Evolution guided by god? Or a natural process?

Evolution is driven by mutation and genetic drift guided by natural selection. When you look at the process itself, it's quite apparent that the process itself is inevitable - no guidance would be necessary, any more than a dropped ball requires guidance to fall to the ground. The copying process for DNA replication is imperfect, and so inevitably minor copying errors are made now and again when organisms reproduce. Since these changes are made to the genetic code of an organism, occasionally some of those changes will be expressed as an altered trait compared to the new organism's ancestor. Some of these altered traits will be beneficial in the organisms environment, or a disaster can alter the environment and allow previously neutral or even detrimental mutations to be beneficial. Those individuals in the population who are slightly better adapted to their current environment will tend to reproduce more, and those beneficial mutations will gradually spread to the majority of the population over several generations. Given a system where resources are limited and reproduction is slightly imperfect, species changing over time is inevitable jsut as that ball falling to the ground is given a Universe that includes gravity.Your argument will likely need to be focused around the random aspects of mutation. Bear in mind that mutations are not compeltely random - they still need to obey the laws of chemistry, and so while mutations can be extremely varied and over time produce enormous variety through cumulative small changes, the "whirlwind in a scrapyard" argument is inappropriate. You could argue that a deity directly "nudges" chance now and again to ensure the inevitable process of evolution leads to the deity's goal. Counter-arguments will typically revolve around vestigial organs and other such "design flaws" - if a deity is guiding the process, it would appear that the deity is extremely bad at designing organisms. Even the extensive variety of life on Earth points to the conclusion that there is no "goal" or intent behind evolution, and that life simply "goes with whatever works" at the time. Attempting to argue that the variety "demonstrates the grandness of God" is simply an argument from personal incredulity, a logical fallacy.A better argument might be that, if a deity Created the Universe, that deity defined the behaviors and properties of the Universe (which we try to describe through scientific laws and theories) in such a way that evolution would happen - a sort of divine clockmaker who designed the process of evolution itself rather than designing organisms directly. This bypasses the "poor design" counter. Because all action on the deity's part would occur at the creation of the Universe, no evidence of his direct hand in events would be found.Whatever argument you use, however, is going to run into problems. Essencially, none of the arguments are based on fact and evidence - they're bare speculation. That's basically the entire issue with Creationism/Intelligent Design/etc - they all involve unfoudned and unsupported conclusions that are not based in objective fact, but rather on speculation and unfalsifiable assertions. I know that this is what you've asked for, but such "arguments" are extremely weak because they don't have anything of real substance to back them up. One might as well claim that an invisible pink unicorn is standing next to you - I have no evidence to support such a claim, but neither can you falsify it because the unicorn is supposed to be invisible. I can "argue" that the unicorn affects your daily life by say, preventing lethal wyvern attacks, but when it comes down to it we're really pulling assertions from thin air. Real arguments must be backed up with objective fact and evidence, else there is literally nothing distinguishing your claims from figments of your imagination. I currently know of no arguments supporting the existing of a deity (let alone said deity "guiding" evolution) that are based on objective fact and evidence. They are all arguments from faith, which by definition is a belief not based on objective evidence.Oh...and welcome to EvC, and good luck on your assignment!

A discussion on atheism would be off-topic for this thread, and further your representation of atheism (or at least the version of it that I categorize myself under) continues to be a strawman.I gave arguments supportive of divine guidance of the evolutionary process, and simply pointed out counter-arguments becasue, for all I know, this assignment will involve debate, and it's typically best to anticipate your opponent's arguments ahead of time when possible. I said absolutely nothing about atheism - I only pointed out that speculation in the absence of evidence is indistinguishable from bare fantasy and imagination, and that arguments supporting divine guidance of evolution will face counter-arguments along those lines.Perhaps we could try to keep discussions on whether atheism is rational to a thread where it's appropriate, rather than derailing this one?

Good! This is a rather classic Intelligent Design argument. However, it is flawed.Take the example of a poker hand dealt from a deck of cards. A series of cards are dealt in a specific order. If you look at the chances of each individual card being delat, and then at the chances of those specific cards being dealt in that specific order, the probability of getting the exact hand you were dealt in the same order is extremely remote.Does this imply guidance? Of course not - some result was going to happen, and all] of the possible results would be equally improbable given those same circumstances.Evolution is similar, but it's also far less random than dealing cards. The process of mutation has a random component, but it's still confined by chemistry, and more importantly is guided by natural selection. Organisms that survive well will continue to reproduce, while those that do not survive well will not.But your argument also assumes as an axiom that there is a "goal" behind evolution, which is only valid if an intelligence is behind it. But there is no goal driving evolution - the variation of species is the inevitable result of imperfect replication and limited resources. Advantageous changes are replicated more often than disadvantageous changes. To marvel at the likelihood of evolving a specific species makes the mistake of assuming that there was an intent for that species to exist. It's identical to considering the likelihood of receiving your specific poker hand, in order - you presuppose an intent that does not exist to account for an unlikely result. That's a more personal question. My answer would be that I require evidence to support any active belief, but that all of my beliefs are tentative pending additional information. I tend to avoid making absolute statements for this reason. For example, I have no evidence that there is or is not an intangible and invisible fairy sitting on my desk. Because the likelihood of the fairy existing is identical to the likelihood of all other speculations I could possibly make and I have no reason to believe that teh fairy exists, I simply do not believe. This is slightly different from saying that I believe that the fairy does not exist - that implies knowledge or certainty that the fairy does not exist, and I have no evidence to base such a claim on. Instead I simply lack belief in the fairy until evidence supporting its existence is found. If asked whether there is an invisible, intangible fairy on my desk, I would be forced to answer "probably not." If asked whether it was possible that an invisible, intangible fairy is on my desk, I would have to respond that I lack sufficient information to disprove the fairy.Others disagree, and base their beliefs on subjective things like faith and personal feelings. You may want to rethink this. The Big Bang Theory involves the earliest moments of the Unvierse and its continued expansion; it has literally nothing to do with the origin of life, or DNA, or evolution. One could compeltely prove or disprove Big Bang Theory and still retain or discard any number of hypotheses regarding the origin and variation of life independantly. Cosmology is separate from biology.It looks like you'll want to talk about the "gaps" in abiogenesis, which is the hypothesis that life arose from nonliving matter. Fortunately for you, this is much easier. While science has been "closing gaps" relating to abiogenesis over the past decades, it's still an incomplete hypothesis that has only demonstrated a degree of plausibility and a few potential pathways for nonliving matter to arrange itself into imperfectly self-replicating molecules that could eventually form the most basic proto-cells. Just remember that the "god of the gaps" argument tends to win battles but lose wars.

I did give pro arguments, RAZD. I simply also noted their likely counters. And I even gave that specific argument as well:

quote:

---

A better argument might be that, if a deity Created the Universe, that deity defined the behaviors and properties of the Universe (which we try to describe through scientific laws and theories) in such a way that evolution would happen - a sort of divine clockmaker who designed the process of evolution itself rather than designing organisms directly. This bypasses the "poor design" counter. Because all action on the deity's part would occur at the creation of the Universe, no evidence of his direct hand in events would be found.

---

Did you actually read my posts, or are you just carrying frustration from an unrelated thread?