Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Definition for the Theory of Evolution
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 61 of 216 (409431)
07-09-2007 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Cold Foreign Object
07-09-2007 12:53 PM


Re: Your opinion, Your Favorite
First, I don't like ("explanatory" and "explain") in the same phrase and sentence, this does not work well. But with this aside, I see no real difference between you and Johnson (or my slight alteration of Johnson since I did not put his definition in quote marks). So I guess we then agree? If so, will you answer some of our critics who disagree in this thread?
If you agree with my wording - great. I consider it different from your wording in several important ways. I point them out in my post.
Yes it is. ToE interprets data and evidence under Naturalism and Materialism presuppositions.
It really doesn't. Sure - one has had to examine data and draw conclusions from that data (that's called testing your theory) it is still a collection of proposed mechanisms.
The whole point of ToE is that Creator not needed to explain nature.
If you think that is the point of ToE - then you've gone horribly wrong. A theory is used to explain something. The theory of evolution is used to explain evolution. Evolution is change in population over time. We can use the theory to explain change from one generation to the next, or use it to explain much larger changes - say over the history of life on earth.
If you think otherwise it is no wonder you have such hostility towards it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-09-2007 12:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-09-2007 1:36 PM Modulous has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 62 of 216 (409434)
07-09-2007 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Straggler
07-09-2007 11:53 AM


Re: Your opinion, Your Favorite
One of the many problems with your definition is that there are many Christians, probably the majority, who believe in a divine creator and accept evolution as fact.
I agree that most evolutionists claim to be Christians. The definition at issue is a self-evident objective description of ToE. Some TEists accept that God is not an explanation after First Cause. Other TEists subjectively insert Him contrary to all claims of ToE.
The objective fact of the matter is that ToE has no place for God IN its theory. TEists can subjectively make a place for Him but no scholar, starting with Darwin and ending with Dawkins, has ever said that evolution is guided or that design actually exists. The real issue is why are persons who claim to be, or think of themselves as Christians, accept a theory that specifically excludes the Father of their alleged Savior from having any role in producing reality?
Again, the point is that the Johnson definition is objective corresponding to what every evolutionary scholar has said and the self-evident goal of ToE: explain reality apart from Divine power. TEists can invent their own definition of ToE but it is subjective since the whole point of ToE is to say that the Creationists and Paley are wrong.
How does Johnson reconcile his definition with those people that believe God played a part in evolution?
He doesn't.
We explain TEists as I did above or, as I now will say: they are confused since the whole point of evolutionary theory is the exact opposite of Creationism.
Darwin specifically told Asa Gray that natural selection is not guided nor is variation Divinely selected. Reference available upon request.
Ernst Mayr:
"There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched. When Hull claimed that “the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials”, he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and ***not the work of God*** was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin’s theories" One Long Argument 1991:99
I have sources for my views, TEists do not.
Ray
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Straggler, posted 07-09-2007 11:53 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Straggler, posted 07-09-2007 4:00 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 70 by ReverendDG, posted 07-09-2007 6:04 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 63 of 216 (409437)
07-09-2007 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Modulous
07-09-2007 1:10 PM


Re: Your opinion, Your Favorite
Ray writes:
The whole point of ToE is that Creator not needed to explain nature
Modulous writes:
If you think that is the point of ToE - then you've gone horribly wrong. A theory is used to explain something. The theory of evolution is used to explain evolution. Evolution is change in population over time. We can use the theory to explain change from one generation to the next, or use it to explain much larger changes - say over the history of life on earth.
If you think otherwise it is no wonder you have such hostility towards it.
So you are now a TEist?
Can you produce any references for your view?
Where is God IN your theory?
I am now formally asking for references. God is banished from Darwinian science and all science for that matter - not a matter of opinion.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Modulous, posted 07-09-2007 1:10 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by petrophysics1, posted 07-09-2007 2:16 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 73 by Modulous, posted 07-09-2007 8:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 64 of 216 (409441)
07-09-2007 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by subbie
07-09-2007 12:10 PM


Re: Your opinion, Your Favorite
My motive is to find the truth, or get as close to it as we can within the limits of our abilities. Please explain how that motive undermines anything I say.
Everyone claims that their motive is to find and promote the truth. This includes Johnson and myself, of course. The point is that you have excluded Johnson from this pursuit, which made me remind the discussion of your status as an evolutionist.
Everyone already knows that evolutionists think IDists are liars and loons and that IDists think evolutionists are loons and liars.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by subbie, posted 07-09-2007 12:10 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Wounded King, posted 07-09-2007 3:49 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 68 by anastasia, posted 07-09-2007 5:34 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 74 by subbie, posted 07-09-2007 10:21 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 216 (409448)
07-09-2007 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Cold Foreign Object
07-09-2007 1:36 PM


Re: Your opinion, Your Favorite
The spirit(soul) of man is a special creation of God. His body is not, it's the result of evolution.
This has been the position of the Catholic Church for over 50 years. I think they qualify as Christians. There is no conflict between religion and science, at least with your more rational religions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-09-2007 1:36 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 66 of 216 (409468)
07-09-2007 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Cold Foreign Object
07-09-2007 1:53 PM


Prevaricating
The difference is that Johnson is making a specific clam about other peoples beliefs which effectively casts everyone who claims to be both Christian and to believe in evolution as liars. Meanwhile Jar and Subbie's point simply highlights that Johnson has no basis for his claim other than his own assumptions. He doesn't know the hearts and minds of all of those people who think they can reconcile evolution and Christianity.
It is the same with the definition of evolution you prefer. Johnson and yourself wish to impose your definition of evolution onto evolutionary biology.
You yourself seem to have decide that all IDists are now special creationists since that was what Mayr's quote was discussing.
Why do you persist in such empty arguments as the idea that because evolutionary theories do not include god they must explicitly rule him out. Do you believe that they explicitly rule out all other phenomena, either supernatural or natural, which aren't explicitly included?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-09-2007 1:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-09-2007 6:07 PM Wounded King has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 67 of 216 (409471)
07-09-2007 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Cold Foreign Object
07-09-2007 1:24 PM


Oh Jeez
We explain TEists as I did above or, as I now will say: they are confused since the whole point of evolutionary theory is the exact opposite of Creationism.
The grand conspiracy theory again. The whole point of science and scientists is to deny the existence of God and anyone who cannot see that, whether they actually believe in God themselves or not, is failing to see the truth that is so evident to you and your little minority of creationist friends.
Oh dear.
You claim arrogantly to know both the motives of all scientists and the minds of all rational Christians.
Unbelievable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-09-2007 1:24 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 68 of 216 (409479)
07-09-2007 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Cold Foreign Object
07-09-2007 1:53 PM


Re: Your opinion, Your Favorite
The theory of evolution unifies what is observed in nature. That may just so happen to exclude the views held by some Christians, like special creation. There is no need to mention that in any definition. It is accidental, marginal, irrelevent. It is perhaps even pompous to suggest that science is particularly interested in Christian beliefs.
Still, I would not have a definition beat around the bushes about the ToE's ability to make special creation false. That would not be doing it justice. This is why I said that 'decent with modification' could be further expounded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-09-2007 1:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-09-2007 5:44 PM anastasia has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 216 (409482)
07-09-2007 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by anastasia
07-09-2007 5:34 PM


Re: Your opinion, Your Favorite
The theory of evolution unifies what is observed in nature. That may just so happen to exclude the views held by some Christians, like special creation. There is no need to mention that in any definition. It is accidental, marginal, irrelevent. It is perhaps even pompous to suggest that science is particularly interested in Christian beliefs.
That's all fine and dandy, but Ray believes that the "Darwinists" are purposefully trying to discount Creationism.
Oh, and logic and truths have no effect on him, so, you might as well just not waste your time...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by anastasia, posted 07-09-2007 5:34 PM anastasia has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 70 of 216 (409486)
07-09-2007 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Cold Foreign Object
07-09-2007 1:24 PM


Re: Your opinion, Your Favorite
I agree that most evolutionists claim to be Christians. The definition at issue is a self-evident objective description of ToE. Some TEists accept that God is not an explanation after First Cause. Other TEists subjectively insert Him contrary to all claims of ToE.
what claims of the ToE are contrary? the ToE makes no claim to where life started so this is a red herring
The objective fact of the matter is that ToE has no place for God IN its theory. TEists can subjectively make a place for Him but no scholar, starting with Darwin and ending with Dawkins, has ever said that
evolution is guided or that design actually exists. The real issue is why are persons who claim to be, or think of themselves as Christians, accept a theory that specifically excludes the Father of their alleged Savior from having any role in producing reality?
because you are making up a contrary ToE that has to do with the origin of reality and not using the ToE as science has had it for the last 100 years
your argument isn't about god its about claiming the bible as 100% fact when you have no evidence that it is. TEists aren't having problems with god in science, but with people who insist that to be a christian you must believe the genesis story is 100% fact and how god created the universe, which they believe is allegory
Again, the point is that the Johnson definition is objective corresponding to what every evolutionary scholar has said and the self-evident goal of ToE: explain reality apart from Divine power. TEists can invent their own definition of ToE but it is subjective since the whole point of ToE is to say that the Creationists and Paley are wrong.
nice redefintion of what science says ray. the ToE is to explain the evidence that we have with an explanation that doesn't invoke things we can't show are true, outside intelligence we see no sign of, unless we twist things to see it is not evidence
We explain TEists as I did above or, as I now will say: they are confused since the whole point of evolutionary theory is the exact opposite of Creationis
how are they confused? because they don't accept what you believe as fact?
having god as the starter of life and everything is a reasonable belief, if you also view science as a way to see how god did everything
as i said before this isn't about god being in or out of science, its about if you believe the genesis account is fact and how god did it or if science can show how god did it or not
why is it ray that for hundreds of years people had no problem with science finding things that differed from what the bible said? they said that science shows the work of god?
I have sources for my views, TEists do not.
maybe you think you do, that doesn't mean your rationalizing makes any more sense than theirs does
by the way what relevence does the quote from mayr have? thats his opinion, being as darwinism is a philosophical stance, maybe he believes they do not accept god as the source of life.
by the way not all people who accept the ToE are Darwinians! despite your absurd belief that anyone who accepts the ToE are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-09-2007 1:24 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 71 of 216 (409488)
07-09-2007 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Wounded King
07-09-2007 3:49 PM


Re: Prevaricating
The difference is that Johnson is making a specific clam about other peoples beliefs which effectively casts everyone who claims to be both Christian and to believe in evolution as liars.
This is a straw man since Johnson has not said anything about "other peoples beliefs." The Johnson definition is also the definition that I give to the phrase "Theory of Evolution" in my up-coming paper. I have altered Johnson's original phraseology but the essence of the definition remains the same - this is why I have credited him. Johnson and I do not get along since *some* things he has published, and my future publication, conflict with one another. But said definition is not where we conflict.
There is no prevaricating, you have misunderstood. The Johnson definition is an objective description of ToE. Evolutionary theory and its promoters and scientists, starting with Darwin, attempt to explain nature apart from the power and mind of a Creator. This is why Darwin credited God with First Cause. It is the only place where Deity could have any place because there is no place for any Deity IN your theory.
With this said: what is your beef? Are we to believe that if Jane or John Doe created a post that said ToE was an interpretation of data and evidence attempting to explain how a Creator really created, that you would in turn create a post and endorse?
It is a self-evident fact: ToE attempts to explain nature apart from Deity involvement.
Where is God in ToE?
Where is God in Science?
What is the problem here?
What are you talking about?
What is the TEist source for their God involved in evolution claim?
Meanwhile Jar and Subbie's point simply highlights that Johnson has no basis for his claim other than his own assumptions.
Since Johnson's definition corresponds to what ALL evolutionary scholars have said, including Darwin and Mayr, what are you talking about?
He doesn't know the hearts and minds of all of those people who think they can reconcile evolution and Christianity.
Johnson nor I ever claimed to. Our definition is objective; subjective evolutionary beliefs of the Christian masses notwithstanding.
It is the same with the definition of evolution you prefer. Johnson and yourself wish to impose your definition of evolution onto evolutionary biology.
Never once said this. Our definition is based on the fact that all evolutionary biologists do not consider God as a possibility to explain data or evidence. You know this and have misrepresented the simple issue here from the outset.
You yourself seem to have decide that all IDists are now special creationists since that was what Mayr's quote was discussing.
I have no idea what you are talking about. The above comment has no correspondence to anything said or implied. Mayr said the original Darwinists concluded evolution (not special creationists) was NOT THE WORK OF GOD.
Why do you persist in such empty arguments as the idea that because evolutionary theories do not include god they must explicitly rule him out. Do you believe that they explicitly rule out all other phenomena, either supernatural or natural, which aren't explicitly included?
Its hard to believe an educated person wrote the above comment. Is it 4:00 AM in Scotland?
Are you actually saying ToE does not rule out God? If so, where is God IN ToE and can you provide at least two references of known evolutionary scholars?
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Wounded King, posted 07-09-2007 3:49 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by anastasia, posted 07-09-2007 8:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 75 by Wounded King, posted 07-10-2007 3:35 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 72 of 216 (409489)
07-09-2007 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Cold Foreign Object
07-09-2007 6:07 PM


Re: Prevaricating
Cold Foreign Object writes:
Are you actually saying ToE does not rule out God? If so, where is God IN ToE and can you provide at least two references of known evolutionary scholars?
Of course it doesn't rule out God. It just rules out some ideas of what God did, or how. It rules out the God of some Christians' belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-09-2007 6:07 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 73 of 216 (409492)
07-09-2007 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Cold Foreign Object
07-09-2007 1:36 PM


Re: Your opinion, Your Favorite
So you are now a TEist?
I don't know what that is, sorry.
Can you produce any references for your view?
Easily. Just about any book on the theory of evolution. The best I've ever found is that the theory of evolution was the first working non-supernatural account for biological change and the origin of our species. A concept which shocked the world because the origin of man was the last bastion of the Abrahamic God, especially as it came at a time which the age of the earth started being calculated far in excess of Biblical accounts.
That isn't the point of the ToE, its a social consequence of it was when combined with facts from paleontology and geology (and later, genetics) in a Young Earth Christian society.
Where is God IN your theory?
I think I adequately described that in Message 55 -
quote:
an explanatory framework attempting to explain how populations of biological organisms may have changed with the passing of generations with no assistance from a Divine Creator explicitly necessary.
God is banished from Darwinian science and all science for that matter - not a matter of opinion.
God is not necessary for the science to work, that does not mean that God does not get involved - just that he isn't needed to get involved. This is the same of course as any modern scientific theory. God is just as 'banished' from the Germ theory or relativity etc etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-09-2007 1:36 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-14-2007 3:15 PM Modulous has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 74 of 216 (409507)
07-09-2007 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Cold Foreign Object
07-09-2007 1:53 PM


Re: Your opinion, Your Favorite
Johnson may claim to find and promote the truth, but his writings belie that claim.
For example, in the Wedge, Johnson quite clearly laid out a political agenda to promote a philosophy that he had adopted in advance of sufficient evidence to support it. This document demonstrates that Johnson's motive is not in fact to find the truth, but to build a political movement calculated persude the public, opinion-makers and policy-makers that his religious beliefs have scientific value.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-09-2007 1:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 75 of 216 (409549)
07-10-2007 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Cold Foreign Object
07-09-2007 6:07 PM


Re: Prevaricating
CFO writes:
I have no idea what you are talking about. The above comment has no correspondence to anything said or implied. Mayr said the original Darwinists concluded evolution (not special creationists) was NOT THE WORK OF GOD.
I am talking about the very first sentence in the Mayr quote you provided.
Mayr writes:
There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation.
And there are numerous places in 'The origin of species' where Darwin is clearly directly addressing special creation.
Darwin writes:
Some few naturalists maintain that animals never present varieties; but then these same naturalists rank the slightest difference as of specific value; and when the same identical form is met with in two distant countries, or in two geological formations, they believe that two distinct species are hidden under the same dress. The term species thus comes to be a mere useless abstraction, implying and assuming a separate act of creation.
...
Natural selection acts only by the preservation and accumulation of small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being; and as modern geology has almost banished such views as the excavation of a great valley by a single diluvial wave, so will natural selection banish the belief of the continued creation of new organic beings, or of any great and sudden modification in their structure.
...
On the ordinary view of each species having been independently created, why should that part of the structure, which differs from the same part in other independently created species of the same genus, be more variable than those parts which are closely alike in the several species? I do not see that any explanation can be given.
Just a few case showing the specific form of 'Creation' which Darwin rebutted.
Our definition is based on the fact that all evolutionary biologists do not consider God as a possibility to explain data or evidence. You know this and have misrepresented the simple issue here from the outset.
You once again do exactly what I said, try and impose your own interpretations of peoples views onto not only 'all evolutionary biologists' but also on me myself. I certainly don't know it as it is complete nonsense. There is a world of difference between personally considering God an explanation for evolution and explicitly writing him up in a scientific paper as one. Do you really still not understand why some things just aren't suitable for scientific discussion because of their vague and imprecise nature. In the case where there are specific and precise conditions, such as for theories of special creation with whole new species being independently created de novo then there is scope for study, and it was such which the early Darwinians, and their predecessors, saw as flawed and rejected.
There is no way to rule out such shifty deities as Randman's designer who lurks in the background shifting the probabilities of certain mutations occurring at the quantum level however.
Clearly they are addressing the issue of special creation not the whole metaphysical concept of God.
Its hard to believe an educated person wrote the above comment. Is it 4:00 AM in Scotland?
Well it's hard to believe an honest person would evade answering a question and just repeat the same empty claim, and yet you do.
Are you actually saying ToE does not rule out God? If so, where is God IN ToE and can you provide at least two references of known evolutionary scholars?
I like the way you just restated your strawman there as if it was some sort of counter argument. The lack of the explicit inclusion of a phenomenon does not 'rule it out'. What 'rules it out', if anything, is the scientific method, which as I have just pointed out relies on things which actually have some definable qualities that might be susceptible of detection and testing. What a scholar may believe as to the role of God in the process of evolution is immaterial to what he can demonstrate scientifically in a paper.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-09-2007 6:07 PM Cold Foreign Object 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