Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Key points of Evolution
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 356 (464835)
04-29-2008 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by RAZD
04-29-2008 6:10 PM


Next time you think you need a physician, perhaps all you need is a physicist or a chemist? How about a car mechanic - he can make your car better, yes?
The point being that physicians are not biologists, their training is in a different specialty, and this makes them no better than anyone else that does not have a biology degree to be able to talk about biology. Scientific opinions are only valid when they come from scientists that have studied the field ... and even then you are dealing with the argument from authority logical fallacy. Scientists don't trust the validity of the theory of relativity because Einstein said so.
Did you see the thread on different paradigms?
From the OP:
quote:
I have been wondering about why it is so hard for scientists, and evolutionary biologists in particular, to communicate and convince Creationists of scientific ideas. I have also been reading a lot of Thomas Kuhn lately. I don't think you need to be familiar with Kuhn's entire philosophy to understand where this is going, but I'll give a brief summary.
Kuhn says that different scientific fields exist in different paradigms, which is the context in which scientists investigate their field of sceince. Researchers in different fields work under different paradigms, and so often have trouble interacting, since their methods and terminology are so different. E.g. Fluid mechanists recognize solids and fluid, whereas chemists recognize solids, liquids, and gases. Marine biologist wonder what happens to larvae that are released from a specific point, physical oceanographers model how the entire ocean moves. A molecular biologist thinks of a species as forming a phylogenetic clade, whereas an ecologist thinks of a species as a groups of animals with ecological similar roles, whereas an evolutionary biologist thinks of a species as a reproductively isolated group of individuals.
The point is, the communication problem results from the fact that different terminology is used, that we are interacting under different paradigms. Many creationists (and cdesign proponentsists) use scientific terminology in the wrong way, indicating that they are thinking in an alternate context, using alternate terminology like random mutation, natural selection, evolving into a new species, humans coming from apes, etc. They have been taught to put together phrases about evolution in a manner which differs from the biological manner, which indicates they they are thinking in a different Kuhnian paradigm.
Any connection?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 04-29-2008 6:10 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 92 of 356 (464874)
04-30-2008 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Wumpini
04-29-2008 1:56 PM


Re: It appears you are misquoting the study
quote:
"While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness"
And the same article also said that scientists were "almost unanimous" on "Darwinian evolution" as an explanation for man.
What we're talking about is your interpretation of an article in a newspaper written by a journalist about his interpretation of scientists' responses to a set of questions that he doesn't actually list, in which he says the exact opposite of what you want him to say.
He says:
quote:
Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins.
But somehow you are managing to interpret that as the complete opposite, 'cos that fits your ideas better.
Just try to get your head round the idea that these scientists are right, that they know stuff about science that you don't, and that the 40% of them who believe in God aren't nuts.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Wumpini, posted 04-29-2008 1:56 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 3:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 93 of 356 (464881)
04-30-2008 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Dr Adequate
04-30-2008 1:29 PM


Maybe this will clear things up
Dr Adequate says:
But somehow you are managing to interpret that as the complete opposite, 'cos that fits your ideas better.
Just try to get your head round the idea that these scientists are right, that they know stuff about science that you don't, and that the 40% of them who believe in God aren't nuts.
It seems that I have been confusing the theory of evolution (that over time populations change) with the mechanics for evolution (what causes this change). As I study more, it is becoming evident that I need to separate the two.
In the statistical survey that I quoted, I was not looking at them separately.
Let me try to explain how I was thinking.
Evolution appears to be defined as a natural process (still occurring naturally today) where changes occur in populations of organisms over time that results in the diversity of life that we see today.
Based upon the study that I quoted, I make the following conclusions:
It seems that 95% of the scientists believe that the process of evolution is occurring today, and has occurred in the past, and is responsible for the diversity that we see in life today.
It seems that 55% of the scientists believe that the mechanism for this process has always been completely natural. In other words, there was never any supernatural intervention at any time.
It seems that 40% of the scientists believe that the mechanism for this process has been aided through supernatural intervention. This supernatural intervention could have been as simple as God created the process and let evolution take it's own course. Or, it could be that God assisted the process throughout. I do not know what these scientists believe, but it does not appear that they believe the process was entirely natural. I am sure that many of them are convinced that God has instilled in humans a spiritual existence (soul if you will) that they do not attribute to evolution.
The remaining 5% appear to believe that a supernatural process created these organisms in their complete form within the last 10,000 years. I would think that even these men believe in evolution in the sense that changes are continuing to occur today.
I hope that this explains why I stated that these scientists should not be grouped together. Yes, they all believe in evolution, but they believe in different mechanisms that started the process or moved the process along.
I hope that you can see how I was looking at things. I was stating that there was division among the scientists. It did not occur to me until later that we were not talking about the same things. I was talking about the mechanism, while everyone else was talking about the result.
Therefore, my conclusion would be that most scientists believe in evolution. They believe that changes have occurred in populations in the past, and are continuing to occur in the present. Most of these scientists (the 5% excluded) would say that this process is responsible for the diversity that we see in organisms on the earth today. There appears to be little division between scientists that changes are occurring in organisms, and I agree. ( I do not concur as of yet that evolution is responsible for the diversity we see in life.)
However, it would appear that only a little more than half of the scientists believe this process was completely natural. Almost one-half of the scientists would attribute a supernatural influence (God if you will)to the mechanism that resulted in the diversity we see today. There appears to be division in the scientific world related to the mechanism of evolution. A significant portion of this division are scientists who are of the opinion that a supernatural influence was involved in the process. This is where I saw the division among scientists.
I am truly trying to see your side of the picture. I am not making arguments only for the sake of argument. If I say something, it is because, at the time, I believe it to be true. If I find later that what I believe is false based upon the evidence (regardless of whether it conflicts with my theological beliefs), I will change what I believe, and make that fact known.
Therefore, I concur that almost all scientists believe in evolution. Whether they all have the same definitions, or different definitions, I do not know. I also am convinced, until the evidence shows otherwise, that scientists are divided about the mechanism responsible for these changes, and many scientists believe that a supernatural element (God) is somehow involved in the process.
I will continue to attempt to come to a better understanding of this subject.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-30-2008 1:29 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2008 3:52 PM Wumpini has replied
 Message 95 by Blue Jay, posted 04-30-2008 4:09 PM Wumpini has replied
 Message 101 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-30-2008 7:34 PM Wumpini has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 356 (464886)
04-30-2008 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Wumpini
04-30-2008 3:03 PM


Re: Maybe this will clear things up
Therefore, I concur that almost all scientists believe in evolution. Whether they all have the same definitions, or different definitions, I do not know. I also am convinced, until the evidence shows otherwise, that scientists are divided about the mechanism responsible for these changes, and many scientists believe that a supernatural element (God) is somehow involved in the process.
But they don't incorporate god into the scientific explanation of the process.
Whether god is behind it or not, the process is the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 3:03 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 4:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 95 of 356 (464887)
04-30-2008 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Wumpini
04-30-2008 3:03 PM


Re: Maybe this will clear things up
Hi, Wumpini.
You seem to have grasped the concept. However, I would still suggest that you be careful with this statement:
Wumpini writes:
There appears to be division in the scientific world related to the mechanism of evolution.
The only mechanism that has survived scientific study until this date is natural selection. I am a Christian, and I believe that there is a God and that somehow He is involved in our being here. But, as you will see from my arguments (sorry if any were insulting or impolite toward you), I argue strictly on the side of materialistic, naturalistic evolution in every thread at this forum. Likely, most of the 40% would do the same.
Also, it's been eleven years since that paper was done, and I'd be willing to bet that the figures have tipped considerably since then.
I just graduated from Brigham Young University. BYU, in case you didn't know, is owned and operated by the Mormon church, and we have religious education general requirements for graduation. The faculty have to be devout members of the church (with a few exceptions) and are interviewed based on their "testimony of the Church" more than their scientific prowess. Yet, there isn't a single creationist on the biology faculty here: in fact, I don't think any of the faculty even argue with human evolution by the same process: natural selection (they think "random" processes, such as natural selection, are a manifestation of God's creative processes). Yet, almost certainly, ninety percent of them would be among the 40% "theistics" from the article you provided.

I'm Thylacosmilus.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 3:03 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 5:32 PM Blue Jay has replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 96 of 356 (464890)
04-30-2008 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by New Cat's Eye
04-30-2008 3:52 PM


Should we consider the implications?
Catholic Scientist says:
Whether god is behind it or not, the process is the same.
I would agree that the process that is being observed today would be the same.
However, if God was involved in the process sometime in the past, and according to the study 45% of scientists say that He was, would our conclusions be the same?
It seems it would be wise to consider the implications even if they could not be scientifically predicted.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2008 3:52 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by lyx2no, posted 04-30-2008 5:07 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 98 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2008 5:14 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 100 by Rahvin, posted 04-30-2008 5:38 PM Wumpini has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 97 of 356 (464891)
04-30-2008 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Wumpini
04-30-2008 4:57 PM


We Do Consider the Implications
. would our conclusions be the same?
Um! . yes. Our conclusions have to match what is in evidence. And what is currently in evidence is . um, currently in evidence. So why would our conclusions be different if everything looks exactly the same as it does now? Which it does.

Kindly
Ta-da ≠ QED

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 4:57 PM Wumpini has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 356 (464892)
04-30-2008 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Wumpini
04-30-2008 4:57 PM


Re: Should we consider the implications?
Whether god is behind it or not, the process is the same.
I would agree that the process that is being observed today would be the same.
However, if God was involved in the process sometime in the past, and according to the study 45% of scientists say that He was, would our conclusions be the same?
Well, yes. They would.
The conclusion is drawn from the evidence. Whether the evidence happened with or without god is of no concern.
The evidence is that objects consistently fall to the earth when dropped. It doesn't matter if that is an entirely natural process or if god is actually pushing things down.
The fact that things are falling is just describing how god, himself, pushes things to the ground. Or its describing how Santa Clause does it, or its describing how the process naturally occurs. It doesn't matter what we put 'behind' the evidence, the conclusion will be the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 4:57 PM Wumpini has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 99 of 356 (464894)
04-30-2008 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Blue Jay
04-30-2008 4:09 PM


Mechanisms of evolution
Bluejay says:
The only mechanism that has survived scientific study until this date is natural selection.
I have only began to study this subject so I probably have no idea what I am talking about.
However, an article by Douglas Theobald on the talk origin website lists numeorus mechanisms for macroevolution including natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation.
I have no idea if these are mutually exclusive mechanisms, or interrelated processes. I am very much limited in the amount of time I can spend to look at this stuff.
Have all of these mechanisms been rejected by the scientific community, or are they all considered part of natural selection?
Here is the link if you want to look at it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html
There is also an explanation of these mechanisms and some additional processes including adaptation, gene flow, and mutation at this link:
Evolution - Wikipedia
You say:
natural selection (they think "random" processes, such as natural selection, are a manifestation of God's creative processes). Yet, almost certainly, ninety percent of them would be among the 40% "theistics" from the article you provided
I am curious, since BYU is a religious institution, how the professors explain the existence of the human soul? That part of a human being that the Christian world believes separates humans from all other living things.
Is this part of the evolutionary process?
It seems that if we evolve like any other animal, then God must be involved in the process somehow.
Edited by Wumpini, : changed wording

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Blue Jay, posted 04-30-2008 4:09 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Blue Jay, posted 05-01-2008 12:04 PM Wumpini has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 100 of 356 (464896)
04-30-2008 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Wumpini
04-30-2008 4:57 PM


Re: Should we consider the implications?
I would agree that the process that is being observed today would be the same.
However, if God was involved in the process sometime in the past, and according to the study 45% of scientists say that He was, would our conclusions be the same?
It seems it would be wise to consider the implications even if they could not be scientifically predicted.
First off: yes, our conclusions would be the same. The Theory of Evolution i still just a model of an observed process. We might add in a little bit that says "God is responsible for this process, and guided the variety of life through seemingly random mutations to eventually result in humanity," if we had conclusive evidence showing as much. We don't, of course. The 45% will still admit that, I'm positive.
And now you get into the realm of misleading statistics. 45% of scientists believe in some sort of supernatural "force" that "guides" evolution, sure...but do all of them actually believe that supernatural force is the Christian God?
What percentage are Christian? What percentage are Muslim? Hindu? Buddhist (a non-deity religion technically, but they still believe in the supernatural)? What percentage are new-agey miscellaneous "spiritual" people?
Remember, the survey doesn't say "45% believe the Christian God is the cause behind evolution." It says that 45% believe in some sort of guiding "creator" and that human beings have some sort of "soul." Technically, you have to ask what percentage think space aliens are responsible for guiding evolution. If they can't even agree on which deity because there is no evidence from which to draw a conclusion, how can we teach that in schools?
This is the reason god is left out of biology: there is no objective evidence requiring a deity to be included in the model. It works just fine without it. Adding the deity of your choice is a matter of faith, and while it doesn't contradict evolution to say "my deity caused it," the evidence doesn't support that, either. It's a matter of personal faith and a decision to violate parsimony in your personal beliefs. Scientists cannot violate parsimony in a scientific paper or model.
You can say that "excluding god" means not allowing ourselves to fully see "the truth," but science really isn't excluding anything - it's simply only including that for which it has objective evidence. If "deity x" decides tomorrow to plant objective evidence proving conclusively that he is necessary for the model to work (I don't know, a binary code in the junk DNA of human beings that mysteriously never changes and is present in all humans and only humans, and which when encoded into a computer opens as a .jpg image of a smiley face and a caption that says "God was here! I totally did all of this!" in every language) science will be surprised but will still assimilate the new evidence into all of our current understanding.
There's no rule in science that says "god isn't allowed in here." There is a rule that says "we don't comment on things we have no evidence for." Right now, that happens to include "god," and so we don't talk about "god" in science classrooms.
Let me say this the most obvious way I can:
If you have a basic understanding of algebra, this will make snese.
IF
a + b = c
AND
a + b + x = c
THEN
x = 0.
You can still include x, and the equation is still balanced and makes sense, but it makes just as much sense without it. All things being equal, the simplest expression, that is, the expression with the fewest terms, is preferred - the x is at best irrelevant, and at worst nonexistent.
In exactly the same way:
IF
(the observed diversity of life on Earth) = (one or more initial life forms) + (evolution) + (time)
AND
(the observed diversity of life on Earth) = (one or more initial life forms) + (evolution) + (time) + ("god")
THEN
("god") is at best irrelevant to the equation, and at worst nonexistent. You can include ("god") if you choose to as a personal belief, but without an objective reason to include ("god"), it would violate parsimony to include it in a scientific paper because, all things being equal, the simplest expression is preferred.
Does this help you understand why "god" is not involved in science?
(PS: The Principle of Parsimony is often called Occam's Razor. It states that all things being equal, the simplest expression is preferred. This means that it doesn't make sense to add additional entities like x to an equation, or fairies to a scientific theory. If there is no objective reason to include an entity, it is at best irrelevant to the equation/model at hand, and at worst it simply doesn't exist. I don't mean to sound condescending, but you stated that you were new to debating, so perhaps this will help you understand where I'm coming from)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 4:57 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 11:58 PM Rahvin has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 101 of 356 (464901)
04-30-2008 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Wumpini
04-30-2008 3:03 PM


Re: Maybe this will clear things up
It seems that 40% of the scientists believe that the mechanism for this process has been aided through supernatural intervention. This supernatural intervention could have been as simple as God created the process and let evolution take it's own course. Or, it could be that God assisted the process throughout. I do not know what these scientists believe, but it does not appear that they believe the process was entirely natural. I am sure that many of them are convinced that God has instilled in humans a spiritual existence (soul if you will) that they do not attribute to evolution.
No, you're still misinterpreting it. Those 40% are not scientists who disagree, in any way, with what is taught in biology textbooks. They don't. They agree with it. The article says that they are "almost unanimous" in favor of what the article calls "Darwinian evolution".
The 40% are the 40% of scientists who believe in God. They aren't trying to debate evolution any more than they are trying to debate gravity.
You are trying to lump them all together with the tiny, tiny minority who believe that evolution happened but that God's personal intervention was the driving force. And you are doing this by studiously misreading one paragraph written by one journalist in one newspaper about his interpretation of what some opinion poll says.
You're wrong, OK? This is why you have to base your argument on a newspaper article that said that scientists were "almost unanimous" in agreeing that "Darwinian evolution" was responsible for the human race, including the 40% of scientists who are theists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 3:03 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 10:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 102 of 356 (464911)
04-30-2008 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Dr Adequate
04-30-2008 7:34 PM


Are scientists divided over whether God exists and His involvement in man's origin?
Dr Adequate says:
No, you're still misinterpreting it.
No, I am trying to use the results of this study so that I can gain a better understanding of what scientists believe about the origin of life.
Dr Adequate says:
Those 40% are not scientists who disagree, in any way, with what is taught in biology textbooks. They don't. They agree with it. The article says that they are "almost unanimous" in favor of what the article calls "Darwinian evolution".
The study says nothing about whether these scientists agree completely with what is taught in biology textbooks. I can see that in your opinion that the 40% agree with what is taught in biology textbooks.
The comment regarding "Darwinian evolution" appears to be the opinion of the author of the article. He also has the opinion that these scientists believe that God guided evolution so that man would possess a soul.
The context of the quote in the article is as follows:
quote:
While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness, a new survey shows. Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process.
Here is a link to the entire article:
Many Scientists...
It appears that the three questions that were asked the scientists were as follows:
quote:
On 6 occasions, the first in 1982 and the others between 1991 and 2001, the Gallup Poll asked respondents to choose among three statements:
God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10 000 years.
Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.
Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.
Here is a link to the questions:
The Creationists...
I do not know what these scientists that were polled believe except what relates to these questions.
Everything else that is being considered are opinions. You and others are telling me what the scientists believe, the man (Larry Witham) who wrote the article is telling me what they believe, and another member told me that it does not matter what they believe because if they are not scientists in the field of biology then their opinion is about as valuable as a custodians's opinion (Those are not the exact words, but that is the jist of it).
Here is what I do know based upon this study.
Of the scientists that were polled:
5% believe "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10 000 years. "
40% believe "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation."
55% believe "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process."
So the study appears to show that scientists are divided on whether God was involved in the process of the evolution of man, including man's creation.
I am not attempting to misconstrue what scientists believe. Since the study that is being quoted is the only evidence that I have found that relates to the beliefs of scientists, I am attempting to use the information to get an idea in my mind (however rough or accurate) of how scientists view the theory of evolution, including the mechanisms, and the origin of life.
Edited by Wumpini, : Added link to first article
Edited by Admin, : Shorten links.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-30-2008 7:34 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by lyx2no, posted 04-30-2008 11:50 PM Wumpini has replied
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 05-01-2008 9:13 AM Wumpini has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 103 of 356 (464922)
04-30-2008 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Wumpini
04-30-2008 10:44 PM


Almost Unanimously
I am not attempting to misconstrue what scientists believe. Since the study that is being quoted is the only evidence that I have found that relates to the beliefs of scientists, I am attempting to use the information to get an idea in my mind (however rough or accurate) of how scientists view the theory of evolution, including the mechanisms, and the origin of life.
And You are ignoring what scientists themselves are telling you. They are evidence.
An auto mechanic does not have to take a poll of his fellow mechanics to know that few of them are of the opinion that too much air pressure in the tires can cause the brake fluid to be forced out of the calipers.

Kindly
Ta-da ≠ QED

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 10:44 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Wumpini, posted 05-01-2008 12:23 AM lyx2no has replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 104 of 356 (464923)
04-30-2008 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Rahvin
04-30-2008 5:38 PM


God does not equal zero!
Rahvin says:
What percentage are Christian? What percentage are Muslim? Hindu? Buddhist (a non-deity religion technically, but they still believe in the supernatural)? What percentage are new-agey miscellaneous "spiritual" people?
I really don't think it matters what supernatural force these scientists believe was involved. It could even be your fairies for that matter. The point is they believe that something had an effect that was not natural.
Does this help you understand why "god" is not involved in science?
Not really. It appears to me that there is a fallacy in your calculation.
>>>>>>
You are assuming that God had no part in anything. This formula would be true for the 55% of scientists who say God was not involved in any way whatsoever.
In that instance:
God = 0
Therefore - evolution = evolution + God
Therefore - Observed diversity = life forms + evolution + time
God is irrelevant as you stated.
>>>>>>>
However 5% of the scientists believe God created these organisms completely formed 10,000 years ago. Therefore on day one of creation, for these scientists, the formula would be as follows:
evolution = 0 (There was no time for any evolution)
time = 0 (Time had only just begun)
Therefore - God = God + evolution + time
Therefore - Observed diversity = life forms + God
On the day of creation evolution and time are irrelevant.
>>>>>>
That leaves the 40% that believe that God was involved in the process, including man's creation. We do not know how involved. However, we do know that His involvement does not equal zero.
God does not equal zero.
Evolution does not equal zero.
Time does not equal zero.
Therefore - Observed diversity = life forms + God + evolution + time
All of the components are necessary for the calculation.
>>>>>>>
The fact that you cannot measure the value that God played in the observed diversity does not mean that He played no part.
You may say that we must ignore the supernatural part because it is impossible to measure. You may say that we do not teach the supernatural part as science because it is impossible to measure.
However, if 45% of scientists believe that the supernatural exists and was part of the process, then I believe this is significant.
Edited by Wumpini, : corrected spelling

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Rahvin, posted 04-30-2008 5:38 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-01-2008 9:18 AM Wumpini has replied
 Message 111 by Rahvin, posted 05-01-2008 12:23 PM Wumpini has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 105 of 356 (464925)
05-01-2008 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by lyx2no
04-30-2008 11:50 PM


How am I ignoring what scientists are telling me?
lyx2no says:
And You are ignoring what scientists themselves are telling you. They are evidence.
How would you say that I am ignoring scientists?
I am quoting a study where scientists were asked what they believe. I have no idea whether the people responding on this forum are auto mechanics, custodians, physicians, theologians, biologists, accountants, gas station attendants or whatever. I am hearing and analyzing all of the opinions that I receive.
The only evidence that I have from scientists is the study that I quoted. If some of those who are responding on this board are scientists, then they would fall in one of the three categories that have been mentioned. Either they believe in creation, naturalistic evolution, or God assisted evolution. Even then they could not speak for all scientists. They could only speak for themselves. They could obviously give their opinions on what others believed.
You can feel free to give me your opinion.
Are you a scientist?
What branch of science?
In which category of beliefs do you fall?
What is your opinion about the part that God played in man's origin?
I assure you that I will not ignore your opinion!

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by lyx2no, posted 04-30-2008 11:50 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by lyx2no, posted 05-01-2008 10:13 AM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 109 by lyx2no, posted 05-01-2008 10:50 AM Wumpini has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024