Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
281 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (3 members, 278 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,721 Year: 21,757/19,786 Month: 320/1,834 Week: 320/315 Day: 76/77 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Key points of Evolution
Percy
Member
Posts: 19046
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 106 of 356 (464945)
05-01-2008 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Wumpini
04-30-2008 10:44 PM


Re: Are scientists divided over whether God exists and His involvement in man's origin?
Wumpini writes:

40% believe "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation."

You have to understand that when these scientists say they believe that God guided evolution they mean he did so in the same way that God guides gravity or that God guides the behavior of subatomic particles. They believe that God is behind everything in the universe, and this is what I believe, too, but that he does so in a way indistinguishable from completely natural processes.

Were it actually the case that these 40% of scientists believe what you think they believe, that there are detectable forces beyond evolution at work and that evolution is an insufficient explanation for the diversity of life, then because 40% is such a huge proportion evolution could no longer be considered an accepted theory within science, and the scientific literature (and the textbooks) would reflect this. But they don't reflect any such thing, because at least 95% of scientists accept that evolution is not merely a sufficient explanation for the diversity of life, it is wonderfully exquisite, beautiful and elegant, too. So much so that a significant number believe that only God could have come up with it.

--Percy


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Wumpini, posted 05-01-2008 5:03 PM Percy has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 356 (464948)
05-01-2008 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Wumpini
04-30-2008 11:58 PM


Re: God does not equal zero!
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.

No, they're not.

The ToE accurately describes the evidence even when God is not a part of the equation. That doesn't mean that god had nothing to do with it, it means that god is not a necessary component for the calculation.

You're misconstruing what the poll insinuates so you can say that the scientists are divided. They are not divided on whether or not the ToE is accurate.

They are divided on what their personal faiths are, as expected.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 11:58 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Wumpini, posted 05-01-2008 5:43 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3051 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 108 of 356 (464953)
05-01-2008 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Wumpini
05-01-2008 12:23 AM


Re: How am I ignoring what scientists are telling me?
Double post.

Edited by lyx2no, : Double post.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞

Ta-da ≠ QED


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Wumpini, posted 05-01-2008 12:23 AM Wumpini has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3051 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 109 of 356 (464957)
05-01-2008 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Wumpini
05-01-2008 12:23 AM


Re: How am I ignoring what scientists are telling me?
Because half of the people you are talking to right now are the very scientist you're claiming to try to understand. True, you don't know which are which, but if you weren't doing your darnedest to retain your vaunted "scientists are divided" stance you'd recognize that the testimony of folks like Bluejay is far superior to your single poll.

True, again, that the testimony here may be biased, but your own pollees were self selected. Bias is a wash. It's well known (a dodgy phrase if there ever was one) that holders of minority positions have a greater incentive to respond to polls. Check a few more polls and you'll find that 5% number dwindle to 1%. You'll also find that half of that 1% are from the planet Zod.

I'm a hardline atheist. I hold the opinion that God had as much to do with the forming of the Universe as did the duck doodled on the back of my note pad. (However, that position is tentative, and God is welcome to present himself for examination.)

Feel free to ignore my opinion. I myself couldn't get on in a day if I didn't ignore most of them.

Edited by lyx2no, : Vaulted to vaunted.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞

Ta-da ≠ QED


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Wumpini, posted 05-01-2008 12:23 AM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Wumpini, posted 05-01-2008 5:28 PM lyx2no has responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1033 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 110 of 356 (464967)
05-01-2008 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Wumpini
04-30-2008 5:32 PM


Re: Mechanisms of evolution
Wumpini, to Dr A., writes:

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.

I believe you. Thanks for at least trying: it's more than we usually get.

Wumpini, to Bluejay, writes:

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.

Good call: I lumped them all into one when I shouldn't have. Actually, I don't know that I've heard the term "neutral evolution" before.

I can give a little run-down, if you'd like (if you wouldn't like, I did anyway ;) ):

1. Natural Selection = selection against phenotypes that can't survive well enough (e.g., white tigers are not as successful at hiding from prey as orange tigers, so they don't eat as well)

2. Sexual Selection = selection against phenotypes that can't reproduce well enough (e.g., peahens prefer peacocks with longer tails, so short-tailed peacocks are less successful at reproducing)

3. Genetic Drift = genotype ratios in 2 populations are different due to random sampling (e.g., two blue-eyed people happened to be the founders of a new population, so blue eyes are more common in their descendants than in other populations)

4. Theories of Speciation = probably just instances in which the first 3 lead to speciation; alternately, some abrupt changes that prevent the descendants of a population from interbreeding the same way their predecessors did (as with resculpturing of the gonads of an insect, or polyploidy in plants [doubling of the genome that cause infertility between the doubled and undoubled genomes])

I'd like to put in my two cents about Rahvin's equations, too:

Rahvin writes:

(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")

Essentially, materialistic evolutionists use the first equation. And, essentially, theistic evolutionists use the first equation. Intelligent designists, like Michael Behe, like the second equation.

What theistic evolutionists (generally, though perhaps not all of them) say that is different from what IDists say is that God's involvement in the process is already circumscribed inside the equation that doesn't add Him as an extra factor: i.e., the "laws of nature" that govern how evolution proceeds are the manifestation of God's hand in the process. With this logic, you don't have to put Him in separately. And, with this logic, you don't have to choose either science or religion: science doesn't interfere with your beliefs, and your beliefs don't ask you to reject verifiable evidence.


I'm Thylacosmilus.

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 5:32 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Wumpini, posted 05-01-2008 6:06 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 111 of 356 (464968)
05-01-2008 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Wumpini
04-30-2008 11:58 PM


Re: God does not equal zero!
Rahvin says:

quote:
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.

If the scientists polled cannot agree on which deity is responsible, it's hardly accurate to say "45% believe God is involved." It presents the 45% as a unified block when they are most definitely not.

quote:
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.

I don't think you know what a logical fallacy is.

>>>>>>

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.

But I wasn't referring to your survey in my little algebraic expression at all. Personal opinions and beliefs mean nothing; evidence means everything. I couldn't care less that 45% personally believe a deity is involved.

But more to the point, if you actually understood my mathematical analogy, you would realize that the 45% are simply choosing to violate parsimony in their personal beleifs, and leaving ("god") in the equation. It's no different from you leaving an x variable hanging around in an already balanced equation - it doesn't change anything, it's irrelevant to the significant terms, and while it's more parsimonious to leave the x out, leaving it in will only make your math teacher raise an eyebrow.

The entire point of an IF...AND...THEN statement is that IF both of those statements are TRUE, THEN the conclusion follows. It's a logical expression of the most basic sort. IF the first expression is true, AND the second expression is also true, THEN the aditional term in the second expression must be irrelevant, or equal to 0 for the purpose of that specific expression.

>>>>>>>

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.

Again, I couldn't care less about personal beliefs...especially for the 5%, where those beliefs are as demonstrably wrong as suggesting the Earth is flat. My analogy was not intended to be taken differently for each group. The fact is, given existing organisms, evolution is sufficient to explain the variety of life on Earth. My little equation represents that accurately, and was intended to show you why we don't discuss ("god") or other irrelevant terms in the Theory of Evolution - they aren't required, so parsimony dictates they must be removed.

Again, you cannot argue with this unless you are suggesting that one of the two statements in the IF...AND...THEN statement are false. It's basic logic. But no scientist will disagree that the current concensus is that the first statement is indeed the scientific model - including the 40% who have an additional belief regarding a deity.

>>>>>>

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.

We do? You're confusing "I personally believe" with "I can prove." We don't know anything regarding any deity. We know that some scientists personally believe a deity was involved, but again - they're simply choosing to violate parsimony in their personal beliefs. It has nothing to do with the evolutionary model.

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.

No, they are not.

quote:
IF

(the observed diversity of life on Earth) = (original living organism(s)) + (evolution) + (time)


No scientist (barring perhaps the 5%) will argue with this, including the 40% who believe a deity guided the process. This is the currently accepted scientific model, and there is no longer any serious scientific controversy over this simple fact. This model has proven to be just as accurate as the Theory of Gravity, and has just as much evidence in support of it.

quote:
AND

(the observed diversity of life on Earth) = (original living organism(s)) + (evolution) + (time) + ("god")


This is the same expression, with an unnecessary term. The addition of the extraneous term violates parsimony. It is irrelevant. The first expression is sufficient, and this expression does not belong in a science textbook for that reason. Personal beliefs can violate parsimony, or even contradict fact; scientific models cannot.

Let's make it even more clear:

quote:
AND

(the observed diversity of life on Earth) = (original living organism(s)) + (evolution) + (time) + (my dog)


This expression adds my dog to the equation. Obviously, my dog has nothing to do with evolution. But for the purpose of my mathematical analogy, all of these statements are true. If all of the expressions are true, then (my dog) must be irrelevant to the equation. Does that mean (my dog) does not exist? Certainly not! It simply means that parsimony dictates (my dog) does not belong in this model, becasue (my dog) is irrelevant to the other terms of the expression.

Let's go further:

quote:
AND

(the observed diversity of life on Earth) = (original living organism(s)) + (evolution) + (time) + (gravity)


Now we have (gravity) in the same position. Obviously, we know (gravity) exists...but it's not relevant to (the observed diversity of life on Earth).

Is any of this helping you understand the basic logic of an IF...AND...THEN statement? IF all of the statements are true, THEN the conclusion must follow.

>>>>>>>

The fact that you cannot measure the value that God played in the observed diversity does not mean that He played no part.

And I didn't say that a deity played no part. I said that (the observed diversity of life on Earth) = (original living organism(s)) + (evolution) + (time). This is the scientifically accepted model, and it is regarded as sufficient, even by those scientists with an additional belief regarding a deity.

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.

Partially. I say we cannot include entities for which there is no objective evidence in a scientific model, when the entire point of the scientific method is to ensure that only objective evidence and the logical inferences the evidence leads to are included in scientific models. Subjective evidence, like personal beliefs, have no place in science until they can be supported with objective evidence...at which point they are no logner subjective beliefs.

However, if 45% of scientists believe that the supernatural exists and was part of the process, then I believe this is significant.

Significant enough not to ban religious people from scinetific research, sure. But it's still irrelevant to the actual scientific models. Ask any of the many scientists on this board (we have quite a few biologists, physicists, mathemeticians, and others, many of whom are religious) - all of them will tell you that the inclusion of a subjective belief, no matter how commonly held, in a scientific model with no objective evidence to support is would be inappropriate.

In fact, your appeal to the 45% is a logical fallacy: the Appeal to Popularity. The popularity of an idea is irrelevant to the idea's validity. The evidence and logical consistency are all that matter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 11:58 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 4099 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 112 of 356 (464977)
05-01-2008 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Percy
05-01-2008 9:13 AM


Thanks for the input
I appreciate your input. I am not suggesting that I know what these scientists believe. I have only been attempting to understand what they say they believe. However, it does reassure me that 45% of the scientists polled believe in God.

Percy says:

Were it actually the case that these 40% of scientists believe what you think they believe, that there are detectable forces beyond evolution at work and that evolution is an insufficient explanation for the diversity of life,...

Actually, I had gotten to the point where I understood that almost all of the scientists believed that evolution was a sufficient explanation for the diversity of life, and they were teaching the theory as such.

I was wondering though if some or many of them may believe that there were forces beyond evolution at work sometime in the past. You know for things like the creation of the first living organism, or complex organs, or the human brain, or the soul. What I was considering is whether these two beliefs are really mutually exclusive. You may say, "why believe God did anything if evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity?" It seems that if you are going to believe in God then He ought to be doing something. You know like creating the universe, and life.

I think it could be the wording of the statement that is causing me some difficulty. The statement says that "God guided this process, including man’s creation." It also may be that since I do not have a good understanding of the theory of evolution yet, that I can not perceive how someone can believe in God, and also believe in what appears to be a naturalistic theory for the creation of man without any intervention.

I think I will leave it at that and spend more time studying the theory. Maybe that will help me to understand how so many scientists that believe in God can also accept the theory of evolution.


"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 106 by Percy, posted 05-01-2008 9:13 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 05-01-2008 5:24 PM Wumpini has not yet responded
 Message 115 by Rahvin, posted 05-01-2008 5:40 PM Wumpini has not yet responded
 Message 117 by Wounded King, posted 05-01-2008 5:44 PM Wumpini has not yet responded
 Message 118 by Brad McFall, posted 05-01-2008 5:51 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20323
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 113 of 356 (464979)
05-01-2008 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Wumpini
05-01-2008 5:03 PM


Re: Thanks for the input
However, it does reassure me that 45% of the scientists polled believe in God.

Then you should be even more reassured (twice as much?) that 95% feel that evolution explains the diversity of life on earth as we know it.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Wumpini, posted 05-01-2008 5:03 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 4099 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 114 of 356 (464980)
05-01-2008 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by lyx2no
05-01-2008 10:50 AM


I appreciate your opinion
lyx2no says:

... if you weren't doing your darnedest to retain your vaulted "scientists are divided" stance you'd recognize that the testimony of folks like Bluejay

The poll divided them. I was only attempting to understand the division. I think I am coming to that understanding. They are divided on personal beliefs about God, however they do not appear to be divided regarding the sufficiency of the theory of evolution.

That does not mean that scientists are right (or that they are wrong). It means that scientists are either all right or all wrong regarding the theory of evolution. I have not come along far enough to make that conclusion.

By the way, what do you mean by vaulted?

lyx2no says:

(However, that position is tentative, and God is welcome to present himself for examination.)

Maybe God already has already presented himself for examination.

As Percy says:

But they don't reflect any such thing, because at least 95% of scientists accept that evolution is not merely a sufficient explanation for the diversity of life, it is wonderfully exquisite, beautiful and elegant, too. So much so that a significant number believe that only God could have come up with it.

lyx2no says:

Feel free to ignore my opinion. I myself couldn't get on in a day if I didn't ignore most of them.

You spend the day ignoring most of your opinions. Don't be so hard on yourself. I truly appreciate 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 109 by lyx2no, posted 05-01-2008 10:50 AM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by lyx2no, posted 05-01-2008 7:18 PM Wumpini has responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 115 of 356 (464982)
05-01-2008 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Wumpini
05-01-2008 5:03 PM


Re: Thanks for the input
I appreciate your input. I am not suggesting that I know what these scientists believe. I have only been attempting to understand what they say they believe. However, it does reassure me that 45% of the scientists polled believe in God.

Percy says:

quote:
Were it actually the case that these 40% of scientists believe what you think they believe, that there are detectable forces beyond evolution at work and that evolution is an insufficient explanation for the diversity of life,...

Actually, I had gotten to the point where I understood that almost all of the scientists believed that evolution was a sufficient explanation for the diversity of life, and they were teaching the theory as such.

That's pretty much it.

I was wondering though if some or many of them may believe that there were forces beyond evolution at work sometime in the past. You know for things like the creation of the first living organism, or complex organs, or the human brain, or the soul. What I was considering is whether these two beliefs are really mutually exclusive. You may say, "why believe God did anything if evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity?" It seems that if you are going to believe in God then He ought to be doing something. You know like creating the universe, and life.

They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As I'm sure you know, there is a wide variety of beliefs held with regard to (specifically human) origins. The belief that "god" is responsible for "guiding" the random mutations that eventually gave rise to human beings is not incompatible with the Theory of Evolution. The belief that "god" is some sort of "divine watchmaker" who set the whole thing up with perfect omniscient foresight and then stood back to observe is not incompatible with any scientific model. They involve extraneous beliefs that are unsupported by evidence, which is why they aren't part of the models, but that doesn't mean a person can't hold such beliefs without contradicting oneself.

There are some beliefs which are mutually exclusive: 6,000 year old Earth, 6-day Creationism, global Floods, etc. These are in direct conflict with observed evidence. The only way to rationalize those types of beliefs is to say "well, God must have made it look this way as a test of faith." That's an intellectual dead-end, but certainly there are many people who take such a view.

I think it could be the wording of the statement that is causing me some difficulty. The statement says that "God guided this process, including man’s creation."

That's understandable; the statement is incredibly vague. It can be interpreted in any number of ways, some of which are in conflict with science and some which are not.

It also may be that since I do not have a good understanding of the theory of evolution yet, that I can not perceive how someone can believe in God, and also believe in what appears to be a naturalistic theory for the creation of man without any intervention.

By all means, start a thread and ask questions. Many of us are more than happy to help you wrap your head around the concepts. And we have several religious scientists right here on this very board who can tell you what they believe.

I can tell you that, while I was a Christian, I viewed science as the exploration of how God "did it," and not as trying to "replace" him at all. I viewed the Biblical stories as the understanding available at the time - one can hardly expect stoneage nomads to understand a great deal of what we take for granted, and the impotant part to me (at the time, of course) was "God did it." Taken from that perspective, I found no conflict in saying "the Biblical stories are not literally true. Science is a proven method of exploring reality. While I still attribute all of creation to God, science is a much better guide to how he did it and how creation works than the Bible is."

Granted, I'm an Atheist now, but strictly speaking the reason had little to do with conflicts regarding science (or at least not the conflicts we're discussing at the moment).

I think I will leave it at that and spend more time studying the theory. Maybe that will help me to understand how so many scientists that believe in God can also accept the theory of evolution.

As I said, feel free to start a thread. Start with one question you have regarding the Theory of Evolution, and we'll take it from there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Wumpini, posted 05-01-2008 5:03 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 4099 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 116 of 356 (464983)
05-01-2008 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by New Cat's Eye
05-01-2008 9:18 AM


I agree - Yes they are divided, and No they are not divided!
CS says:

You're misconstruing what the poll insinuates so you can say that the scientists are divided. They are not divided on whether or not the ToE is accurate.

Acutally, the scientists are divided on whether they believe God exists. They could also be divided on what role they believe that God has played in the past in this creation where we live. It is hard to tell from the statement they selected in the poll.

Based upon your opinion and others, I would agree that they are not divided upon the sufficiency of the Theory of Evolution.

That does not mean they are right (or that they are wrong). I have not reached that conclusion yet. Though, I am working in that direction.

So, yes they are divided, but no they are not divided! I agree totally.


"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 107 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-01-2008 9:18 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-01-2008 7:10 PM Wumpini has responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2430 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 117 of 356 (464984)
05-01-2008 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Wumpini
05-01-2008 5:03 PM


Re: Thanks for the input
was wondering though if some or many of them may believe that there were forces beyond evolution at work sometime in the past. You know for things like the creation of the first living organism, or complex organs, or the human brain, or the soul. What I was considering is whether these two beliefs are really mutually exclusive. You may say, "why believe God did anything if evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity?" It seems that if you are going to believe in God then He ought to be doing something. You know like creating the universe, and life.

Its worth bearing in mind that they may well believe these things but not consider them to be scientifically viable hypotheses. It surely isn't a requisite of faith that its tenets are all able to be substantiated with scientific evidence, even for a scientist.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Wumpini, posted 05-01-2008 5:03 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3368 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 118 of 356 (464985)
05-01-2008 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Wumpini
05-01-2008 5:03 PM


Re: a force for EvC
quote:
I was wondering though if some or many of them may believe that there were forces beyond evolution at work sometime in the past. You know for things like the creation of the first living organism, or complex organs, or the human brain, or the soul. What I was considering is whether these two beliefs are really mutually exclusive. You may say, "why believe God did anything if evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity?" It seems that if you are going to believe in God then He ought to be doing something. You know like creating the universe, and life.

They are kinda exclusive in the context of how the research is done but the field remains open as to how "a force" may under study lead one to see that that both are acceptable. People doing normal science research dont want to be bothered with what appears to be philosophical.

There is however an issue that could make the notion of "force" NOT applicable here. That is what I struggle with. This distinction of evolution from physics forces was made transparent by G.S Carter in "A Hundred Years of Evolution" in 1959. On a more metaphorical level Sober in recent times presents "evolutionary theory" as a 'theory of forces.'

Because of Mach and arguments against absoulte rotation (relative to the stars) Russell felt certain enough to link perception and physics in such a way that the relation of force to life can not occur except in the exclusionary way. The only way it seems possible to think back from evolutionary 'force' to origins through absolute space and time is to find a way to think of physics of Russell and the biology of Poincare as one.

This is what I do. It seems very chimerical to some. I think it is a new scientific way however. I mention this here.

Edited by Brad McFall, : fix link

Edited by Brad McFall, : fixed


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Wumpini, posted 05-01-2008 5:03 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 4099 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 119 of 356 (464986)
05-01-2008 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Blue Jay
05-01-2008 12:04 PM


Theistic Evolution vs Intelligent Design
Bluejay says:

I believe you. Thanks for at least trying: it's more than we usually get.

Thank you. That is nice of you to say that.

Thanks, also for the definitions of the mechanisms. I found a textbook entitled Evolutionary Analysis, and I have only begun studying natural selection through the analysis of the mutation of a virus. As for the other mechanisms, if I had not read about them in that article, I would have had no idea that they exist.

Essentially, materialistic evolutionists use the first equation. And, essentially, theistic evolutionists use the first equation. Intelligent designists, like Michael Behe, like the second equation.

Through my research in the past few days, I have noticed there is a difference between theistic evolution and intelligent design. I wonder if the scientists that were polled that believed in intelligent design would be classified with the 5% that believe in a young earth, or would some of them have been mixed in with the 40% that believe in the God guided process for evolution?


"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 110 by Blue Jay, posted 05-01-2008 12:04 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by RAZD, posted 05-01-2008 6:14 PM Wumpini has not yet responded
 Message 121 by Rahvin, posted 05-01-2008 6:33 PM Wumpini has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20323
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 120 of 356 (464987)
05-01-2008 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Wumpini
05-01-2008 6:06 PM


Re: Theistic Evolution vs Intelligent Design
I wonder if the scientists that were polled that believed in intelligent design would be classified with the 5% that believe in a young earth, or would some of them have been mixed in with the 40% that believe in the God guided process for evolution?

Some IDists are on record as being old earth christians that accept evolution.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Wumpini, posted 05-01-2008 6:06 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019