Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8965 total)
57 online now:
14174dm, caffeine, dwise1, jar, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle (9 members, 48 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,266 Year: 5,014/23,288 Month: 135/1,784 Week: 22/211 Day: 22/20 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Key points of Evolution
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 356 (464816)
04-29-2008 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Wumpini
04-29-2008 2:34 PM


Re: God "guided" evolution is accepted scientific theory?
Theistic or not, evolution is evolution

I thought the theory of evolution was supposed to be a natural process.

Are you saying that there is a supernatural "God guided" evolution, and a natural evolution, and the two of these together make up the accepted theory of evolution?

It seems that people keep telling me there is no place for God in science. They say there is no place for the supernatural in scientific theories, laboratories, or classrooms.

Are you making this comment based upon a religious perspective, or a scientific perspective?

Science is unable to say either way, whether or not god has anything to do with anything. God could be behind everything and the scientific outcomes would remain the same.

Objects fall at 9.8 m/s2 whether gravity is pulling them or god's hand is pushing them.

The ToE could simply be the way that God goes about creating his creatures. Science doesn't care one way or the other as long as the results are consistant.

Also, in Genesis it says that god formed man from the dirt. By 'forming' it could be referring to the process of evolution and by dirt it could be referring to the non-life that the original life arrose from.

They don't HAVE to be mutually exclusive.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Wumpini, posted 04-29-2008 2:34 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 356 (464835)
04-29-2008 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by RAZD
04-29-2008 6:10 PM


Next time you think you need a physician, perhaps all you need is a physicist or a chemist? How about a car mechanic - he can make your car better, yes?

The point being that physicians are not biologists, their training is in a different specialty, and this makes them no better than anyone else that does not have a biology degree to be able to talk about biology. Scientific opinions are only valid when they come from scientists that have studied the field ... and even then you are dealing with the argument from authority logical fallacy. Scientists don't trust the validity of the theory of relativity because Einstein said so.

Did you see the thread on different paradigms?

From the OP:

quote:
I have been wondering about why it is so hard for scientists, and evolutionary biologists in particular, to communicate and convince Creationists of scientific ideas. I have also been reading a lot of Thomas Kuhn lately. I don't think you need to be familiar with Kuhn's entire philosophy to understand where this is going, but I'll give a brief summary.

Kuhn says that different scientific fields exist in different paradigms, which is the context in which scientists investigate their field of sceince. Researchers in different fields work under different paradigms, and so often have trouble interacting, since their methods and terminology are so different. E.g. Fluid mechanists recognize solids and fluid, whereas chemists recognize solids, liquids, and gases. Marine biologist wonder what happens to larvae that are released from a specific point, physical oceanographers model how the entire ocean moves. A molecular biologist thinks of a species as forming a phylogenetic clade, whereas an ecologist thinks of a species as a groups of animals with ecological similar roles, whereas an evolutionary biologist thinks of a species as a reproductively isolated group of individuals.

The point is, the communication problem results from the fact that different terminology is used, that we are interacting under different paradigms. Many creationists (and cdesign proponentsists) use scientific terminology in the wrong way, indicating that they are thinking in an alternate context, using alternate terminology like random mutation, natural selection, evolving into a new species, humans coming from apes, etc. They have been taught to put together phrases about evolution in a manner which differs from the biological manner, which indicates they they are thinking in a different Kuhnian paradigm.


Any connection?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 04-29-2008 6:10 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 356 (464886)
04-30-2008 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Wumpini
04-30-2008 3:03 PM


Re: Maybe this will clear things up
Therefore, I concur that almost all scientists believe in evolution. Whether they all have the same definitions, or different definitions, I do not know. I also am convinced, until the evidence shows otherwise, that scientists are divided about the mechanism responsible for these changes, and many scientists believe that a supernatural element (God) is somehow involved in the process.

But they don't incorporate god into the scientific explanation of the process.

Whether god is behind it or not, the process is the same.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 3:03 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 4:57 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 356 (464892)
04-30-2008 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Wumpini
04-30-2008 4:57 PM


Re: Should we consider the implications?
Whether god is behind it or not, the process is the same.

I would agree that the process that is being observed today would be the same.

However, if God was involved in the process sometime in the past, and according to the study 45% of scientists say that He was, would our conclusions be the same?

Well, yes. They would.

The conclusion is drawn from the evidence. Whether the evidence happened with or without god is of no concern.

The evidence is that objects consistently fall to the earth when dropped. It doesn't matter if that is an entirely natural process or if god is actually pushing things down.

The fact that things are falling is just describing how god, himself, pushes things to the ground. Or its describing how Santa Clause does it, or its describing how the process naturally occurs. It doesn't matter what we put 'behind' the evidence, the conclusion will be the same.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 4:57 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 356 (464948)
05-01-2008 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Wumpini
04-30-2008 11:58 PM


Re: God does not equal zero!
That leaves the 40% that believe that God was involved in the process, including man's creation. We do not know how involved. However, we do know that His involvement does not equal zero.

God does not equal zero.

Evolution does not equal zero.

Time does not equal zero.

Therefore - Observed diversity = life forms + God + evolution + time

All of the components are necessary for the calculation.

No, they're not.

The ToE accurately describes the evidence even when God is not a part of the equation. That doesn't mean that god had nothing to do with it, it means that god is not a necessary component for the calculation.

You're misconstruing what the poll insinuates so you can say that the scientists are divided. They are not divided on whether or not the ToE is accurate.

They are divided on what their personal faiths are, as expected.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 11:58 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Wumpini, posted 05-01-2008 5:43 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 356 (464991)
05-01-2008 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Wumpini
05-01-2008 5:43 PM


Re: I agree - Yes they are divided, and No they are not divided!
Acutally, the scientists are divided on whether they believe God exists. They could also be divided on what role they believe that God has played in the past in this creation where we live.

I believe God exists. I don't know what role he has played in the past in this creation where we live. I don't believe the Bible is literal and inerrant in what it says on what role that God has played in the past in this creation where we live. The Theory of Evolution doesn't say anything about what role that God has played in the past in this creation where we live.

It is hard to tell from the statement they selected in the poll.

It was a shitty poll.

:laugh:

There's gotta be a better way to phrase that...

Based upon your opinion and others, I would agree that they are not divided upon the sufficiency of the Theory of Evolution.

It is a solid theory.

That does not mean they are right (or that they are wrong). I have not reached that conclusion yet. Though, I am working in that direction.

Take it from me, they're right.

So, yes they are divided, but no they are not divided! I agree totally.

There is a line, though.

If the Bible is literal and inerrant, then the ToE is wrong. The ToE is not wrong, therefore the Bible is not literal and inerrant.

It seems 5%, IIRC from the shitty poll, think the ToE is wrong presumably because they believe the Bible is literal and inerrant (assuming they're the YEC scientists that the poll seems to be targeting).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Wumpini, posted 05-01-2008 5:43 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 3:06 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 356 (465046)
05-02-2008 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Wumpini
05-02-2008 3:06 AM


Re: With God all things are possible
If the Bible is literal and inerrant, then the ToE is wrong.

With God all things are possible.

That's called 'hand waving'.

Maybe it is possible that the Bible can be literal and inerrant, and the ToE is valid also.

Not with the way they are written this day.

All it would take would be a little supernatural intervention.

Like what? The only thing I can think of is to change the Bible or change the evidence that the ToE relies on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 3:06 AM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 6:26 PM New Cat's Eye 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 © 2020