Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
544 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, nwr, Tanypteryx (4 members, 540 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,212 Year: 4,324/6,534 Month: 538/900 Week: 62/182 Day: 34/16 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Security Update Coming Soon


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Theistic Evolution
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 31 of 58 (381970)
02-02-2007 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by subbie
02-02-2007 6:00 PM


Re: Still no support for yourself, eh?
What validation? You mean faked data and concepts like Haeckel's forgeries and the Biogenetic law? Or how about the assumption, totally unproven, that microevolution is the same as macroevolution or can add up to macroevolution?

There is no validation whatsoever to ToE since acceptance of ToE is the basis for interpreting data to support ToE.

Heck, the real bottom line is the final arbiter should be the fossils, hard data, which unequivocally demonstrate no gradualistic macroevolution whatsoever.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by subbie, posted 02-02-2007 6:00 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by subbie, posted 02-02-2007 6:51 PM randman has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 32 of 58 (381984)
02-02-2007 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by randman
02-02-2007 6:05 PM


Re: Still no support for yourself, eh?
The validation that I am talking about is the general acceptance by the scientific community of the ideas in Origin. It is the same as the general acceptance that the peer review process is designed to achieve.

You have been harping on peer review as though it's the sine qua non of any scientific analysis without apparently even considering the reason for the process. Peer review is an effort to ensure that a scientific analysis is reliable enough to be generally accepted by the scientific community. As the process works today, it is often considered an essential precursor to publication.

This process was not in place in 1859, so Origin was not subjected to it prepublication. However, Origin has in essence undergone the same type of analysis, review, criticism and evaluation since its publication. It is now as generally accepted in the scientific community as any paper that anyone could now write.

You refuse to accept this kind of post-publication reivew as equivalent to pre-publication peer review, but it appears that the only reason you do so is because you don't like the conclusions. It's obvious that you would reject for the same reasons any paper or book that was properly subjected to peer review. You couldn't care less about whether the scientific community generally accepts the work, and your reservations have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it was peer reviewed. Your repeated demands for a peer reviewed paper are a transparent red herring, apparently designed to distract from the fact that you have no response to the request for proof to back up your implied assertion that the ToE denies the existence of god, or that "plenty of scientists" make a scientific argument to the same effect.

Your empty criticisms of the ToE have been answered repeatedly on this forum, and I see no need to rehash those tired misunderstandings.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by randman, posted 02-02-2007 6:05 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by randman, posted 02-02-2007 7:44 PM subbie has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 33 of 58 (381993)
02-02-2007 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by subbie
02-02-2007 6:51 PM


Re: Still no support for yourself, eh?
It is the same as the general acceptance that the peer review process is designed to achieve.

Except this acceptance was acheived quite often with outright falsity instead of a scientifically reliable process.

However, Origin has in essence undergone the same type of analysis, review, criticism and evaluation since its publication.

Except that it hasn't. Most the claims used to bring about acceptance of Darwinism were false, and when those claims are finally subjected to scientific scrutiny, such as with Haeckel, they have been shown to be wrong, and yet the theory itself continues to be presented as somehow validated despite their being no reasonable, scientific validation process.

In fact, I am not sure there is one bit of data that anyone knows for sure really supports Darwinism. Certainly, the fossil data is not supportive of Darwinism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by subbie, posted 02-02-2007 6:51 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by subbie, posted 02-02-2007 7:47 PM randman has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 34 of 58 (381994)
02-02-2007 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by randman
02-02-2007 7:44 PM


Re: Still no support for yourself, eh?
More red herrings, still no support for your own claim.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by randman, posted 02-02-2007 7:44 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by randman, posted 02-02-2007 7:48 PM subbie has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 35 of 58 (381995)
02-02-2007 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by subbie
02-02-2007 7:47 PM


Re: Still no support for yourself, eh?
No, the red herring is, as usual for most evos, when confronted with facts, you try to divert the conversation by making up false accusations about the other person's motives. The truth is I reject Darwinism and neo-Darwinism, however you want to say it, because it is not fact-based, plain and simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by subbie, posted 02-02-2007 7:47 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by subbie, posted 02-02-2007 8:06 PM randman has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 36 of 58 (382001)
02-02-2007 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by randman
02-02-2007 7:48 PM


Re: Still no support for yourself, eh?
That's sweet. It really is.

But the topic of this thread is that the ToE is inconsistent with the idea of a god. It really has nothing to do with whether the theory is valid or not. Thus, your rejection is irrelevant.

The foundational work of the ToE is Darwin's Origin. The second edition includes this statement:

quote:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

So, unless you are hopelessly unable to stick to the topic of the thread, please address the claim that the ToE is inherently inconsistent with god, either as Darwin presented it, or as modified in any scientific work since.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by randman, posted 02-02-2007 7:48 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by randman, posted 02-02-2007 8:48 PM subbie has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 37 of 58 (382007)
02-02-2007 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by subbie
02-02-2007 8:06 PM


Re: Still no support for yourself, eh?
Um, need I remind you that you brought up the issue of scientific papers, not me?

LOL

But when it's pointed out to you that the claims of Darwin were not brought up via scientific papers, you retreat to complaining this is off-topic?

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by subbie, posted 02-02-2007 8:06 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by subbie, posted 02-02-2007 8:58 PM randman has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 38 of 58 (382013)
02-02-2007 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by randman
02-02-2007 8:48 PM


Re: Still no support for yourself, eh?
I only brought in the issue of scientific papers to rule out you trying to support your claim with some nonsense creo tract that doesn't actually say what the ToE says. But if it makes you happy to blame me for taking us off topic first, I couldn't care less.

Now that we are back on topic, do you have any support for the claim? This is the sixth time I have asked you to back up what you say. I think that's more than fair. I'm in no rush to get a response from you, so please take as much time as you like.

However, absent a substantive reply, I will be forced to conclude that you realize you have no support for the ridiculous claim that the ToE is inconsistent in any fashion with the existence of god.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by randman, posted 02-02-2007 8:48 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by randman, posted 02-02-2007 9:10 PM subbie has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 39 of 58 (382016)
02-02-2007 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by subbie
02-02-2007 8:58 PM


Re: Still no support for yourself, eh?
I only brought in the issue of scientific papers to rule out you trying to support your claim

Actually that's total BS since you brought the issue up prior to me even posting on this thread.

As far as backing up my claims, I have backed them all up. Are you referring to the Watson and Wilson interview on Charlie Rose? You stated this:

I will be forced to conclude that you realize you have no support for the ridiculous claim that the ToE is inconsistent in any fashion with the existence of god.

Sounds like you are one confused puppy, subbie. Show where I made that claim here, please.

I will say, however, that evos do twist logic to reject any inclusion of God as causal for what we observe as reality, and that they do so arbitrarily.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by subbie, posted 02-02-2007 8:58 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by subbie, posted 02-02-2007 9:28 PM randman has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 40 of 58 (382021)
02-02-2007 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by randman
02-02-2007 9:10 PM


Re: Still no support for yourself, eh?
Well, since it's the topic of the thread, I guess I assumed you were supporting the claim. If I'm wrong, and you disagree with it, say so and we can put an end to this whole thing.

I glanced at the thread about the Rose interview but didn't read it thoroughly. It appears that the interview is rather lengthy. It will take me some time to listen to it. In the meantime, do you have anything else, or is that the sum total of your evidence?


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by randman, posted 02-02-2007 9:10 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by randman, posted 02-02-2007 9:42 PM subbie has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 41 of 58 (382027)
02-02-2007 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by subbie
02-02-2007 9:28 PM


Re: Still no support for yourself, eh?
subbie, that sum total is a lot more evidence than you have bothered to have supplied. Moreover, you posted a lot of false crap about just responding to me when I hadn't even posted on the thread and entered the thread to correct a point.

Personally, I think a Christian can believe in ToE, as I once did myself, but the more I looked into the facts backing up evolution, the more I saw a bunch of distortions, hoaxes, overstatements, and frauds were the "evidence" for ToE and realized it was a sham.

I do agree with Herepton that evolutionism is rooted in atheist philosophy by a priori excluding by definition God as a causal agent, and so I think it's bogus crap. But it could be possible to develop a theory of God being the cause of evolution, and creating in that manner. There are even parts of the Bible suggestive of abiogenesis and evolution such as "Let the waters bring forth", but I think if one goes down that path, it must be considered a variation of Intelligent Design.

In fact, theistic evolution is really a form of ID.

Of course, there are severe, illogical problems with some of the ideas of theistic evos (for example, jar here claimed that God created the universe and somehow suggested though the imperfection we see in biological life suggests that sort of just happened or some such when logically, God would have created evolution as well, and so planned on that imperfection deliberately).

But my basic beef with evos are their inherent hypocrisy in claiming to be a fact-based instead of faith-based belief system when the opposite is the case. They are interpreting the facts based on their faith in evolutionism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by subbie, posted 02-02-2007 9:28 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by subbie, posted 02-02-2007 10:11 PM randman has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 42 of 58 (382036)
02-02-2007 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by randman
02-02-2007 9:42 PM


Re: Still no support for yourself, eh?
Gosh, I think we made more progress in that last post that in the entire thread.

The initial point that I made was that there's nothing inherently contradictory between the idea of evolution by natural selection and a divine being. You seem to agree with that. If I am reading you correctly, your only argument with that idea is that it leads to certain logical contradictions if one assumes that the divine being was trying to create perfection in life. However, of course, it's quite possible for one to believe in a divine being that was not trying to create perfection in life.

You say that you, as a christian, used to believe in the ToE but gave as your reasons for rejecting it that you concluded that the theory was a sham. This suggests that you didn't see anything contradictory between the ToE and your religion.

However, you also claim that you believe the ToE excludes a priori god as being a causal agent. This seems inconsistent. Do you mean to say that you believe it excludes your interpretation of the christian god, or that it excludes any possiblity of any divine being?

The ToE claims that descent with modification, as I outlined it in my post 19 of this thread, accounts for the diversity of life on this planet. Please explain what in the theory is inconsistent with the idea that a divine being directed that evolution to ensure that man was the end result? Certainly there's nothing in the ToE that supports such a notion, but what is there in it that contradicts the notion?


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by randman, posted 02-02-2007 9:42 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by randman, posted 02-02-2007 11:17 PM subbie has replied
 Message 44 by GDR, posted 02-02-2007 11:37 PM subbie has taken no action

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 43 of 58 (382046)
02-02-2007 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by subbie
02-02-2007 10:11 PM


not be contrarian
If I am reading you correctly, your only argument with that idea is that it leads to certain logical contradictions if one assumes that the divine being was trying to create perfection in life.

Not to be contrarian, but that's not really where I am coming from. The truth is I object to this line of thinking altogether on several grounds; one being that we really should not consider in science what God would think of as "perfect", at least not at this stage.

I think the best and only reasonable conclusion for considering the ideas of a good God and reality is the story in the Bible of our reality being subject to suffering due to the Fall, but all that takes a good bit of time to discuss. Suffice to say, it seems to me that objecting to the notion of a Designer based on the fact that the current design is imperfect from our vantage point is really injecting one's personal theology into a scientific debate and is inappropiate.

So you can see that really I don't think science and the data speak to this issue at all, one way or another. I actually do think God is creating perfection, but it's a process which of necessity contains a level of what we call suffering and imperfection to bring out a particularly special beauty and perfection not possible otherwise, namely the beauty of love that is tested.

You say that you, as a christian, used to believe in the ToE but gave as your reasons for rejecting it that you concluded that the theory was a sham. This suggests that you didn't see anything contradictory between the ToE and your religion.

Well, sort of. The more I looked at ToE, I considered it contradictory because of it's basic untruthfulness, and also considered it contradictory in it's logic. I also must admit that I was not sure if ToE really was totally harmonious, but could reconcile some ideas within ToE with the Bible. I did not object to the an old earth based on the Bible because I think the Bible can and probably should be interpreted based on an old earth, and there are other things about ToE that I think the Bible is sufficiently vague to harmonize with ToE and even some parts of the Bible very strongly supportive of ToE such as Genesis speaking of water and the earth bringing forth life, but the more I looked at how ToE approached data, the more it seemed like propaganda to me.

However, you also claim that you believe the ToE excludes a priori god as being a causal agent. This seems inconsistent.

Well, that was because I just believed evolutionism was based on objective science. The more I learned about how evos treated data, such as that their approach rules out God as causal a priori, the more I rejected ToE as invalid and propaganda.

The ToE claims that descent with modification, as I outlined it in my post 19 of this thread, accounts for the diversity of life on this planet. Please explain what in the theory is inconsistent with the idea that a divine being directed that evolution to ensure that man was the end result?

Well, first your first statement is wrong since the first life form could not have arrived via descent with modification. It's no use to say that is separate from ToE because that also makes the statement wrong since ToE does not explain life on this planet, but just lays out the potential for how life developed after life came to this planet.

Secondly, as is amply clear by evos' objecting to ID theory, evolutionism does reject the concept that God can be causal to life developing and being here on this planet. That idea is considered a threat to science and as unscientific by evos, by definition.

Thirdly, ToE does not match the facts. We don't see macroevolution in the fossil record. So ToE does not explain life on this planet because it doesn't match the facts. Descent with modification has not been shown to account for macroevolution, and in fact, what we do observe about descent with modification is that it is a strong deterrent to macroevolution, creating a variation within a range rather than what evos predicted.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by subbie, posted 02-02-2007 10:11 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by subbie, posted 02-03-2007 12:03 AM randman has replied

GDR
Member (Idle past 188 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 44 of 58 (382049)
02-02-2007 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by subbie
02-02-2007 10:11 PM


Man as the end result?
subbie writes:

The ToE claims that descent with modification, as I outlined it in my post 19 of this thread, accounts for the diversity of life on this planet. Please explain what in the theory is inconsistent with the idea that a divine being directed that evolution to ensure that man was the end result? Certainly there's nothing in the ToE that supports such a notion, but what is there in it that contradicts the notion?

One thing that has occured to me. If evolution was set in motion by the divine using random chance and natural selection, and with no intervention in the process, it is conceivable that the end result didn't necessarily have to be mankind as we exist today. The part of us that makes us what we are isn't our body but is our consciousness/soul/spirit/personality or whatever you want to label it. It seems to me that once a creature with sufficient brain power evolved sufficiently the creator could have breathed consciousness/soul/spirit/personality into the body no matter what form it took.

I know when in the next life I'm not going to be skipping any of the lectures. :)


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by subbie, posted 02-02-2007 10:11 PM subbie has taken no action

subbie
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 45 of 58 (382055)
02-03-2007 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by randman
02-02-2007 11:17 PM


Re: not be contrarian
For what it's worth, I don't consider that post to be contrarian, simply illuminating your ideas.

Well, first your first statement is wrong since the first life form could not have arrived via descent with modification. It's no use to say that is separate from ToE because that also makes the statement wrong since ToE does not explain life on this planet, but just lays out the potential for how life developed after life came to this planet.

That is exactly correct. The ToE does not explain how live on this planet began. It only explains how it evolved.

Secondly, as is amply clear by evos' objecting to ID theory, evolutionism does reject the concept that God can be causal to life developing and being here on this planet. That idea is considered a threat to science and as unscientific by evos, by definition.

Scientists reject ID as a scientific theory because there is no evidence for it, because it is not necessary to invoke it to explain anything, because it doesn't explain anything anyway, and because it invokes a supernatural agent. However, this is not the same as saying that they reject the idea of a divine being's involvement in the process as an article of one's religious faith.

It's important to keep the distinction in mind. Science speaks to what we can observe, but it says nothing about matters of faith. As several people have said here repeatedly, most scientists in fact accept the ToE and hold to their faith as well. That fact would seem to me to be compelling proof that one can reasonably reconcile at least some views of christianity with the ToE.

It is unscientific, for the reasons I discussed above, but no scientist views it as a threat to science so long as it is discussed only in terms of a spiritual belief. The reason it is often viewed as a threat is because, to the scientist, it falsely portrays itself as science, and may cause people to misunderstand the true nature of scientific investigation.

Now, having said that, I understand that you do not view it that way. For purposes of this thread, I have no desire to argue that particular point with you. I can't tell you the number of places that I have read scientists say that they have no quarrel with ID insofar as someone wants to believe it on faith.

I'm not saying that science will ever accept the existence of a supreme being from a scientific point of view. However, I am saying that science does not say that a supreme being is impossible. That question is outside the purview of science as it is practiced.

Saying that the ToE is inconsistent with the existence of god is rather like saying it's inconsistent with the idea of beauty. It is completely consistent with either idea, because both are outside of the realm in which science operates.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by randman, posted 02-02-2007 11:17 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by randman, posted 02-03-2007 1:08 AM subbie has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022