Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8950 total)
28 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 25 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,381 Year: 22,417/19,786 Month: 980/1,834 Week: 50/430 Day: 5/45 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can survival of the fittest accomodate morals?
rockondon
Member (Idle past 3271 days)
Posts: 40
Joined: 03-29-2010


Message 31 of 64 (552511)
03-29-2010 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
03-25-2010 7:19 PM


Re: Lack of worldly knowledge?
The short answer is that mankind is a social animal in a social setting, therefore morality is an evolutionary trait.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2010 7:19 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 03-30-2010 11:10 PM rockondon has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20332
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 32 of 64 (552757)
03-30-2010 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by rockondon
03-29-2010 4:18 PM


Re: Lack of worldly knowledge?
The short answer is that mankind is a social animal in a social setting, therefore morality is an evolutionary trait.

The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise.

A better answer is that:

Mankind is a social animal in a social setting, therefore human morality is a social morality. This is in fact what we see.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by rockondon, posted 03-29-2010 4:18 PM rockondon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by rockondon, posted 03-31-2010 12:05 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
rockondon
Member (Idle past 3271 days)
Posts: 40
Joined: 03-29-2010


Message 33 of 64 (552840)
03-31-2010 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
03-30-2010 11:10 PM


Re: Lack of worldly knowledge?
A better answer is that:

Mankind is a social animal in a social setting, therefore human morality is a social morality. This is in fact what we see.


I agree. Well, said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 03-30-2010 11:10 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
MrQ
Member (Idle past 3397 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 34 of 64 (554728)
04-09-2010 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Den
03-22-2010 12:45 AM


Interesting topic. Certainly evolution developed some sort of moral behavior in animal kingdom. But what I couldn't figure out yet is the conscious in us. For example, we some how value moral acts and there is a sense of content and satisfaction after it. Also when you do an immoral act there is a sense of gilt after it. I don't believe any animal have such feelings. This sense is so strong that people commit suicide because of it. For example we sometimes see a murderer goes and turn himself in or kill himself just because of this sense. Or where is that blush after lying comes from?!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Den, posted 03-22-2010 12:45 AM Den has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by DC85, posted 05-19-2010 8:39 PM MrQ has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 05-26-2010 12:29 PM MrQ has not yet responded

  
Asking
Junior Member (Idle past 3383 days)
Posts: 19
Joined: 05-19-2010


Message 35 of 64 (561293)
05-19-2010 7:28 PM


As it has already been pointed out humans do engage in rape, murder and poligamy just as much as other organisms do and in some societies, present and past, people who engaged in these activities have been venerated.

I'm also somewhat confused by your comment that scientists see these things as positive processes. Scientists take an objective stance and see these things as neither positive or negative, they just are. There is no double standard.

Humans are not unique in the way you want them to be. Like all organisms they have a set of behaviours both inate and learned whose expression is determined by their environment. You only have to watch other social species interacting to notice that we aren't all that different.


  
DC85
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 36 of 64 (561303)
05-19-2010 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by MrQ
04-09-2010 5:43 PM


Interesting topic. Certainly evolution developed some sort of moral behavior in animal kingdom. But what I couldn't figure out yet is the conscious in us. For example, we some how value moral acts and there is a sense of content and satisfaction after it. Also when you do an immoral act there is a sense of gilt after it. I don't believe any animal have such feelings. This sense is so strong that people commit suicide because of it. For example we sometimes see a murderer goes and turn himself in or kill himself just because of this sense. Or where is that blush after lying comes from?!

Why is this confusing for you? Why would these feelings not be "hardwired" and a product of natural selection? Why wouldn't they also be the product of social pressures from other members of your species? As a social Species we want to be accepted by others of our own species.

It confuses me that this confuses you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by MrQ, posted 04-09-2010 5:43 PM MrQ has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 286 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 37 of 64 (562182)
05-26-2010 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Adequate
03-22-2010 11:54 PM


But you attribute the behavior of lions to a God who is perfectly good and wise and who is love itself (1 John 4:8).

You have a problem there. I don't. I don't need to pretend that nature is moral. But you do --- or, at least, I shall be fascinated to hear your explanation of why it isn't.

Do tell me. You think that nature is the result of fiat creation by a perfect God. So why did he make dolphins rapists?

Your call.

That there seems an ample bit of cruelity in nature is true. And God has created nature.

How would you comment then on these passages:

Romans 8:18-23

Isaiah 11:5-9

In these two passages it seems that the salvation of creation and nature is tied to the salvation of man. In other words when man fell out of the first will of God the natural world also was negatively effected.

If when man departed from the plan of God nature also collapsed and if man's salvation is the salvation of nature also, is your above "problem" for the creationist still a problem ?

I think your criticism does not adaquately take into account the Christian doctrine of the Fall.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-22-2010 11:54 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2010 2:57 PM jaywill has responded

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 3287 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 38 of 64 (562191)
05-26-2010 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by MrQ
04-09-2010 5:43 PM


Also when you do an immoral act there is a sense of gilt after it. I don't believe any animal have such feelings.

You've obviously never owned a dog, or seen one after it's taken the meat from the table!

But what I couldn't figure out yet is the conscious in us. For example, we some how value moral acts and there is a sense of content and satisfaction after it. Also when you do an immoral act there is a sense of gilt after it.

The logic behind why this is the case is quite straightforward. Our emotions drive our behaviour. We like to do things that feel good, and we don't like to do things that feel bad. If we accept "good" moral acts as being beneficial ones, and in general that means acts which aid cooperation between humans, then it is easy to understand why evolution would make us feel good when we carry out such acts. And vice versa with "bad" moral acts.

There is no mystery why we feel good about doing "good" things. If humans benefited from non-cooperative behaviour, then evolution would have ensured we felt good about doing non-cooperative acts, and we would regard them as being "good" moral acts.

I'm not sure about the blush. Maybe knowing that we will give ourselves away by blushing is an incentive to prevent us from lying or making a fool of ourselves.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by MrQ, posted 04-09-2010 5:43 PM MrQ has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 39 of 64 (562195)
05-26-2010 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by jaywill
05-26-2010 10:47 AM


If when man departed from the plan of God nature also collapsed and if man's salvation is the salvation of nature also, is your above "problem" for the creationist still a problem ?

It's a problem for both his arguments as they stand.

Argument #1 is that nature is so gosh-darned perfect that we must attribute it to God. Now, it doesn't matter if you have some explanation of why nature isn't perfect: once you have conceded that it isn't, then this argument fails.

Argument #2 is that evolutionists must wish to imitate the worst imperfections of nature. Now, creationists feel under no such obligation even though they attribute these imperfections to God. So why should we evolutionists feel such an obligation when we attribute these imperfections to a cause which we do not think is particularly wise and just, and which we do not worship? The phrase a fortiori comes to mind.

Again, it doesn't matter if you have an explanation or excuse as to why nature isn't perfect, because your excuse attributes these imperfections to God. Now, if the creationist feels no obligation to imitate the works of God, whom he worships, how much less must the evolutionist feel an obligation to imitate the works of nature, which he does not worship.

---

But what I really object to is the combination of the two arguments. For together they rob the whole Genesis argument of any predictive power. Anything good in nature you can attribute to the wisdom of God in the initial creation; everything bad in nature you can attribute to the really-pissed-off-ness of God at the Fall. This leaves nothing at all that you can't explain one way or the other.

---

The moral question is perhaps not germane to this thread. But I can't help thinking about it. According to your doctrine of the Fall, we have to say that because a snake persuaded humans to eat a forbidden fruit ... God condemned female dolphins to be the victims of rape? And baby lions to be killed and eaten?

I have to think that if that is justice then I do not know good from evil and so should be exempt from the curse laid on those who ate the forbidden fruit. For in that case I have clearly not profited from their crime: I don't know right from wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jaywill, posted 05-26-2010 10:47 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Coyote, posted 05-26-2010 3:09 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 41 by jaywill, posted 05-26-2010 4:41 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 451 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 40 of 64 (562197)
05-26-2010 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Adequate
05-26-2010 2:57 PM


Just my opinion:

The notion that man is evil because of a mythical "fall" is the most pernicious idea that some of our shamans have ever devised.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2010 2:57 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 286 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 41 of 64 (562202)
05-26-2010 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Adequate
05-26-2010 2:57 PM


Argument #1 is that nature is so gosh-darned perfect that we must attribute it to God.

I will be weeding out concepts that I hold from concepts that you may have heard someone else express. Fair?

I think a non-optimal design is still a design. I do not have to hold to a "perfect" nature.


Now, it doesn't matter if you have some explanation of why nature isn't perfect: once you have conceded that it isn't, then this argument fails.

Bare with me because my usual haunt is "Bible Study" and not this Biological Evolution Forum.

As a biblicist for God to look upon His creation and pronounce it "very good" (Gen 1:31) does not demand that I recognize it as "perfect".


Argument #2 is that evolutionists must wish to imitate the worst imperfections of nature.

I do not yet understand how this sentence is related to my question to you. Continuing -


Now, creationists feel under no such obligation even though they attribute these imperfections to God. So why should we evolutionists feel such an obligation when we attribute these imperfections to a cause which we do not think is particularly wise and just, and which we do not worship? The phrase a fortiori comes to mind.

The paragraph establishes a dichotomy between creationist and evolutionist which I think may be false dichotomy as there are theistic evolutionists.

But I am still trying to follow here.


Again, it doesn't matter if you have an explanation or excuse as to why nature isn't perfect, because your excuse attributes these imperfections to God.

I think I follow you now. This is a theological argument that even the Fall of creation as a result in the rebellion of Man against God attributes imperfection to God from whom everything should be perfect.

At this point what I see is a nature which before the Fall is "very good" and not "absolutely perfect". And after the Fall I see a nature into which some scarcity and disharmony has been introduced but still maintained in a way for it to exist perhaps "not totally bad".

I'll have to think on your argument which I think is "There should be no imperfection at all from a perfect God"

I think this "imperfection" in your concept necessitates no freedom of will for the creature. But then I have to muse on the question "Is a creation in which the creature has no freedom of will 'perfect' in the eyes of this Creator?"


Now, if the creationist feels no obligation to imitate the works of God, whom he worships, how much less must the evolutionist feel an obligation to imitate the works of nature, which he does not worship.

You lose me when you speak of "obligation to imitate" the works of God.

What do you mean by that ?


But what I really object to is the combination of the two arguments. For together they rob the whole Genesis argument of any predictive power. Anything good in nature you can attribute to the wisdom of God in the initial creation; everything bad in nature you can attribute to the really-pissed-off-ness of God at the Fall. This leaves nothing at all that you can't explain one way or the other.

There is a law of gravity. If I jump out of the top window of the ten story building, the law of gravity will cause me to slam down to the ground below.

I don't think that law represents "anger" on God's part. There is just the need for respect for the laws of nature which the Creator has designed.

The saint will die as well as the sinner. Regardless of how spiritual one is, he or she will be pulled down to the pavement and probably die.

As for being annoyed that one has an explanation for everything and anything ? Sounds to me like your standard hard core Evolutionist. Why are you annoyed at getting a taste of your own medicine?

I don't think that I have an answer for everything because of a pre-Fall and post Fall natural world.


The moral question is perhaps not germane to this thread. But I can't help thinking about it. According to your doctrine of the Fall, we have to say that because a snake persuaded humans to eat a forbidden fruit ... God condemned female dolphins to be the victims of rape? And baby lions to be killed and eaten?

I was hoping for a little casual chat. Now you've put me to work.

Okay, in light of the whole revelation of the Bible the "snake" apparently represents something a lot more involved. That is an evil intelligence of a rebellious creation of God whose history pre-dates the existence of man.

Now you would not get all that just in Genesis. But by the time you finish the plenary disclosure of the whole Bible you should finally grasp that. It is only that the history of such a being "behind" that serpent is not fully discussed in the book of Genesis.

I think what we are told in Genesis chapter 3 is communicated in a simple way in which the basics can be grasped by the most people.

I do not mistake the simplicity of the account to mean the naivete of the account. I continue to read the Bible to gather other clues as to what this all means.

Now I don't know much about dolphin rape. I use to see cats around a farm seemingly rape female cats. Then I learned that up to a certain point there is something in the male cat's genital that when it penetrates too far the female cat reacts violently.

This corresponded with what I saw. The female cat seem to comply to a certain degree until suddenly she would actually turn in chase the larger male cat away. I use to wonder how she did that.

Anyway, I think it is a credit to a very intelligent Creator that though Man His deputy authority should cause the creation to collapse through his rebellion against God, that God had mechanisms in place as a contingency to keep everything going in the mean time until a salvation can remedy the Fall.

Before you become annoyed that this gives the creationist a way to explain everything, remember that you can and do exercise the same kind of speculation to explain Evolution as the only cause of nature's continuation.

We are both speculating. A fish gradually migrated out of the water gave rise to reptiles and eventually mammels, then migrated back into the water as whales and dolphins. All possible given enough time and constructive mutations.

I don't find that necessarily easier to believe than a great cosmic and evil intelligence which infested man and nature somehow with its nature corrupting an original "very good" (Gen, 1:31) yet perhaps not "perfect" order.

In the intervening years between this Fall and this ultimate salvation we see a Son of God. And this Man, this God-man execises authority over storms, disease, famine, sickness and death giving us a glimpse of what God intended by Man.

That is the recovery of a dominion forfeited and lost by Adam.


I have to think that if that is justice then I do not know good from evil and so should be exempt from the curse laid on those who ate the forbidden fruit. For in that case I have clearly not profited from their crime: I don't know right from wrong.

In this case the same principle that worked against me also works for me.

By one man's sin all were constituted sinners. Yet in converse by one man's act of obedience all men can be justified and constituted righteous.

So Jesus is called "the second man" and the "last Adam" . You might say that the principle of "original sin" in Adam which was a curse to us is mirrored in "original righteousness" in the obedience of the Son of God.

The same principle that worked against you can also work for you. It depends on whether you are in Adam or in Christ.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2010 2:57 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2010 5:52 PM jaywill has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


(3)
Message 42 of 64 (562208)
05-26-2010 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by jaywill
05-26-2010 4:41 PM


I will be weeding out concepts that I hold from concepts that you may have heard someone else express. Fair?

Not really.

I was criticizing a creationist for putting forward a bogus argument.

Then you criticized me for criticizing him.

And now you say that you don't agree with his argument, and that you won't defend it.

Well in that case you should be taking my side and not his.

As a biblicist for God to look upon His creation and pronounce it "very good" (Gen 1:31) does not demand that I recognize it as "perfect".

But you think that God is perfect, yes? And you think that it is his creation? So you have to think that there are no screw-ups in nature.

The paragraph establishes a dichotomy between creationist and evolutionist which I think may be false dichotomy as there are theistic evolutionists.

Obviously it is not a false dichotomy. A theistic evolutionist is an evolutionist.

If I'd set up a dichotomy between theists and evolutionists, that would have been a false dichotomy. But I didn't.

I think this "imperfection" in your concept necessitates no freedom of will for the creature.

I didn't say so, and as a matter of fact I believe in free will. My reasons for this are probably outside the scope of this thread, but I can assure you that I do.

You lose me when you speak of "obligation to imitate" the works of God.

What do you mean by that ?

Well, whatever Den meant by his OP.

He seemed to be saying that since rape exists in nature, evolutionists should imitate it and be rapists. But this argument would hold no water even if we attributed dolphin rape to the works of God.

I can't make his argument any clearer than he made it himself.

As for being annoyed that one has an explanation for everything and anything ? Sounds to me like your standard hard core Evolutionist. Why are you annoyed at getting a taste of your own medicine?

But this is typical creationist nonsense.

I don't have an explanation for everything imaginable. Show me rabbits in the Cambrian, and I'll fold up and admit that everything I thought I knew about biology was wrong.

I just have an explanation for everything that actually exists. That's how I know I'm right. Evolution explains what is there, and could not possibly explain a million other scenarios.

But the problem with creationism is that you could explain every scenario. Whatever the universe was like, you could just say: "Well, it's that way because God wanted it to be that way ... for reasons that I can't explain because I'm not as wise as God." You could answer every exam question like this:

Q : Explain why phosphorus trichloride is polar.

A : Because God made it that way.

Before you become annoyed that this gives the creationist a way to explain everything, remember that you can and do exercise the same kind of speculation to explain Evolution as the only cause of nature's continuation.

But again, you are wrong.

I am tied down by the evidence. Morphology, the fossil record, genetics, embryology, biogeography, geology --- my beliefs are constrained by reality.

But yours aren't. Whatever the facts are, you can still say: "God did it ... by using his special God-magic ... for reasons that we as mere mortals cannot explain".

In this case the same principle that worked against me also works for me.

By one man's sin all were constituted sinners. Yet in converse by one man's act of obedience all men can be justified and constituted righteous.

Yes, I know what your theology is.

My point is this.

You think that it is right and just for God to condemn dolphins to be raped as a punishment for a human eating a piece of fruit.

To me that seems so bizarre that if this is justice I clearly have no idea what justice is. If this is good, then I don't know good from evil.

In which case I am in the pre-Fall state. I'm like an infant in the womb. I have no idea what is just and what is unjust. The consequences of eating the forbidden fruit are clearly no part of my inheritance. I have no need of Christ as my saviour.

Maybe this theological point is so subtle and involved that we should start a new thread.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jaywill, posted 05-26-2010 4:41 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jaywill, posted 05-28-2010 4:11 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 286 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 43 of 64 (562356)
05-28-2010 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Dr Adequate
05-26-2010 5:52 PM



jaywill:
As a biblicist for God to look upon His creation and pronounce it "very good" (Gen 1:31) does not demand that I recognize it as "perfect".

Doc Adaquate:
But you think that God is perfect, yes? And you think that it is his creation? So you have to think that there are no screw-ups in nature.

You speak here about what I "have to think". All I really "have to think" is that what is spoken in the revelation of His word is truth. And what I am told is that He looked upon His creation and pronounced it "very good" (Gen. 1:31). That is all I "have to think".


Me:
The paragraph establishes a dichotomy between creationist and evolutionist which I think may be false dichotomy as there are theistic evolutionists.

Obviously it is not a false dichotomy. A theistic evolutionist is an evolutionist.

And s/he is also a theist.


If I'd set up a dichotomy between theists and evolutionists, that would have been a false dichotomy. But I didn't.

I think this "imperfection" in your concept necessitates no freedom of will for the creature.

I didn't say so, and as a matter of fact I believe in free will. My reasons for this are probably outside the scope of this thread, but I can assure you that I do.

Where I am right now is that a "very good" creation is under the deputy authority of a creature with will to decide to be in harmony with the Creator or to rebel.

The outcome of the choice effects not only him but the creation under his supervision. I do not pretend to know all the mechanics of how this works. I do notice that the restoration of man to God seems also to mean the restoration of the creation.

One of the things that was an eventual eye opener to me as a younger Bible reader was to see this matter of the Fall. That is that "screw ups" as you called them, in nature, in many instances, seemed to be attributed to the disharmony that occured between God's creature man and God.

How this correlation is established I do not know. But when Adam rebelled God said that the ground was cursed because of him. When complaints are made that destructive forces in nature seem the incompetent design of any Creator, I point out that matter of the Fall. Things as we see them today are not as the Creator originally pronounced them "very good" (if not perfect) before the Fall of man into the opposition party against God.


You lose me when you speak of "obligation to imitate" the works of God.
What do you mean by that ?

Well, whatever Den meant by his OP.

I'll go back and read it

He seemed to be saying that since rape exists in nature, evolutionists should imitate it and be rapists. [/qs]

I see. But I want to double check that.


But this argument would hold no water even if we attributed dolphin rape to the works of God.

I can't make his argument any clearer than he made it himself.

As for being annoyed that one has an explanation for everything and anything ? Sounds to me like your standard hard core Evolutionist. Why are you annoyed at getting a taste of your own medicine?

But this is typical creationist nonsense.

I can dismiss as nonsense just as easily.


I don't have an explanation for everything imaginable. Show me rabbits in the Cambrian, and I'll fold up and admit that everything I thought I knew about biology was wrong.

I just have an explanation for everything that actually exists. That's how I know I'm right. Evolution explains what is there, and could not possibly explain a million other scenarios.

When I look out at the probably millions of life forms and the variety of them all, it is hard for me to say "Evolution explain what is there". I am not too concerned for the millions of other scenarios hypothetically imagined. I am concerned about the millions of scenarios that I know exist.

I am not a biologist. If I was I would look more intensely into the theories of abrupt appearance, or something like punctuated equilibrium or some other relatively sudden modification in life forms.

To me gradualism is difficult to imagine as explaining everything. The fossil of any living thing found is no garuantee that the creature had any offspring at all. How do I know that animal was the ancestor to another ?

And it most mutations are said to be destructive and harmful and the minority of lucky ones are helpful, why don't we see many fold more fossils of the harmfully effected organisms.

And the matter of what I call "Look Ahead Ability" is lacking in the evolutionary scheme. Natural selection is suppose to cause adoption for living things as they exist at the moment. To believe that evolutionary gradualism accounts for all the life that we see there has to have been some ability to intelligently look ahead - ie. a plan.


But the problem with creationism is that you could explain every scenario. Whatever the universe was like, you could just say: "Well, it's that way because God wanted it to be that way ... for reasons that I can't explain because I'm not as wise as God." You could answer every exam question like this:

Well you have to admit that an Intelligence that is without limit would take at best a long time to catch up to. In technology we discover how we can use natural laws to accomplish marvelous things for us. This seems to be to be reading out of creation intelligence that was put into it.

Now, a single human life span has only so much time to comprehend. So standing upon the time and labor of previous minds man comes into more and more comprehension as time goes on. Generations build upon the knowledge of previous ones and technology advances.

So if there is a Intelligent Mind planting into the creation laws which can be read out and channeled intelligently, I don't see the problem with admitting that we still have a long way to go to "catch up" so to speak with the Mind that creatred these laws.

What do we lose by admiting that a Creating God is vastly more smart than we at this time? Do we lose the initiative to study science? I don't think so.

Aside from humbling our ego trip a bit, what is lost by admitting that a creating God seems way ahead of us in knowledge ? Will this kill you to acknowledge this? Will it cause you to throw up your hands and research no longer ?

Q : Explain why phosphorus trichloride is polar.

A : Because God made it that way.

But when you say Evolution explains everything we see, you are not being less presumptious ?


Before you become annoyed that this gives the creationist a way to explain everything, remember that you can and do exercise the same kind of speculation to explain Evolution as the only cause of nature's continuation.

But again, you are wrong.

I am tied down by the evidence. Morphology, the fossil record, genetics, embryology, biogeography, geology --- my beliefs are constrained by reality.

But these disciplines all work in their own areas of expertise. I think each does not necessarily know what is going on in the other discipline. The assumption that all together they all agree on major themes of Darwinism is exaggerated.

Problems with evolutinary thought arise in all these disciplines. And sometimes each assumes that the other guy must have the answer to the problem. So everyone assumes that everyone else can fill in the blanks to vindicate Darwin's theory.

I have a problem with believing that Darwiniam gradualism can explain ALL that we see.


But yours aren't. Whatever the facts are, you can still say: "God did it ... by using his special God-magic ... for reasons that we as mere mortals cannot explain".

There is a lot of concepts in this charge that I do not agree with. For one it kind of insituates that God is a arbitrary despot, a tyrant bent on keeping "mere mortals" kept from their possibilities.

In this charge is the old assumption "God is out to keep you down so that you do not fulfill your highest possibilities."

This kind of suspicion does not reflect what I see in the life of Christ as the MAN with whom God was well pleased. It doesn't add up with what I see as the climax of His eternal purpose or salvation.

IF God did not want man to be like God then why would God make man in the image of God? Suspicions that "God is the enemy" I think are unfounded in many ways.


In this case the same principle that worked against me also works for me.
By one man's sin all were constituted sinners. Yet in converse by one man's act of obedience all men can be justified and constituted righteous.

Yes, I know what your theology is.

My point is this.

You think that it is right and just for God to condemn dolphins to be raped as a punishment for a human eating a piece of fruit.

To me that seems so bizarre that if this is justice I clearly have no idea what justice is. If this is good, then I don't know good from evil.

In which case I am in the pre-Fall state. I'm like an infant in the womb. I have no idea what is just and what is unjust. The consequences of eating the forbidden fruit are clearly no part of my inheritance. I have no need of Christ as my saviour.

Maybe this theological point is so subtle and involved that we should start a new thread.

Maybe so.

Now I don't know about dolphin rape at all. But let me go back to Isaiah 11. It says to the effect that a time is coming when the earth will be filled with the knowledge of God as the waters cover the sea. And in this situation the lion and the lamb will lie down together and the bear will eat vegetation.

So perhaps transfering your concept you are saying "Is the lion slaughtering the lamb to EAT it today, punishment to the LAMB for the sin of Adam?"

If so, you say, where is the goodness and justice in that. The poor lamb certainly would not agree that it is good and just.

Granted, if I were the lamb, as I was being carried away in the jaws of the lion, I would probably be thinking "This is not cool at all!"

Now whether this misfortune is punishment to the lamb for Adam's sinning, I want to meditate on more. This is tricky. I am not sure the misfortune to the eaten lamb is its punishment from God.

But I see your point. What I don't know is whether the lamb, small fish, eaten mouse, eaten wilderbeast, or eaten plant for that matter has the same sense of the termination of its soul as man has.

While becomming lunch for a larger and stronger predator cannot be enjoyable, I am not sure that the animal mind has a concept that it is being punished by divine justice while it is morally innocent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2010 5:52 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 05-28-2010 8:52 AM jaywill has not yet responded
 Message 45 by Huntard, posted 05-28-2010 9:30 AM jaywill has responded
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2010 4:57 AM jaywill has responded
 Message 50 by Modulous, posted 06-02-2010 12:31 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 3287 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 44 of 64 (562366)
05-28-2010 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by jaywill
05-28-2010 4:11 AM


And it most mutations are said to be destructive and harmful and the minority of lucky ones are helpful, why don't we see many fold more fossils of the harmfully effected organisms.

A) Because most mutations from one generation to the next are too small to notice (especially in a fossil)

and

B) Because any mutations that are so "destructive or harmful" as to be visible in a fossil will likely have only existed in 1 individual (because it won't have been able to reproduce). The number of individuals that become fossilised and are found are a tiny fraction of the total number of individuals from their species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jaywill, posted 05-28-2010 4:11 AM jaywill has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 45 of 64 (562369)
05-28-2010 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by jaywill
05-28-2010 4:11 AM


jaywill writes:

And the matter of what I call "Look Ahead Ability" is lacking in the evolutionary scheme.


Of course, there is no such ability.

Natural selection is suppose to cause adoption for living things as they exist at the moment.

Yes.

To believe that evolutionary gradualism accounts for all the life that we see there has to have been some ability to intelligently look ahead - ie. a plan.

Why would that have to be the case?

Well you have to admit that an Intelligence that is without limit would take at best a long time to catch up to.

In fact if it was limitless (what does that even mean, a limitless intelligence) you could never catch up, could you?

But when you say Evolution explains everything we see, you are not being less presumptious ?

Of course not, we have evidence for evolution. And no evidence for god.

I have a problem with believing that Darwiniam gradualism can explain ALL that we see.

And who told you it explains all? That person was an idiot. It doesn't explain the sun, the moon, the stars, the other planets, how earth was formed and a whole host of other things. So no, Darwiniam gradualism doesn't explain ALL we see.

There is a lot of concepts in this charge that I do not agree with. For one it kind of insituates that God is a arbitrary despot, a tyrant bent on keeping "mere mortals" kept from their possibilities.

In this charge is the old assumption "God is out to keep you down so that you do not fulfill your highest possibilities."

This kind of suspicion does not reflect what I see in the life of Christ as the MAN with whom God was well pleased. It doesn't add up with what I see as the climax of His eternal purpose or salvation.

IF God did not want man to be like God then why would God make man in the image of God? Suspicions that "God is the enemy" I think are unfounded in many ways.


The bible clearly states god dreaded man becoming like him, that's why he kicked adam and eve out of eden afterall, to keep them from the tree of life. Because after eating from that, they would be like him completely. So, god kept them from their full potential. As he is want to do in the bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jaywill, posted 05-28-2010 4:11 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by jaywill, posted 05-31-2010 4:28 PM Huntard has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019