Evolution guided by god? Or a natural process?

Let's give inge1990 something better than that for his assignment. Firstly, mutation and drift do not "drive" evolution as if there is a force behind them; they merely make more adaptive options possible when environmental conditions change. Secondly, you need to include gene flow and sexual selection on your list of things that add to a population's adaptability. Thirdly, natural selection does not "guide" anything; it is simply an occurrence of differential reproductive success among individuals of a population.

---

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.

Thanks for the Darwin lesson; you're very astute. And it should help inge1990, too, with his assignment. In fact, the quotes seem to be right on the mark in that regard. (If the Creator was important enough to be mentioned The Origin of Species, maybe He has something to do with evolution after all.)

---

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.

But Darwin's arguing the exact opposite of what Inge wishes to argue: That is, he's suggesting that God would set up the laws of Nature such that evolution would work without the necessity for divine intervention.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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?

Now how did I guess that? Good, this is a very good place to learn about these things, and more. Ok, you could say that. However, I see a bit of an error in it .
You say "Too many accidents without guidance". The thing is, evolution IS guided, kinda. Natural selection ensures that all traits that are beneficial will be spread, while anything that is detrimental will die off fairly quickly. So, only the good traits survive making all the "accidents" irrelevant. I've got a counter question to that one: "If one only accepts evidence, does one even have a belief?". Would you mind telling of some, yes it will be off-topic, but a few posts won't matter, I guess. And I wouldn't want you to put false information in your report. I'm guessing it's for your school? Better have accurate information in it then. While the arguments might still be valid as of yet, it is essentially playing the god of the gaps argument, and that hasn't worked very well in the past. The problem you run into here (the most obvious one to me at least) is that you can NEVER show it has to be YOUR god that is doing the guiding. It could just as easily be another one. Well, unless the people you are holding it for are already convinced god exists, it might be a bit hard to persuade them it is indeed your god that is doing it all. An example. Do you think that if you told Muslims that it was indeed the Christian god (I'm assuming you are a Christian) that was guiding evolution, do you think they would accept it? Or try it the other way around, if a Muslim told you it was Allah guiding it, would you accept it?My point here? That one needs a predisposition of already believing in the particular god that the case is being made for to accept it is indeed that god that is guiding it all. Sounds interesting, from what I've seen of him, he knows a lot about all this stuff. However, I don't think he can give you any tips on how to convince people that god is behind evolution (I could be wrong though, I don't know him personally) since, from what I've seen, his position is something like: "I simply believe god is behind it, because I don't see any other way it could be". Which is fine, but I don't think you're going to convince anyone that doesn't already believe in your god that that is indeed what is happening.Long story short: If one doesn't believe in a particular god, one is not easily convinced it is that god that is behind anything at all.Oh, and Fosdick, I think Inge is a she, not a him. (going by the name here, correct me if I'm wrong)

---

I hunt for the truth

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.

Yes, I see your point. But maybe Darwin meant that the Creator also created the automatic button on the evolution machine.

---

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.

But no pro arguments. Thanks. Curiously the Deist position on the topic would be that evolution would indeed be a natural process, and not one guided by god/s.This is a point to make so that our young student isn't caught blindsided by the claim that it is an either or proposition.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen 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) • • •

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?

Yes, and I don't see you saying "This is a point to make so that our young student isn't caught blindsided by the claim that it is an either or proposition." You stated the argument with **one** rather small pro: "This bypasses the "poor design" counter" - and then went on for a full and much longer paragraph on why you think it is a BAD argument. So yeah, it was deja vu all over again.So I am disappointed.There are many theistic arguments, and the common element of all of them is that there is no conflict between evolution being a natural process that is part of the god plan.We can also talk about how this position cannot be invalidated, and how invalidation is important to science, but is not able to deal with concepts outside science, concepts that are part of philosophy and faith where there is no (and not likely to be) evidence pro or con, so that acceptance of such ideas is more based on world view than on logic and reason.We can talk about how making an ad lapidem comparison to such belief with as silly a reductio ad absurdum concept as can dreamed up ad hoc is also a logical fallacy:1. Your belief is like this argument
2. This argument is silly\ridiculous\delusional
∴ therefore your argument is silly\ridiculous\delusionalAll A is B, B, ∴ AAll you have shown is that you can make up a silly\ridiculous\delusional argument, not that you can deal with the belief.Take Stragglers intermediate example:

quote:

---

The proposal that alien life of some sort is likely to exist somewhere in the universe, I think most would agree is a rational conclusion that is both itself strictly unevidenced but which also contradicts no known evidence (I don't want to drag this thread down the "aliens exist" route however so let's not get too caught up in the specifics)

---

Thus arguments\claims that are "unevidenced but which also contradicts no known evidence" are not necessarily silly\ridiculous\delusional, and such theistic refutation arguments as you presented are not valid.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clarity

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen 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) • • •

I have to disagree here. You'd be an pretty extaordinary programmer if you only wrote programs which never needed any fixes or updates. And along the same lines this arguement: fails in that it assumes god is either perfect and all-knowing or non-existant. If we assume that a god exists, I think the evidance is pretty ample for imperfection.That being said, I'd say the only arguement possible for guided evolution is "I have faith it is so, and you can't disprove faith"

That's not the only one, I can think of another. You could argue that some feature or characteristic could not have arrisen naturally and that it would have require some guidance to emerge.

In order to use that argument you would have to show that something could not have arisen naturally.

Yes, yes you would.But it remains as an argument that is not "I have faith it is so, and you can't disprove faith", so that is not the only argument possible for guided evolution.

it is not possible to show that something could not have arisen naturally.