Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Do Scientists Believe in God and Evolution?
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 119 of 145 (469441)
06-05-2008 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by dwise1
06-04-2008 9:30 PM


Re: Chance
dwise writes:
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)?
No. I actually got bored with that book. It did have a lot of good pictures though.
Sorry about not giving you the link though for the quotes.
Evolution and Natural Selection
The Process of Speciation
They came from University of Michigan lecture notes that I have been reading. They may not be any more reliable than my textbook, I do not know. I figured they were pretty good because RAZD gave me the link.
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".
You are really trying to confuse me. Is anything by chance? Why do other scientists say it is by chance and you do not? I have been reading more of those links that RAZD gave me and it seems that at least the process of genetic drift is one that is based upon chance?
quote:
In each generation, some individuals may, just by chance, leave behind a few more descendents (and genes, of course!) than other individuals.
Genetic drift - Understanding Evolution
quote:
In population genetics, genetic drift (or more precisely allelic drift) is the evolutionary process of change in the allele frequencies (or gene frequencies) of a population from one generation to the next due to the phenomena of probability in which purely chance events determine which alleles (variants of a gene) within a reproductive population will be carried forward while others disappear.
Genetic drift - Wikipedia
Am I misreading this, or does it say “purely chance events?”
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?
I am sure not saying that you should deny the existence of God.
God may have a lot to do with learning how the universe works. That is one reason that I started this thread. I wanted to see how scientists that believed in God viewed God's role in the universe.
Which is precisely the attitude that you keep displaying: that scientific investigation is attempting to deny the existence of God.
I do not think scientific investigation is attempting to deny the existence of God. I believe many scientists are attempting to deny the existence of God.

"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 102 by dwise1, posted 06-04-2008 9:30 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by dwise1, posted 06-05-2008 9:29 PM Wumpini has replied

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


Message 127 of 145 (469479)
06-05-2008 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Blue Jay
06-05-2008 4:15 PM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
Hi Bluejay,
This assumes that “the beginning” could only be the beginning of reality, when it could just as easily refer to the beginning of the Christian religion, or the beginning of humans, for that matter. Biblical literalism doesn’t require you to take the most extreme interpretation every time.
Here Jesus is quoting from the book of Genesis, so it has to be when God created man and woman. We cannot try to twist everything in the Bible to fit into a mold that agrees to present scientific theories. It will not work. Somewhere along the line you have to give up something that matters.
With this statement, you’ve assumed that “creation” has to refer to an instantaneous “big poof” event, and cannot refer to a gradual, long-term process such as presented by evolution.
I do not guess I have ever thought of creation as an instantaneous “big poof” event. I guess that is one way to describe what could have happened. Let us look at this closely for one moment because I feel this is about as close as you can get to the topic of this thread. You go on to say:
I see nothing in the genesis account that definitively rules out the possibility that evolution was the mechanism of Creation.
You see that is what I am trying to figure out. How can you make that statement? I have not gone back and looked at any old threads on this subject. My computer link is too slow.
Explain to me how you deal with Genesis and make this statement?
Let us surmise that you say the creation story is not literal. If there was nothing else in the Bible related to this situation, then I do not think this website would exist. But, there is! What about the genealogies? Living in Salt Lake City, I know you know a lot about genealogies. My mother goes there to go through your library so she can figure out our family tree. Those genealogies give specific names and ages. They go all the way from Adam to Jesus with Noah along the way. These genealogies were very important to the Jews. The Bible explicitly says that Adam was the first man. How can we have men on this earth for hundreds of thousands of years when Adam was the first man and we have his genealogy all the way through to Jesus? The problems keep piling up. As I said above, you can only twist the Scriptures so much and then you have to give up something that really matters.
I would say the mechanism is the supernatural power that the mechanic used. I would not say it was the mechanic.
I agree completely.
What you seem to believe is that “God” is synonymous with “the power that God has.”
I do.
He cannot be both the agent and the mechanism: He can’t grab Himself out of His toolbox and use Himself to loosen a bolt. Neither did the mechanic in your example grab himself out of his toolbox and use himself to fix his car. The “mechanism” (or “power” or “tool,” whatever) is different from the entity wielding it.
With us that is true. With the mechanic that is true. With God that is not true.
So, you can say the mechanism is a supernatural, unexplanable “power,” but this is different from saying that the mechanism is the person who wields this “power.
The mechanism is a supernatural unexplainable power called God. You cannot separate the power of God from God.
” The mechanism of creation is the “power” that God wields, and I believe that “power” to be natural selection (in the case of life being “created” from pre-existing forms of life).
However, we are not talking about natural selection when we are talking of creation. We are talking about that instantaneous “poof event” that you mentioned above.
Also note here that a God who can spontaneously---without any tool or mechanism but His own will---cause things to happen, is not a God of order, but a God of chaos.
Why would a spontaneous miracle cause God to be a God of chaos? Aren’t there miracles in the Bible that are instantaneous?
I do not believe that God can just act in any way He wishes.
This is true.
Consider this: is God good? Does He have to be good? Does He have the power to do evil? If He can switch to evil for no reason, He could just as easily have lied about the whole Bible, and you can’t really be certain it’s true. If He cannot switch to evil, He is governed or restricted by something. This would mean that there are rules that even He has to follow, which makes His power conditional.
This is somewhat true. He does not follow rules. He is who He is. God does not lie! Why? Because God does not lie! It is that simple. There is no rule book.
If His power is conditional, than it is being governed by something other than Him.
This is not true. Are you saying that God has a God? His power is limited by who He is, not by some outside force.
Thus, a God of order is not the mechanism for His own work.
This statement does not even fit into your argument. You will have to explain your logic.
It’s really quite simple: if I’m using a word in a certain context or with a certain definition, your rebuttal must address the definition I’m using. Otherwise, the rebuttal is invalid, because it doesn’t even address what I actually said, it only addresses a point of semantic confusion that isn’t really relevant to the argument anyway.
Okay. I will try to do better.
Perhaps you just overlooked this semantic error, or maybe you’re deliberately trying to confuse me. But I think it’s more likely that you really do see faith as “belief without evidence,” but you’re attacking that definition because it sounds derogatory.
I assure you I was not trying to confuse you. I may confuse myself. I think you have confused me. I do not see faith as belief without evidence. However, it is obvious that I cannot use the word consistently so maybe I should quit using it altogether. From now on, in our discussions I will try to describe what I mean instead of use the word faith. I will probably forget, but maybe you can remind me.
Yet, all the definitions you provided for the word “magic” basically said “a supernatural power,” and none of them said anything that could not be applied to the power of God.
I said that I would not use the word. I told you my reasons. If you want to use the word then it is fine with me.
Further, how can you be sure that your feelings are any more reliable than mine?
I do not compare my feelings to others to determine what they mean.
That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you, and you’ve been largely rejecting it. There is a lot to be learned from the natural world, and what it is trying to teach us in relation to life is evolution. Whether or not God was involved, science will never know, because the natural world is unable to tell us that.
I have not been rejecting anything about the natural world. I have been studying about evolution, the cosmos, meteorology, geology, chemistry, biology, and even some physics, for starters. I believe that there is a lot of good that can come from science. I have no problem with science. I only have a problem with some of their theories and conclusions. Most of science is fine with me.
Just a thought exercise here: if I (or anyone) thought science had all the answers, why would I (or anyone) still be doing it?
You can try to read a little into what I say. Obviously, I mean that science cannot give us all of the answers. Why I did not word my sentence that way originally, I do not know.
Wrong. Science can only say, “outside of what we can see, hear, smell, touch and taste there is nothing that we can comment on.” Get that through your head: science doesn’t say that what it can’t test doesn’t exist, it only says that what it can’t test it can’t test, and it can’t incorporate what it can’t test in its tests of things that it can test.
Sometimes, I think that I may confuse science with this forum. They do a lot of commenting about God on this forum. You know that there are a lot of posts that try to make people feel foolish for believing in God.
Basically, with the EvC debate, I regularly face this very question: is it more important to preserve people’s faith, or to tell them the truth?
Are you sure you know the truth?
Every creationist I have ever met or conversed with on this site has provided nothing more than PRATTs as “evidence” for creationism, cannot answer the arguments brought against creationism with anything more than “you can’t prove it’s not true,” or “it seems hard to believe,” and generally doesn’t even understand what the theory they’re disagreeing with says in the first place. Do you expect me to support arguments like that, just because it helps people’s faith? If so, I sincerely believe that you are the one who should be on pills, and not me.
I do not know what you should do. I would be careful though. If God does exist, the scientifically correct answer may not be the truth. If you believe in the miracles of the Bible (and I do not know if you do) then you know there are events that cannot be explained by science. Think about that.

"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 118 by Blue Jay, posted 06-05-2008 4:15 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Blue Jay, posted 06-06-2008 2:19 PM Wumpini has replied

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


Message 129 of 145 (469490)
06-05-2008 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Straggler
06-05-2008 4:59 PM


Re: Chance
Straggler writes:
You seemed to be arguing the theistic position based on probability in some way. No?
I guess not since I have no idea what the position may be.
Wumpini writes:
Why did it take man hundreds of thousands of years to communicate in written language?
Straggler writes:
Who knows. At a guess I would say several factors played a part.
Possibly there were not any humans here to write anything down.
I perceive that the history of science is full of examples of things that God "must" have been responsible for. Things which we now not only understand but which we can, in many cases, now manipulate. . The God of the gaps is a shrinking god.
It sounds like you are predicting the end of theism as we know it in the world today.
Yes it will have consequences. Lets say that the investigation into abiogenesis leads to an understanding of the nature of life that leads to a cure for cancer. Lets say that the search into the origins of the universe leads to future technologies that one day in the dim and distant future take man to the stars. Overly optimistic? Maybe. But one thing is certain. If we accept that God created life and God started the universe we have no reason to look for the natural phenomenon relating to these areas and no reason to ever progress beyond that simplistic answer that actually tells us nothing about anything other than our own delusions of grandeur.
Why would a belief in God keep us from researching abiogenesis? It does not change anything if it is possible for life to come from non-life. Why would a belief in God keep scientists from probing further back towards T=0. A better understanding of physical principles cannot change whether God created the universe. This sounds like something that was invented by those who are involved in this argument. I would not think anyone is saying that we should not research in these areas. Am I misunderstanding something here?

"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 123 by Straggler, posted 06-05-2008 4:59 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Straggler, posted 06-05-2008 7:41 PM Wumpini has replied

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


Message 132 of 145 (469570)
06-06-2008 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Straggler
06-05-2008 7:41 PM


Re: Chance
Straggler writes:
When are you talking about exactly and what other evidence is there for human existence at that time?
I have not researched this at all. I am basing these statements on someone else’s comment that humans had been here for hundreds of thousands of years. Doing a quick Google, it looks as if science may think this number may be a little smaller. Am I wrong that scientists think humans have been here for a long time?
Really? If life can come from non-life whre is the need for God in this process?
The question is not whether God is needed. Many of the miracles in the Bible could be reproduced naturally through other means. That does not change the fact of the miracle. Does the fact that men can grow wheat and catch fish mean that God did not need to perform the miracle where Jesus fed thousands of people with a few fish and loaves of bread? If science does solve the mystery of abiogenesis that does not eliminate the possibility that God was involved in the process.
Really? If, for example, it is shown that the Big Bang and our universe were all but inevitable by natural means where does that leave room for God?
Same reasoning as above.
It all depends what role someone believes God plays in the physical universe.
To the biblical literalist all such reearch is presumably folly at best and a huge anti-God conspiracy at worst.
I see no problem with the research in any area of science.
If we "know" the answer - God did it - The incentive to search for natural answers that actually add to our understanding disappears.
I do not understand this reasoning. Whatever happened supernaturally in the past does not change what is happening naturally in the present. It also does not negate man’s ability to project these processes backwards and forwards. The only thing that supernatural intervention at some time in the past would change is the conclusions that scientists reach about events that happened in the past. The truths about the natural world would not change.

"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 130 by Straggler, posted 06-05-2008 7:41 PM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 133 of 145 (469571)
06-06-2008 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by dwise1
06-05-2008 9:29 PM


Re: Chance
dwise writes:
It would no doubt advance the discussion if you were to explain what you mean by "by chance", since you are the one who introduced it (my emphasis):
My introduction of "by chance:"
Wumpini msg 86 writes:
Are there not areas where it seems that it is so improbable that what scientists are looking at could come about by chance that it would be logical and rational to infer something other than a natural explanation?
Your response:
dwise msg 88 writes:
By chance? Of course not.
By natural processes? Yes, of course.
Whatever gave you the idea that it's by "chance"?
Since that time you seem to have been trying to convince me that there is no such thing as chance when natural processes are involved. I am beginning to see your reasoning with your illustration. Maybe I can help us to begin talking about the same thing. Don't worry. I am not trying to pull you into some creationist trap.
A suitable definition:
quote:
The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause.
However, let us not argue the definition. I think from reading your post I can see where we are not understanding each other. I am not talking about a tornado putting together the parts of an airplane.
Let me give an example using natural processes, and then try to apply it to our discussion. Let us say that you dropped me in a strange part of the world, blindfolded me, and then sent me on my way. What would be the probability that I would reach any destination? Well there is no chance element in that case. The probability is certain. It is a natural process with an assured outcome. I believe this is what you are trying to assert with the processes of evolution.
However what is the probability that I will reach any specific destination? Since I do not know where I am, and I do not know where I am going then it would be “seemingly impossible” for me to reach a particular destination by chance. The probability would be close to zero, and it would become more unlikely as the distance from my starting point increased. Now let us compare that to the question at hand.
Remember my original comment:
Wumpini msg 86 writes:
Are there not areas where it seems that it is so improbable that what scientists are looking at could come about by chance that it would be logical and rational to infer something other than a natural explanation?
Is abiogenesis (for example) so improbable through natural processes by chance that it would be logical and rational to infer something other than a natural explanation? That was my original usage of the expression "by chance."
I have read only a little on the process of abiogenesis. However, it does not seem as simple as a few chemical reactions taking place in the proper order if my understanding is correct. You have left hand and right amino acids and whatever else to deal with that would seem to make it difficult for natural processes to have resulted in sustainable life.
dwise writes:
The first creationist example demands the system to behave in a manner inconsistent with natural processes and so will be virtually impossible to succeed, whereas the second example is completely consistent with natural processes and so will work every single time.
I think I discussed this above. Yes, natural processes will work every single time. However, it is very unlikely that these natural processes will result in any specific outcome.
dwise writes:
That is the difference between something happening "by chance" and it happening through natural processes.
I am not sure whether we understand each other or not. I see certain events as being very improbable. Whether they could theoretically happen through natural processes does not change the fact that they are very unlikely to occur. You seem to be saying that because things exist today then that proves that they have come about through natural processes. I believe there is a flaw in this line of reasoning. I agree from a scientific standpoint that you must have this viewpoint. However, it is a completely naturalistic view that does not accept that it is possible that something can come into existence through some process that was not natural.
BTW, do you understand genetic drift? In those quotes, the term "by chance" is used to indicate that there those are cases where natural selection is not operating on those genes and that the survival and propagation of those genes are due to other "random" factors. "Random" factors that are themselves natural processes and which can even be very deterministic; it's just that we don't know what they might happen to be in any particular case.
I am coming to an understanding of some of these concepts. I would think that genetic drift would fall under my definition of chance. Some unknown and unpredictable event comes along and eliminates all (or many) members of a population that have a specific gene. Therefore, the population drifts “by chance.”
Does that make things any clearer?
I think so. Do you think so?

"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 131 by dwise1, posted 06-05-2008 9:29 PM dwise1 has not replied

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


Message 135 of 145 (469683)
06-06-2008 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Blue Jay
06-06-2008 2:19 PM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
Hi Bluejay.
Bluejay writes:
Allright, well there’s a conflict then: Matthew 19:4 said man and woman were created in the beginning, when Genesis said they weren’t made until six days after the beginning.
Oh come on Bluejay. I am sure that you can see the entire creation week as the beginning.
You find it hard to understand how I can believe in God and in evolution, and keep saying that the mechanism that brought us into life was supernatural. Supernatural origins = unexplanable-by-science origins = magical origins = “Big Poof.”
If that is the case, then what has the God that you believe in ever done that cannot be explained by science?
What about them? I met people in Taiwan who claim to have their genealogies back to a thousand years before Adam, and they have it all recorded on little wooden plaques that they stack in their family shrines.
So you are saying that the genealogies in the book of Genesis are fabricated, and Jesus’ genealogy in the book of Luke is worthless also.
Wumpini writes:
You cannot separate the power of God from God.
Bluejay writes:
I disagree. Where does the Bible say this?
Why do you disagree? Can you tell me your logic?
But I'm sure the materialistic explanation is closer to the truth than the "Big Poof" explanation. In fact, I'm sure the materialistic explanation is the best one that humans have ever come up with (Straggler's "God-hypothesis" included) and I will support it, work on it myself, and improve upon it until I die, and then, in the next life (I hope there is a next life), God (I hope there is one of these, too) can fill in the gaps that will inevitably remain.
Does this not seem a little contradictory? You rely upon materialistic explanations in this life, and look forward to a “next life” provided by a God that in no way can be explained by a materialistic explanation.

"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 134 by Blue Jay, posted 06-06-2008 2:19 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Blue Jay, posted 06-06-2008 8:57 PM Wumpini 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