satisfying, and logically consistent synthesis emerges: God, who is not limited in space or time, created the universe and established natural laws that govern it.
I understand this is one man's opinion, but it is a man who has the scientific credentials that very few people have.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by sidelined, posted 03-26-2007 6:45 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 12:10 AM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 275 of 304 (391725)
03-27-2007 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by crashfrog
03-27-2007 12:10 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
crashfrog writes:
Most importantly, though, he doesn't claim supernatural intervention. Maybe you didn't notice that?
I noticed it. Actually I'm fine either way.
If we can both be objective can you tell me what is wrong with this.
Evolutionary change is basically a series of genetic mutations that can eventually bring about microevolution and over a large enough period of time macroevoluion. Natural selection is one of the driving forces behind these genetic mutations. If random chance is also a factor causing these mutations then, assuming the supernatural does exist,(if you can suspend your disbelief for a minute), isn't it plausible that instead of random chance there could be supernatural intervention?
I comprehend natural selection but random chance doesn't seem to me to make much sense to me.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 12:10 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 1:04 AM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 277 of 304 (391731)
03-27-2007 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by crashfrog
03-27-2007 1:04 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
crashfrog writes:
Unless you're desperate for some kind of gap, any gap, into which to tuck your rapidly shrinking God.
Without any divine intervention in the evolutionary process, I'm talking about a God who was able to design a process that designs itself, but more importantly has given us a physical home for a spiritual being with a moral code and the free will to choose.
crashfrog writes:
It's not at all clear to me where these sorts of astounding misunderstandings come from. Natural selection has nothing to do with mutation; it doesn't cause them, it's not the source of them. Natural selection causes very nonrandom changes to allele frequencies in populations by causing differential reproduction in individuals (or of genes, if you prefer.)
Natural selection causes very nonrandom changes to allele frequencies in populations by causing differential reproduction in individuals (or of genes, if you prefer.)
Would this be correct?
The changes to the beaks of Darwin's finches were caused by the process of natural selection which involved non-random changes in allele frequencies.
The changes that brought about one species evolving into another would be caused by random genetic mutations.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 1:04 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by nator, posted 03-27-2007 8:09 AM GDR has replied
 Message 285 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 10:31 AM GDR has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 279 of 304 (391733)
03-27-2007 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Parasomnium
03-27-2007 2:39 AM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
Parasomnium writes:
Is it really worth mentioning that atheists reject disagreeing philosophies? Am I missing some profound insight here?
Probably
That could have been put better but I was just making the point that YEC adherents reject any science that doesn't fit with the way they read the Bible. I also suggest that in the same way Atheists reject philosophy that doesn't agree with their world view, which would include anything that suggests that there is anything beyond the physical.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Parasomnium, posted 03-27-2007 2:39 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Parasomnium, posted 03-27-2007 3:01 AM GDR has replied
 Message 281 by Taz, posted 03-27-2007 3:14 AM GDR has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 283 of 304 (391759)
03-27-2007 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Parasomnium
03-27-2007 3:01 AM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
Parasomnium writes:
If those atheist are science minded, they would be inclined to accept anything that goes against their world view, as long as convincing evidence is presented. Unlike YECs, atheists are capable of changing their minds. It's called 'progress'.
There remains though a basic disagreement about what constitutes evidence, let alone how to interpret it.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Parasomnium, posted 03-27-2007 3:01 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 10:33 AM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 284 of 304 (391764)
03-27-2007 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by nator
03-27-2007 8:09 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
nator writes:
The changes to the beaks of Darwin's finches were caused by random genetic mutations which are then selected for by the environment through the mechanism of natural selection.
The changes that brought about one species evolving into another would be caused by the process of natural selection which involved non-random changes in allele frequencies over time.
OK That's helpful. Thanks. I just noticed a thread on natural selection. I'll work my way through that as well as book I have on the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by nator, posted 03-27-2007 8:09 AM nator has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 289 of 304 (391777)
03-27-2007 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by crashfrog
03-27-2007 10:33 AM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
Thanks for the information on biological evolution. As I said to nator I'll have to do some more reading, but that was really helpful.
crashfrog writes:
I don't really see a disagreement about "what constitutes evidence." I see you persistently dodging the question of evidence by asserting "I have all this evidence but I'm not going to share it with you because you wouldn't believe me." It's getting a little transparent.
I'll just re-post what I posted earlier in this thread. I see it as evidence and obviously you can make up your own mind whether it is or isn't.
See -- nothing up my sleeve.
Because there is something rather than nothing.
Because of the complexity of all life.
Because of the complexity of our world and the universe.
Because I have consciousness.
Because I have self awareness.
Because we have a moral code.
Because love exists.
Etc.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 10:33 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 11:41 AM GDR has replied
 Message 294 by Parasomnium, posted 03-27-2007 6:13 PM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 292 of 304 (391820)
03-27-2007 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by crashfrog
03-27-2007 11:41 AM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
crashfrog writes:
If we know that all of those things have simpler explanations than "a divine deity", then what's reasonable about ascribing those things to God?
What are the simpler explanations?

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 11:41 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 4:10 PM GDR has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 295 of 304 (391858)
03-27-2007 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Parasomnium
03-27-2007 6:13 PM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
Parasomnium writes:
First of all, to me your evidence seems like nothing more than a list expressing your personal incredulity - no disrespect intended. It doesn't really explain anything. The evidence I would like to see should be able to explain the how of things. Random mutation and natural selection provide just that: a mechanism. And this mechanism is corroborated by many different kinds of evidence, from such diverse scientific disciplines as molecular genetics, to comparative anatomy and morphology, to biogeography, all of which provide insight into how evolution works. It all fits together.
I'm not discussing the "hows" but the "whys". As I have said numerous times I have no problem with biology or evolution. I have questions about random mutation but frankly, I'm quite sure that if I actually understood the process better I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. The view that I hold is compatible with all that science teaches of the natural world.
Parasomnium writes:
Your evidence, on the other hand, amounts to little more than: "There is something rather than nothing, therefore God must exist", or "All life is complex, therefore God must exist". What if God was someone who likes things simple? Surely, the complexity of life would then be an argument against him, wouldn't it? Shouldn't we know more about God from a different source before we pronounce him the cause of all this complexity?
You could be right. In my view, I am convinced that the most reasonable conclusion is that we are designed by an intelligent designer.
Parasomnium writes:
Second, your evidence is not necessarily evidence of God. It could be that there is something rather than nothing because of a natural law that we don't know about. It could be that life is complex because it was created by a race of alien pranksters, just because they like complicated things. Or it could be that life is complex because random mutation and natural selection are guaranteed to create ever more complex structures.
I suppose it's all possible but all we can do is take all these things into account and come to what we believe is the most reasonable conclusion. We are trying to sort out ideas that can't be tested in a lab or verified mathematically.
Parasomnium writes:
How is anything you mentioned evidence for your God, and not someone else's?
This discussion is about ID, (not the ID movement), and not about a specific faith. It would be consistent with any faith that agrees that we are created by an IDer.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Parasomnium, posted 03-27-2007 6:13 PM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by nator, posted 03-27-2007 9:10 PM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 298 of 304 (391890)
03-27-2007 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by nator
03-27-2007 9:10 PM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
I agree I'm no scientist so once again lets see what one who is has to say. The first part of this I quoted earlier.
Francis Collins writes:
Francis Collins writes:
There are many subtle variations of theistic evolution, but a typical version rest upon the following premises:
1. The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago.
2. Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over long periods of time.
4. Once evolution got underway, no special supernatural intervention was required.
5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
6. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.
If one accepts these six premises, then an entirely plausible, intellectually satisfying, and logically consistent synthesis emerges: God, who is not limited in space or time, created the universe and established natural laws that govern it. Seeking to populate this otherwise sterile universe with living creatures, God chose the elegant mechanism of evolution to create microbes, plants, and animals of all sorts. Most remarkably, God intentionally chose the same mechanism to give rise to special creatures who would have intelligence, a knowledge of right and wrong, free will, and a desire to seek fellowship with Him. He also knew these creatures would ultimately choose to disobey the Moral Law.
This view is entirely compatible with everything that science teaches us about the natural world. It is also entirely compatible with the great monotheistic religions of the world. The theistic evolution perspective cannot, of course, prove that God is real, as no logical argument can fully achieve that. Belief in God will always require a leap of faith. But this synthesis has provided for legions of scientist-believers a satisfying, consistent, enriching perspective that allows both the scientific and spiritual worldviews to coexist happily within us.
Here is a portion of his biography from wiki:
Raised on a small farm in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley, Francis Sellers Collins was home-schooled by his mother until the sixth grade. Throughout most of his high school and college years, the aspiring chemist had little interest in what he then considered the "messy" field of biology. What he refers to as his "formative education" was received at the University of Virginia, where he earned a B.S. in Chemistry in 1970. He went on to attain a Ph.D. in physical chemistry at Yale University in 1974. While at Yale, however, a course in biochemistry sparked his interest in the molecules that hold the blueprint for life: DNA and RNA. Collins recognized that a revolution was on the horizon in molecular biology and genetics. After consulting with his old mentor from the University of Virginia, Carl Trindle, he changed fields and enrolled in medical school at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, earning there an M.D. in 1977.
From 1978 to 1981, Collins served a residency and chief residency in internal medicine at North Carolina Memorial Hospital in Chapel Hill. He then returned to Yale, where he was named a Fellow in Human Genetics at the medical school from 1981 to 1984. During that time, he developed innovative methods of crossing large stretches of DNA to identify disease genes.
After joining the University of Michigan in 1984 in a position that would eventually lead to a Professorship of Internal Medicine and Human Genetics, Collins heightened his reputation as a relentless gene hunter. That gene-hunting approach, which he named "positional cloning," has developed into a powerful component of modern molecular genetics.
I repeat that I believe that my view is consistent with Collin’s views and he contends that his views are not contrary to the scientific view.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by nator, posted 03-27-2007 9:10 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 10:25 PM GDR has replied
 Message 301 by sidelined, posted 03-27-2007 11:26 PM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 300 of 304 (391895)
03-27-2007 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by crashfrog
03-27-2007 10:25 PM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
crashfrog writes:
You should know that Collins's views have been rebutted by a number of other thinkers.
Of course. People's theological views are all over the map. Nator is saying that my views clash with science. I agree that I'm not qualified to argue that point so I went to someone who is.
There are many others that agree with Collins as well. This is from wiki.
Contemporary biologists and geologists who are Christians and evolutionary creationists include
Kenneth R. Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, author of Finding Darwin's God (Cliff Street Books, 1999), in which he states his belief in God and argues that "evolution is the key to understanding God." Dr. Miller has also called himself "an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox Darwinist" (the 2001 PBS special "Evolution").
Derek Burke, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Warwick
R. J. Berry, Professor of Genetics at University College London
evangelical Christian and geologist Keith B. Miller (no relation to Kenneth) of Kansas State University, who compiled an anthology Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (Eerdmans, 2003)
biologist Denis Lamoureux of St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta, Canada who has co-authored with evolution critic Phillip E. Johnson Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins (Regent College, 1999)
biologist Darrel Falk of Point Loma Nazarene University, author of Coming to Peace with Science
biologist Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief
paleontologist Robert T. Bakker
microbiologist Richard G. Colling of Olivet Nazarene University, author of Random Designer: Created from Chaos to Connect with Creator
paleobiologist Prof. Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University, well known for his groundbreaking work on the Burgess Shale fossils and the Cambrian explosion, and author of Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe
Here is a link to the wiki site on Theistic Evolution.
Theistic evolution - Wikipedia

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 10:25 PM crashfrog has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 302 of 304 (391906)
03-27-2007 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by sidelined
03-27-2007 11:26 PM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
I'll answer quickly before they shut this thread down. I don't see and neither does Collins that those 6 points constitute an argument for Theistic Evolution. The preceding sentence is this: "There are many subtle variants of theistic evolution, but a typical version rests upon the following premises.
The points are just an outline of the beliefs of an theistic evoluntionist. The quote comes from his book "The Language of God". The whole book is used to provide the rationale for his believing as he does.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by sidelined, posted 03-27-2007 11:26 PM sidelined 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