|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 51 (9221 total) |
| |
danieljones0094 | |
Total: 920,791 Year: 1,113/6,935 Month: 394/719 Week: 36/146 Day: 9/8 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3261 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution: Natural selection vs. Godly guidance | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 3261 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
So you accept the fact that Dawkins is evangalizing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 3261 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
I don't want to nitpick with you but I have tried med mal and products lawsuits in cook, will, sagamon and other counties in ill. and the burden of proof for a jury to determine is "more probably true than not true" . Look at the jury instructions in Il and they state "more probalbly true than not true".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 3261 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if "The Shadow knows" you are not helping any of us understand.What does even one of your posts so far have to do with evolution, Natural Selection or even a single example of Godly guidance? The reason for my post was to show that scientists demand a different burden of proof for design theories than for naturalists theories. I argue that "natural selection" is not something you can prove, it is assumed that the changes in species are the result of natural slection, ie. by naturalists mechanisms. I argue that if God by providence has created the mechanisms for the evolution of life science rejects this because it cannot be proven by natural means. So if for example information is contained in the DNA, science assumes it is by natural causes, while I state it is by supernatural causes. Can you prove me wrong and you right? If so how.So Scientists assume that the changes in species are natural and try to prove them by saying here we see the changes, they are natural, so design is wrong. But even if the changes occur, which I agree they do, science cannot prove they are by natural means or supenatural means. Science assumes all things are by natural means, w/o proof, a very dangerous assumption.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2433 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The reason for my post was to show that scientists demand a different burden of proof for design theories than for naturalists theories. No, scientists demand evidence. So far you have produced none. Nor have you addressed any of the points in my post, above. I believe mine was the first response to you, and you have ignored it. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1794 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
I argue that "natural selection" is not something you can prove, it is assumed that the changes in species are the result of natural slection, ie. by naturalists mechanisms. But it's not assumed. It's defined that way - "natural selection" is the name given to the observation that, in every species on Earth, more individuals are born each generation than can possibly survive to reproductive adulthood, and that those that do survive and reproduce are not simply lucky, but survive by virtue of their unique traits and adaptations to their environment. Nobody's doing the choosing, nobody's doing the selecting. Organisms are selecting themselves due to the (potentially fatal) interaction of the environment with their unique traits. It's like asking - "if a meteor from outer space lands on your house and destroys you, who is guilty of your murder?" No one is. You're ascribing agency where none is present. Many things in the universe happen on their own, not because some entity willed them to occur. That is how natural selection happens. Nobody is doing the selecting; organisms are simply being selected.
Can you prove me wrong and you right? If so how. If we can demonstrate that natural mechanisms can account for all the information present in DNA - and we can, and have - then your position may not be wrong but there's no reason to consider it right.
But even if the changes occur, which I agree they do, science cannot prove they are by natural means or supenatural means. If natural means are sufficient, then what reason is there to believe in supernatural means? If there are no reasons to think that something is supernatural, why think that it is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I argue that "natural selection" is not something you can prove ... It's something you can watch.
I argue that if God by providence has created the mechanisms for the evolution of life ... Then one of those mechanisms would be natural selection. We know it exists. And everything we see in nature agrees with the theory that it has been operating.
But even if the changes occur, which I agree they do, science cannot prove they are by natural means or supenatural means. But why confine this complaint to natural selection? Why not gravity as well? Maybe there's no such thing as gravity, but rather angels are moving things around in such a way that it looks as though there's some law in nature that can be expressed by the formula F=Gm1m2/r2? Would you like to argue for that position?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 166 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
shadow71 writes: The reason for my post was to show that scientists demand a different burden of proof for design theories than for naturalists theories. I argue that "natural selection" is not something you can prove, it is assumed that the changes in species are the result of natural slection, ie. by naturalists mechanisms. I argue that if God by providence has created the mechanisms for the evolution of life science rejects this because it cannot be proven by natural means. So if for example information is contained in the DNA, science assumes it is by natural causes, while I state it is by supernatural causes. Can you prove me wrong and you right? If so how. Well, you are failing miserably them. We can observe the natural conditions and processes. In fact almost anyone can. For natural selection we can look and see the different environments, conditions, changes, the filters. We can observe the processes involved in mutation. There is a model that explains the world we see. Way back in Message 14 I posted:
quote: Now it's fine if you want to claim such things actually created by God, it really tells us nothing of value, leaves us as ignorant as we were before. Unless you can present the model of how your God interacts, influences the natural processes or mechanisms it is simply a worthless complication of a model that works. Bring your God in, plop it on the lab table and lets test it. Present the model that explains how your God or Designer actually does something. Then it can be tested. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6490 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: |
shadow71 writes:
Dawkins could be said to be evangelizing for atheism, depending how broadly one applies the term "evangelizing".So you accept the fact that Dawkins is evangalizing? Note that I was not the person who said otherwise in earlier posts. There's a term "new atheists" (or, sometimes, "gnu atheists") that is currently being tossed around, with Dawkins, PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne, perhaps also Ophelia Benson and Victor Stenger being listed as among them. Using the term "evangelizing" very broadly, I would guess it could be applied to them. But their speaking up for atheism seems rather mild, in comparison to what we see coming from Christian apologetics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1794 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
Atheist evangelizing: "Have you considered the possibility that you might be wrong? Let's talk about it."
Christian evangelizing: "Accept Jesus as your lord and savior or we'll fucking kill you."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6490 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: |
shadow71 writes:
You have not shown that. Rather, you seem to have confused yourself by using a court analogy.The reason for my post was to show that scientists demand a different burden of proof for design theories than for naturalists theories. Some individual scientists are expressing their opinion that design is nonsense. As far as I know, there is no burden of proof required for expressing an opinion. What science, as an institution, is saying is that intelligent design is not science, and they show that by demonstrating the ID does not meet the accepted requirements of science (such as being evidence based).
shadow71 writes:
No, science does not reject that in the sense that a court rejects assertions. Science rejects only the claims that such assertions about God's providence meet the requirements of being science.I argue that if God by providence has created the mechanisms for the evolution of life science rejects this because it cannot be proven by natural means. I served on a Jury last week. As jurors, we did our best to render on honest verdict based on the evidence presented in the trial. There was nothing scientific about it. That does not mean that the jury system is bad, nor that the verdict was wrong. It only means that the methods and standards used in courts for judging cases are quite different from the methods and standards that scientists use.
shadow71 writes:
You have that quite wrong. Scientists demonstrate that natural events are sufficient to account for the observed biological diversity.So Scientists assume that the changes in species are natural and try to prove them by saying here we see the changes, they are natural, so design is wrong. If you want to claim that natural events are all the result of occult supernatural events, you are welcome to make that claim. However, it would not be science. Making such a supernaturalist claim adds nothing whatsoever to our ability to make scientific predictions. So, from the scientists point of view, such supernaturalist claims are not part of science and are of no value to science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6490 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: |
shadow71 writes:
Yes, there is a stark difference.Atheist evangelizing: "Have you considered the possibility that you might be wrong? Let's talk about it." Christian evangelizing: "Accept Jesus as your lord and savior or we'll fucking kill you." Okay, I'll grant that Christian evangelists don't all threaten to kill. Many are satisfied with threatening eternal torment. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1582 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
I don't want to nitpick, either, and this will probably be my last post on the subject in this thread, but it's easy to trot in and say you're an attorney. I would think that anyone trained in the law would know that preponderance of the evidence meant more probably true than not true. I know that everyone I went to law school with did. But whatever.
In any event, this whole subthread really has nothing to do with science. Science only and always talks about evidence, it never talks about proof. And I don't think this is simply a difference in semantics. While there are some parallels between scientific and legal evidence, the differences are significant enough that if you don't get a good handle on the differences, reliance on how you use the terms in law is likely to lead you astray. Let me put it this way. Science never talks about proving anything. All conclusions in science are tentative, pending new evidence or new theories that better explain the evidence. In other words, no side ever rests its case in science. Anytime you hear a scientist say anything, you can automatically append the phrase "As far as we can tell right now" to the front of it. Here's a distinction to help you understand. Scientists have concluded that life evolves on this planet. Scientists have observed evolution occurring before their eyes, both in labs and in nature. There is literally zero dispute on this fact by any scientist. All of legitimate science currently accepts the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation that we have about how that happens. But no scientist accepts the Theory of Evolution as an indisputable fact. It is subject to change upon the discovery of enough evidence contradicting it, or a better theory explaining the observed facts. Now, to finally get to the topic of this thread, you have proposed what you consider to be a superior theory. All you have to do is explain to us how your theory better explains what we see, either by encompassing more facts (very difficult since to my knowledge there are no significant observed facts that the ToE doesn't account for), or providing a better explanation for the facts we do see. One way to do this is to show that the predictions of your theory correspond with what we see in reality corresponds better than the ToE does. However, since you have so far refused to describe any differences in observational consequences between your theory and the ToE, I'm hard pressed to see how you can make this showing. So, less than 60 posts into the thread and already you seem to be dead in the water. It appears that your entire position is, "I believe in the Christian God, but you sciency guys don't put gods into your theory. I can't show you why your theory is deficient because of the lack of my God, but I want him in there because I believe he did it all." As you might imagine, this isn't a particularly compelling position from a scientific point of view. You keep saying that science is wrong for not including gods. You need to give us evidence that shows how or why the ToE would be able to explain more than it does now if gods were included. Unless and until you can do that, you really aren't saying anything of significance to science. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Moose,
He believes God had some contribution to the selection process, but makes no claim of being able to produce evidence in support of that belief. ... If God were to have been guiding evolution, would God have chosen or otherwise permitted the evolutionary history that we know as reality. ... God influencing the origin and development of the species not unlike how humans have influenced the origin and development of the dog. It may be a little more complex than that:
quote: Continuous creation would be the whole process, not just the selection, but the control of the environment that leads to the selection. omnipotentomniscient Able and knowing.
quote: Controlling the nature of "natural means" would be a supernatural means that would not be able to be detected. An interesting concept. Enjoy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2433 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Controlling the nature of "natural means" would be a supernatural means that would not be able to be detected. If this supernatural stuff can't be detected, why are we not safe in just ignoring it as if it didn't exist? And contrarily, if it can't be detected, why are you convinced that it exists? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1582 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Controlling the nature of "natural means" would be a supernatural means that would not be able to be detected. An interesting concept. Well, since shadow has yet to even attempt to describe any observational consequences for such a concept that would distinguish it from natural selection, perhaps you'd like to give it a go. Then we can see which one better corresponds with reality. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025