dwise writes:
By chance? Of course not.
By natural processes? Yes, of course.
Whatever gave you the idea that it's by "chance"?
I guess I am misunderstanding some of your processes. I can think of a few events that would seem to be to be greatly improbable and that do not appear to include some natural process.
What was the process that initiated the big bang? If there was no cause then how did it come about?
What was the process that brought together that primordial soup into a living organism? If there was no cause then how did these elements form?
Where do you get that "if there was no cause" from? Natural processes, cause-and-effect, deterministic, not chance.
Now, when those inter-acting chains of cause-and-effect become complex (and it does not take much for this to happen), then we do need to resort to stochastic methods (working with probabilities) to figure out what's going on. For example, a device for working a lottery is to place ping-pong balls with numbers on them inside a large plastic globe and to circulate air through that globe to levitate and mix the balls until a fixed number of them exit through a hole that's barely big enough to allow a ball through. All of that happens through natural forces in a deterministic manner such that, if we knew and could described precisely all the forces acting upon those balls and trace with sufficient precision each ball's path through all its collisions against the other balls and against the globe's wall, then we should be able to calculate which balls will exit that globe and in what order. If we knew all that, which we don't, so at best we can work out the probabilities of the outcomes.
But that's still not chance, because the sequence of balls exitting that globe is not by chance, but rather by deterministic natural processes. It only appears to be by chance to those who do not understand what's happening.
{EDIT: Would you try to argue that the complexity of the workings of a lottery globe (or whatever the proper term of it is) is proof of the existence of God? That it can only work because God keeps poking his fingers into it? That we must factor in God into any investigation or discussion of lottery globes? Other than the fact that the use of lottery globes generates more fervent praying by more people than almost anything else, I fail to see why God would have to be directly involved.}
BTW, the proposed primorial soup wouldn't have formed elements. The mechanism for that are stars and novae.
Actually I have been reading a lot of what scientists have to say. They say it is by chance, however they do not refer to it as nonsense. I guess if you say creationists say the same thing then at least scientists and creationists agree on something. These natural processes are by chance. For some reason, you seem to disagree with both of them.
Here are some quotes I have from science related to evolution:
It is customary and expected that when one offers a quote, one cites the source of that quote. Whom are you actually quoting there? Another middle-school textbook (or even the same one)?
And please note that the first quote does not say that evolution is "by chance", but rather the opposite. Natural selection is not random, but rather somewhat deterministic. Even the random part, the increase of genetic variation, is by natural processes, "governed by the laws of genetics" as your mysterious source says. The same with the second quote.
Natural processes, not "by chance".
dwise1 writes:
Which is the better path? To continue to try to learn as much about the universe as we can, even knowing that we will never succeed completely?
Yes, we should do this. However, we should not deny the existence of God.
Who says that learning as much about the universe as we can requires denying the existence of God? Of any god? Or even require that we consider the existence of any gods? What do the gods have to do with learning about how the universe works?
Or closing our eyes firmly, jamming our fingers in our ears, and yelling "la, la, la, la ..." perpetually and as loudly as possible so that we can fend off reality for as long as we can maintain willfull ignorance?
No one is proposing this.
Actually, if one insists on using God to explain natural phenomena, then, yes indeed, that is being proposed. Because if "God" is used as such an answer, then that ends the investigation. Furthermore, it blocks any future investigation because such investigation would be seen as an attack on the existence of God.
Which is precisely the attitude that you keep displaying: that scientific investigation is attempting to deny the existence of God.
dwise1 writes:
The choice is very clear to me and to most others. Is it clear to you? Is it even faintly apparent to you?
You seem to think there are only two choices as to how we approach the search for truth.
Are you proposing that a scientific approach with no consideration of God, or a religious approach with no consideration of science are our only two alternatives?
What ever gave you that idea? Could it be the either/or attitude of this forum?
Which truths are you referring to?
The truth of how the universe works? In that case science is the better tool. Attempts to employ supernatural agents and explanations in that search would not only hinder the search for truth, but it would also harm the scientific endeavor. It serves no purpose to trying dragging in any god.
The truths of the supernatural? Science is of very little use there. This is the realm of the gods.
There's more than one search going on, you know.
First, you imply that the Bible has proven to be contrary to fact.
No, I do not so imply. In fact, I stated quite the opposite. Please read what I wrote. It is believers'
misinterpretation of the Bible (both in what it says and what it is) that has proven to be contrary to fact. Has nothing to do with the Bible, but rather with what they
believe about the Bible.
I'm running out of time to directly address the rest. Suffice to say that fallible humans will get things wrong, even though at the same time they can get things right. It's not either/or, not completely right or completely wrong, but rather a mix of both.
What I am saying is that it is idiotic for them to insist that their theology is completely right and that if any part of it is found to be wrong, then all of it is wrong, God does not exist, and there's no need for morality. Couldn't be further from the truth. Their theology will inevitably get things wrong, but that has no effect on the existence of God (it may have an effect on the existence of their misconception of God, but not on God). And moral exists and continues to be vitally important regardless of theology and even regardless of whether this god or that god or any god exists.
If their theology gets something wrong, then that means that Man has screwed up yet again, not that God doesn't exist. What is idiotic is believing that if Man screws up yet again, then God doesn't exist.
Edited by dwise1, : added the {EDIT}
{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber,
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.(Sherlock Holmes in
The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield,
Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.Robert Colbert on NPR
™ Version 4.2
