Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
25 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, GDR, Hyroglyphx, jar, Theodoric (6 members, 19 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,935 Year: 21,971/19,786 Month: 534/1,834 Week: 34/500 Day: 34/96 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   At what point should we look for a non-materialistic explanation?
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1968 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 151 of 160 (539045)
12-12-2009 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by cavediver
12-12-2009 10:28 AM


Re: Irony
Now Cavediver, I think you are really attempting to be disingenuous now. I have made the point perfectly clear, and yet you refuse to acknowledge it.

IF randomness was not a role of the ToE, is there any other possible explanation that can exclude randomness, and also exclude planning?

If you want to dodge that question, then stop playing games and just admit you wish to dodge it.

Secondly, I feel you have made a logical mistake by trying to equate the ToE with any other scientific theories, in the context of this discussion, for a number of critical reasons:

1. No other scientific theories propose randomness as the root of their methodology. As well, other scientific theories don't have as their focus, a system which progresses from simple and unrelated to complex and completely interrelated.

2. The quest for understanding evolution has a completely different goal than other theories. With evolution, we are trying to answer the question of why as well as how. If we rule out randomness as being a critical element of the theory, we can't just throw our hands up in the air, and say, well, it just is, just like gravity just is, or the electromagnetic force just is-without needing to account for how it is, and ignoring the giant elephant in the room.

Other theories don't ask the question of why. The theory of gravity doesn't attempt to say why it exists, it just says what it does. Likewise with all the other physical laws of nature. We are not asking where they came from, we are just trying to find out what they do. We leave the question of where the cosmos all comes from to the philosophers.

So, for evolution we are stuck with two choices, for explaining it. One is randomness, and there is no why. The other is a plan.

I have asked you for a third choice (of which there logically can be none) and so you have ignored that point.

And Cavediver, I am perfectly fine with having a discussion with you using any tone you like. If you prefer the indignant tone, I can go with that, or if you prefer to just exchange thoughts, I am ok with that too. Just let it be said that I don't begin discussions with anyone with that as my first option-and I did not do so with you. I prefer to let other decide if that's the direction they wish to take.

And finally, I won't take any bets, but I have had sex with a lot of woman. In the era of Tiger Woods, I feel it is just best to get out in front of that early, with full disclosure. I am sure Sweden is a lovely place, but I have no desire to move there right now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by cavediver, posted 12-12-2009 10:28 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by cavediver, posted 12-12-2009 1:53 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1981 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 152 of 160 (539050)
12-12-2009 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Bolder-dash
12-12-2009 12:44 PM


Re: Irony
IF randomness was not a role of the ToE, is there any other possible explanation that can exclude randomness, and also exclude planning?

Darwin did not know of genetics and random mutation, but that did not stop him for using the evidence to build the Theory of Evolution. All we need for the ToE is descent with modification and the filter of natural selection. That is it. At the moment, random mutation is believed to provide the modification.

You are suggesting that it might be found that random mutation is insufficient. Quite possibly true - at this moment I don't know. I haven't spent very long thinking about it, becasue 1) it is not my field, and 2) at this point in time,

THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION ARE NOT CAPABLE OF PRODUCING THE DIVERSITY OF LIFE.

When you have some peer-reviewed publications to present this case, then we can start looking for other explanations.

But even if random mutation is insufficient to provide the required level of modification to explain what we see today, then only an idiot would leap to the conclusion that **GODDIDIT** as their next step. Since understanding basic random mutation, we have discovered horizontal gene transfer, ERVs, transposons, etc. New mechanisms of modification are being discovered. If, at any point in time, it is discovered that the known mechanisms of modification are insufficient to explain the diversity of life, why would anyone but a moron claim certainty that we will not find a new mechanism which accounts for the shortfall in modification, and that it must be a divine miracle???

I feel you have made a logical mistake by trying to equate the ToE with any other scientific theories

There seem to be a number of posters at the moment bandying the words "logical" and "philosophical" around who could well do with some remedial schooling...

1. No other scientific theories propose randomness as the root of their methodology. As well, other scientific theories don't have as their focus, a system which progresses from simple and unrelated to complex and completely interrelated.

1) ToE is descent with modification plus the filter of natural selection. The modification comes from a number of sources, as we have seen above, some of which are far from random.

2) Randomness is at the heart of all statistical physics, especially thermodynamics. Random gas movement plus the four forces gives us the order we see in stars, their birth, their life, their death, and their re-birth as next-generation stars. Do they require a plan?

Conslusion: You are talking out of your arse.

2. The quest for understanding evolution has a completely different goal than other theories. With evolution, we are trying to answer the question of why as well as how.

At this point, I think we can simply skip to the conclusion that you really have no clue, and cannot help but to spout bollocks.

The ToE is about explaining the origin of species, the diversity of life. What the hell has WHY got to do with anything???

So, for evolution we are stuck with two choices, for explaining it. One is randomness, and there is no why. The other is a plan.

I'm sorry, but this is just nonsense

And finally, I won't take any bets, but I have had sex with a lot of woman.

Then I suggest making a career of it, as your science, reasoning, and thinking are all crap

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-12-2009 12:44 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 444 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 153 of 160 (539051)
12-12-2009 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Bolder-dash
12-12-2009 7:42 AM


Re: Irony is certainly ironic, isn't it?
The context of the discussion that started this point, was about you stating that you couldn't believe any scientist who disagreed with the ToE if that scientist also possessed some measure of religious faith.

That's the key, isn't it? Some measure of religious faith.

But how much?

quote:
The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.

CRS Statement of Belief

All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.



Does this sound like science to you?

Any time preconceived beliefs, such as these, override the scientific method, an individual is doing (or teaching) apologetics (defense of religion), not science. It doesn't matter what scientific degrees one may have; to agree to a set of standards such as these, which is common (whether explicit or implicit) in creationist circles, is to cease doing science and move into the realm of apologetics.

So "some degree of religious faith" is certainly possible for scientists, but the fundamentalism seen in CRS's Statement of Belief, and many others like it, would disqualify one from doing science. Those beliefs are inherently anti-science, and I don't see how one could hold such beliefs and do legitimate science. (I guess that's where creation "science" comes in, eh?)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-12-2009 7:42 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-12-2009 2:19 PM Coyote has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1981 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 154 of 160 (539052)
12-12-2009 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Bolder-dash
12-12-2009 7:42 AM


Re: Irony
I think I need to correct Bolder-dash explicitly here, before anyone falls for his hack job on my comments from the other thread.

The context of the discussion that started this point, was about you stating that you couldn't believe any scientist who disagreed with the ToE if that scientist also possessed some measure of religious faith.

What I said was

Cavediver writes:

I challenge anyone to present a university-employed publishing biological scientist, unaffiliated with a religious organisation, who does not think as I do regarding the Theory of Evolution. It is not in the slightest bit surpising that 99.99% of those claiming that there are huge gaps in the Theory of Evolution are from the three major Abrahamic relgions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-12-2009 7:42 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-12-2009 2:27 PM cavediver has responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1968 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 155 of 160 (539053)
12-12-2009 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Coyote
12-12-2009 1:59 PM


Re: Irony is certainly ironic, isn't it?
That particular organizations religious beliefs are are irrelevant to the validity of other scientists who have religious beliefs but are perfectly capable of drawing scientific conclusions.

If you are going to refute these individuals based on their extreme faith, ok, but then you also need to discount anything Richard Dawkins and other ardent atheists say as well, for the exact same reasons.

The fact that there may be extreme people at either side of an argument is neither here nor there.

cavediver has admitted he was once a fundamentalist Christian, and pro Creationist. Not only does that mean that at some point in his life he was obviously very wrong-so who is to believe him now-but also it makes it likely that his later in life distaste for this religion colors his opinions, as he clearly wants there NOT to be a non-material explanation. So whatever he says we need to discount as well.

Perhaps that is why he is unable to understand the extremely simple concept of something either being planned, designed or lead, as opposed to being aimless and random. Its quite a simple distinction-and it can only be one or the other, and yet he can't see that. I say it is because he doesn't want to see it, but if he can't see that distinction because he truly is incapable of it, then that is perhaps even worse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Coyote, posted 12-12-2009 1:59 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by hooah212002, posted 12-12-2009 2:26 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 158 by Coyote, posted 12-12-2009 2:36 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 156 of 160 (539054)
12-12-2009 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Bolder-dash
12-12-2009 2:19 PM


Re: Irony is certainly ironic, isn't it?
If you are going to refute these individuals based on their extreme faith, ok, but then you also need to discount anything Richard Dawkins and other ardent atheists say as well, for the exact same reasons.

Here, you are oh-so-wrong (not the first time). The difference between someone such as Dawkins, or damn near any atheist for that matter, is that they DO NOT let their beliefs cloud the facts as CMI, or any other such institute, so profoundly does.

I think i read upthread about you likening atheism to a belief system. i.e.: a belief in atheism. You should learn the batting order of the other team before selecting your rotation. (baseball pun, sorry Brits )

Edited by hooah212002, : corrected acronym, added sig

Edited by hooah212002, : spelling


Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-12-2009 2:19 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1968 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 157 of 160 (539055)
12-12-2009 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by cavediver
12-12-2009 2:12 PM


Re: Irony
It is not in the slightest bit surpising that 99.99% of those claiming that there are huge gaps in the Theory of Evolution are from the three major Abrahamic relgions.

Yes, in an odd way you are completely correct there, but for the exact opposite reasons you think.

It is not surprising that someone who has studied the science of biology extensively, come to the conclusion that it is not possible for random genetic mistakes to create the diversity of life we see, and having realized that randomness can not do it, arrived at the only other conclusion possible-non-randomness.

Not the slightest bit surprising at all.

What is surprising is that you, who have admitted to not really having thought about it much, claim to know more about the science than them. And yet you still are struggling with this tiny bit of logic. Hohoho

Edited by Bolder-dash, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by cavediver, posted 12-12-2009 2:12 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by cavediver, posted 12-12-2009 2:40 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 444 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 158 of 160 (539057)
12-12-2009 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Bolder-dash
12-12-2009 2:19 PM


Re: Irony is certainly ironic, isn't it?
That particular organizations religious beliefs are are irrelevant to the validity of other scientists who have religious beliefs but are perfectly capable of drawing scientific conclusions.

That's the question, now, isn't it?

When religious belief takes over, as in the example I provided and many others on the web, one can not follow the scientific method. Its that simple. The two concepts are diametrically opposed: you either follow scripture and belief, or you follow evidence and the scientific method.

Perhaps that is why he is unable to understand the extremely simple concept of something either being planned, designed or lead, as opposed to being aimless and random. Its quite a simple distinction-and it can only be one or the other, and yet he can't see that. I say it is because he doesn't want to see it, but if he can't see that distinction because he truly is incapable of it, then that is perhaps even worse.

Don't even bother to tell me your (mis)beliefs about evolution.

I studied that field through the Ph.D. exams, some decades ago. I think I can still remember a few of the basics on a good day.

But I've gotten a lot of fine chuckles from fundamentalists on the web. I think the most notable was the one who lectured me on "the second law of thermal documents."


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-12-2009 2:19 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1981 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 159 of 160 (539058)
12-12-2009 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Bolder-dash
12-12-2009 2:27 PM


Re: Irony
It is not surprising that someone who has studied the science of biology extensively, come to the conclusion that it is not possible for random genetic mistakes to create the diversity of life we see, and having realized that randomness can not do it, arrived at the only other conclusion possible-non-randomness.

And who would this mystery idiot be?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-12-2009 2:27 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Zucadragon
Member (Idle past 1894 days)
Posts: 61
From: Netherlands
Joined: 06-28-2006


Message 160 of 160 (539486)
12-16-2009 7:43 AM


Never?
I think the problem is, that one is looking for non-materialistic explanations for materialistic problems or observations. This is doomed, as has been shown before countless of times in science, from lightning to grain to water flows, all have had some non-materialistic explanation at some point in the past, but have been rediscovered with a viable and strong materialistic explanation.

This explanation usually fits together in a whole series of explanations, forming a network that seems to support itself and other explanations around it.

So the answer is: At no point whatsoever.

On the other hand, that doesn't make me feel any different about personal beliefs, I don't feel that belief in something non-materialistic automatically changes the way I deal with materialstic topics.


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019