Evolution and the Existence of God

[Foxfyre]

No, it CAN be a religious tenent, but again, as I have explained in some detail, it does not need to be. ID is a concept, a theory if you prefer, that the complexity, symmetry, order of the universe and the things that are in it did not happen by pure happenstance or just randomly lucked out to be the way they are. It is a concept that there is an intelligence behind it, something that is ordering it or causing it to be the way it is. It is the same kind of phenomenon in what we can evidence in our own sometimes unexplainable reasoning processes or instinct that occurs outside of experience or appreciation for beauty or anything else that cannot be explained scientifically.

Such things exist though science cannot explain why. It is not a religious notion then to think that such intelligence could extend beyond that which we have experienced and is a force within it all. It does not require belief in a diety or any supernatural being. It only has to assume that everything hasn't happened by pure chance.

And that is absolutely a concept that should be part of the full education of every student. Had it been part of yours, explained in that way, you might not be doggedly insisting that ID is religion and couldn't be anything else. That is becoming repetitiously tedious as I am sure my attempts to explain it as I see it has no doubt become repetitiously tedious to others.

Here is our problem. The thing is, ID requires that there be an Intelligence that directs or guides the creation of life. That intelligence IS what forces this into the religious category as that requires it to be OUTSIDE of natural laws. Natural laws are not intelligence and that intelligence cannot be construed to be natural. That makes the intelligence SUPERNATURAL i.e. religious. I challenge you to come up with a scenario other than the ET one I have covered where that intelligence is not religious in nature. You will not be able to. It does not have to be a deity by the way as there are many religions that do not believe in a deity but they all believe in a supernatural element and that is what is behind the intelligence in ID.

Not at all. As Einstein, as did Spinoza before him, for instance, concluded, the intelligence itself is part of the natural order. He did not see it as supernatural, but as a part of the whole. Just as you have to have certain elements in order for certain things to happen whether we are speaking of suns or planets or comets or whatever, one of those elements is the intelligence that results in the otherwise unexplainable order that exists in the universe.

 

[JoLouis]

If the designer was so intelligent, why are there so many dumbass ugly people in the world?

 

[antagon]

First truth is evidence independent. In stone age, there's no evidence for the presence of black holes, it's far from saying that black holes did not exist in stone age.

Evidence is just for a human brain to recognise a truth (or rather for a belief system to believe that it is the truth). Something is evident to one may not be evident enough to someone else, because they possess a diffferent belief systems (brains).

Science is abit special. Science is the discovery of natural rules which predicts precisely for our brain/belief system to reckon them as the truth. Say, water decomposes into hydrogen and oxygen, this chemical rule allows you to predict precisely that water everywhere behaves so. You can predict this result before every single experiment, and every single experience when set up correctly can hardly falsify your prediction by using the rule. The rule is thus reckoned by human brains/belief systems as the truth.

Evidence is thus not a requirement by science. Evidence is a requirement by human brains because of human failure in dealing with the past. That is, we can't know the past for sure, that's why we need evidence to attempt to approach what truly happened. Humans brains/belief systems are thus required to subjectively give out mainly verbal explanations on how to interpret the so-called evidence presented. Various brains may give out various explanations. Perhaps till a certain consensus is reached by a certain group of brains. Then one of the results will be accepted as the 'truth'.

No doubt it is an efficient approach in reality for humans who are futile about the past to try to reach the truth. The limitation is that, no matter how evident things seem to be, there's still a chance that it's not a truth. And the approach itself relies heavily on verbal explanation from the subjective human brains, instead of the establishment of testable scientific rules.

Such an approach is commonly used in human law courts. Things are very evident to certain jury members may not be that evident to other jury members. A consensus will be reached and the case is ruled by the majority of the chosen jury members (human brains). Yet there will be innocents no matter how evident the cases are. And it's not science anyway. It is rather an efficient and practical method to reach truth, but unlike science nothing is guarranteed. Even when all the jury members voted guilty, there is still innocents. In the end, such a system is faith-based, which says "we believe at best that it is the case/truth".

This is not science because it doesn't bear the characteristic of preditability, falsifyability and repeated testability as required by the existing natural scientific rules discovered.

At most ToE is just to reflect one of the possibilities. Is it possible that God created everything in a way we don't know? Noone can rule out that possibility. At the same time, it says that in case God created everything, ToE can never find the truth. It says that it is possible that ToE is not true (in case God created everything). And it's not scientific at the moment anyway. ID is not scientific just as ToE, yet it bears a chance to find out the truth in case God created everything.

You are camping in a park you have never been to...in a portion of the park resembling no scenery of which you are familiar. Upon awakening you feel the multiple stings all over your body. As dawns light approaches you see hoards of minutia and pick an ant off of your arm and look at it and ask the ant... "Are you the cause of my discomfort? Why did you sting me? You brush off all of the offending insects and ask them why...why have they chosen you?" Then you see a wasp and wonder if it is not the ants after all but these wasps that are the source of your discomfort. Maybe it is some unexplained nature of this park and the unusual characteristics it possesss that has caused the insects to go mad and single you out for attack. After all this has never happened when you were sleeping in your bed nor have you seen the world of nature treat you so badly in the city park. The moral of this stupid story is that you lack an ability to discuss a topic from outside the box.

Scientific enquiry is not or certainly should not be poluted by the scientist, his fears..his needs..his comfort...

Religious discussion is always from the point of view of someone with a pre determined agenda or expected outcome. "What will make me less fearfull..more satisfied?"

Point. You don't have to wonder about everything as if you are the center of the universe. That is a dead giveaway that you are of faith. You cannot get to there from here.

this is an interesting debate, boiling down to the thrust of the thread.

hawkins presents that evolution and creation must be mutually exclusive. for me science is the observation of how things came about and the properties and laws of the universe. while an atheist will leave it at that, i apply my faith and my family tradition and attribute the sum of those observations to God. nevertheless, the role of science persists. great miracles have been better understood by scientific observation. some shelter themselves from understanding because their faith impinges on the mystery component of mysticism. for me, the fascination is in the knowledge itself.

ID, failing incorporation into education, is relegated to an appeal to the fascinating nature of the universe, and the homage which it could pay to deity. it goes just so far as to maintain the need for God for those whose faith is strongly based on the unanswered questions mysticism that hawkins also explores. it falls short of real challenging science in so doing, but it polishes back up the 'complex world' component that drove humanity to worshiping the sun when that was a mystery.

i allocate very little of my faith to the idea that there are many mysteries out there. i've invested more in the way of faith by understanding past mysteries, if anything related to knowledge at all. i fancy the tradition, culture, and spirituality components of religion, which are often overlooked in this debate. without these, i would not likely be religious, irrespective of nature, however, the concept that we are the products of a big-bang and evolved from sludge does not shake my faith, whatsoever..

that's where my fundamental curiosity with the creationist coalition comes from. despite their being admittedly more embroiled in indulging in faith than i, has their faith not diversified to these other primordial functions to which religion caters? i wonder of atheists, given satisfaction of human thirst for understanding, have these individuals found satisfaction without these same existential pillars of culture, spirituality and tradition, or sourced them elsewhere?

 

[antagon]

Not at all. As Einstein, as did Spinoza before him, for instance, concluded, the intelligence itself is part of the natural order. He did not see it as supernatural, but as a part of the whole. Just as you have to have certain elements in order for certain things to happen whether we are speaking of suns or planets or comets or whatever, one of those elements is the intelligence that results in the otherwise unexplainable order that exists in the universe.

unexplainable?

 

[FA_Q2]

Not at all. As Einstein, as did Spinoza before him, for instance, concluded, the intelligence itself is part of the natural order. He did not see it as supernatural, but as a part of the whole. Just as you have to have certain elements in order for certain things to happen whether we are speaking of suns or planets or comets or whatever, one of those elements is the intelligence that results in the otherwise unexplainable order that exists in the universe.

And here is likely where we will not be able to agree. That intelligence that Einstein speaks of is religion to me as it cannot be supported by objective science. If it is a law in nature then it can be quantified, explored and predicted (aka NOT intelligence but law). Just because Einstein said it does not make it non religious, he was a religious man.

You stated "unexplainable order" and that is partly what makes it religion. Science deals with the explainable, religion deals with the rest. I have no other way of putting this. ID MUST be religious, intelligence is not law, it has choice and flexibility. Intelligence can act one way and then act completely different under the same circumstances.

 

[FA_Q2]

i wonder of atheists, given satisfaction of human thirst for understanding, have these individuals found satisfaction without these same existential pillars of culture, spirituality and tradition, or sourced them elsewhere?

I can say that, as an atheist, I have found satisfaction without the need for a religion. Culture and spirituality (or as I may call it humanity) have just as much meaning to an atheist as it does to a theist, we just recognize those things for the beauty that is without the need for a greater existence. You do not need to source those things from somewhere else, it is just as wondrous for atheists as it is for theists. On that same note, does it take a theological approach to find the beauty in art? The value of a good piece of artwork is defined the same way as the value of culture and spirituality and all those can be enjoyed no matter what the philosophical base for it is.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not at all. As Einstein, as did Spinoza before him, for instance, concluded, the intelligence itself is part of the natural order. He did not see it as supernatural, but as a part of the whole. Just as you have to have certain elements in order for certain things to happen whether we are speaking of suns or planets or comets or whatever, one of those elements is the intelligence that results in the otherwise unexplainable order that exists in the universe.

unexplainable?

You mean you think you are the one person on the entire planet who can explain it? I think I'd like to see that.

 

[FA_Q2]

Not at all. As Einstein, as did Spinoza before him, for instance, concluded, the intelligence itself is part of the natural order. He did not see it as supernatural, but as a part of the whole. Just as you have to have certain elements in order for certain things to happen whether we are speaking of suns or planets or comets or whatever, one of those elements is the intelligence that results in the otherwise unexplainable order that exists in the universe.

unexplainable?

You mean you think you are the one person on the entire planet who can explain it? I think I'd like to see that.

cannot currently be explained and unexplainable are two different things. Unexplainable is religion's stomping ground and cannot currently be explained is sciences stomping ground.

 

[Foxfyre]

unexplainable?

You mean you think you are the one person on the entire planet who can explain it? I think I'd like to see that.

cannot currently be explained and unexplainable are two different things. Unexplainable is religion's stomping ground and cannot currently be explained is sciences stomping ground.

Okay then I just used the wrong word. (I do that a lot).

But unless the scientists just happens to luck into something unexpected, all science begins with "why" or "how" or "I wonder if. . . ." or "what would happen if. . . ." And then it seeks to explain the previously unexplained or to know the previously unknown. And generally in the process of that, possibilities begin to form in the mind that push the process forward. The results add to the body of knowledge that we have along with advancements useful, and sometimes negatively perplexing, for the human species.

And, for the open mind, within all those questions is always room for the possibility of ID.

 

[Father Time]

For the faithful it has no effect. Evolution in animals is only proven to exist WITHIN a species. There is NO evidence what so ever, of any verifiable scientific proof, that one species has ever evolved into 2 entirely different species or more. NONE. Those are unproven theories.

One can not compare viruses and plants to animal life they operate on different genetic make ups and function entirely different from one another.

Evolution with in a species has nothing to do with disproving the existence of God. It is simply a function of Nature which God provided on this planet when he created it and all life there in.

Now as to the THEORY that evolution does allow for animals to develop 2 or more different species from a single species, even that has nothing to do with disproving God. That would simple mean that is the method God chose to create those forms of life, including the potential for man.

In Genesis God created Adam and Eve from the earth or a rib. This does not preclude human life from having developed from Evolution. When Cain slew Able he was cast out and went to LIVE with other HUMANS. Yet no where does it say God created them as he created Adam and Eve. Thus we have 2 means of life to have been created. If evolutionary theory is to be believed it has no threat to Religion.

This could also explain the claim by some that Adam and Eve were created 6000 or so years ago. Though personally I do not subscribe to the 6000 year old theory.

i could respect that. even though you have some skepticism about what the theory of evolution proposes, you and i agree that there's no threat to God in this or any legit scientific finding. i see there being some absolutes which i associate with God, whereby since God created everything, anything we can find out about it physically or spiritually is just that: a discovery.

i'd go further to say that we can learn a great deal about God through science and the study of the way nature and the universe function and how they were made.

i am curious, do you qualify "For the faithful it has no effect." with "Evolution in animals is only proven to exist WITHIN a species."? while we are both likely christians, we would hang a jury were it up to us to decide if evolution was the culprit for the vast biodiversity on the planet. the evidence, to include the ever incriminating DNA evidence, shows beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution is guilty as charged, from where i sit.

All DNA shows is that everything on this planet came from the same pool of resources. Hardly shocking at all or proof that anything is descended from anything else all on its own. Hell using DNA we must have descended from a mouse like creature in the past as well.

Once again there is not one shred of evidence that man descended from an ape like creature and none to show that an animal has descended from an entirely different animal in the past. That is all speculation.

Bullshit you just haven't looked for it

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human Evolution

[youtube]MCayG4IIOEQ[/youtube]

 

[Father Time]

I may not know what I'm talking about, but I at least do my best not to misrepresent what others post, and if I err in that regard, I fess up and acknowledge the error.

It is true that scientists don't test beliefs and I didn't even hint at such a thing. Scientists test theories which are ever evolving as a result of the testing, analysis, and interpretation of results. Your observation that I hold an "....opinion that all science is closed minded" is almost mind boggling in the face of what I actually posted. Do you generally have that much problem with reading comprehension?

I have not and would not attempt to disprove your religious beliefs, more especially since I don't have a clue what they are. I cannot imagine why you would include that in this discussion unless you again simply manufactured what you think the discussion is about.

I think science does not presume to 'prove' or 'disprove' anything but rather it seeks to verify and/or falsify. There is a subtle difference between these two things. Certainty is a very big word to a legitimate scientist and and one infrequently used.

ID is far more than a belief. It is a concept supported by observation, reasoned consideration, and rational supposition. Again, had you bothered to read what I posted, or perhaps if you were capable of understanding what you read, you would have seen that ID is not necessarily a concept within a religious belief.

NO sir, I read you loud and clear. You are a fence sitter. You claim to have an open mind, and I believe you do in many areas as you appear to be intelligent, yet when presented with overwhelming evidence that that there is no evidence to support your claim that ID is maybe, possibly, could be or should be science your mind goes closed.

A closed mind says that ID will never be supported by science.

An open mind acknowledges that science cannot not verify or falsify ID concepts at this point in human evolvement, but leaves open that possibility at some point.

That's not having an open mind that's just being foolish. There is no way we can falsify ID, no experiment we can possibly perform.

We could falsify aliens on other planets if we visited or photographed every planet, but we don't have the budget to do that. Nonetheless it's still within the realm of science.

 

[antagon]

Not at all. As Einstein, as did Spinoza before him, for instance, concluded, the intelligence itself is part of the natural order. He did not see it as supernatural, but as a part of the whole. Just as you have to have certain elements in order for certain things to happen whether we are speaking of suns or planets or comets or whatever, one of those elements is the intelligence that results in the otherwise unexplainable order that exists in the universe.

unexplainable?

You mean you think you are the one person on the entire planet who can explain it? I think I'd like to see that.

that is the challenge, fox. i find it to be one which science rises to on bases of physical properties and one which faith rises to on spiritual and philosophical ones. i dont accord with the posture that a mystery cant be explained or understood because of the dismissive implications of that type of thinking: it removes the challenge for faith to help us align our philosophy and spirituality with the order of the universe and science to align our understanding with the characteristics of that order.

juxtapose the implications of your statement above with HUGGY's here. from an objective standpoint, i see both as making a claim that the futility in one pursuit plays into the validity of another. while this mindset paints a picture of a squabble over the horizon of understanding, i see there as being an expansion of horizons between faith (or philosophy/contemplation as FA_Q2 reminds) and science, where there is more leant than conflicted between the disciplines. this is full circle to the crux of my OP.

people of faith have a privileged insight into the extents of the fundamental challenge of understanding, and i wonder why some have not applied it in respect to science, as they have with religion:

infinity.

long before science indicated that there is a possibility that the universe is infinite, or a component of an infinite, religious have attributed this characteristic to God and his Creation. on that basis, because the bible also invites us to see God through His Creation in nature as in His record in scripture, we should expect this characteristic to be witnessed by science. not fitting with this expectation, some faithful aim to wield the potential that the universe and it's components are infinite against science in the respect that you have. this is a concurring observation by my estimate: that there is always more to understand. taking, then, a dismissive vantage that there isn't any use, defies the bible's challenge to christian faithful and the validity of the vocation some have undertaken to observe nature on our behalf, much as an atheist defies the very validity of a challenge to understand spirituality by way of deity.

granted infinity, much can be explained by physical concepts such as special relativity, which acts as an intersection between biology, chemistry and physics. i have found philosophical bases supported by the concepts of conservation and relativity, too. exploring that, didn't Jesus as he postulated "do unto others..." mirror, speaking in abstracts, newtons third law postulating a natural expression of conservation: "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".

this is the basis of my questioning your 'otherwise unexplainable order'. it literally places your designer's intelligence behind the mystery component of the known universe, imperiling the reduction of such intelligence by the discovery of science, as atheists believe has been achieved through research. conversely, my God, the infinite christian Creator, instead, is the universe, presenting a challenge by way of observation, to know His nature.

is the misalignment between your ID and my faith clearer now?

 

[antagon]

i wonder of atheists, given satisfaction of human thirst for understanding, have these individuals found satisfaction without these same existential pillars of culture, spirituality and tradition, or sourced them elsewhere?

I can say that, as an atheist, I have found satisfaction without the need for a religion. Culture and spirituality (or as I may call it humanity) have just as much meaning to an atheist as it does to a theist, we just recognize those things for the beauty that is without the need for a greater existence. You do not need to source those things from somewhere else, it is just as wondrous for atheists as it is for theists. On that same note, does it take a theological approach to find the beauty in art? The value of a good piece of artwork is defined the same way as the value of culture and spirituality and all those can be enjoyed no matter what the philosophical base for it is.

absolutely. i think that the cold, spiritless presumption of atheists is an easily arrived conclusion akin to the ignorant, obstinate presumption of faithful. many live right up to these characterizations, but i feel the majority don't. i sprinted to this conclusion posing the question of all atheists above, and stand corrected.

 

[antagon]

That's not having an open mind that's just being foolish. There is no way we can falsify ID, no experiment we can possibly perform.

We could falsify aliens on other planets if we visited or photographed every planet, but we don't have the budget to do that. Nonetheless it's still within the realm of science.

as a self-proclaimed philosopher, and with ID being more a philosophy than a scientific theory, i would venture to challenge it.

i see it as a half-baked proposal. the raw part of the loaf contends that if evidence of complexity implies evidence of intelligence, evidence of simplicity may as well imply stupidity. pursuing that, a closer look at our universe indicates simplicity behind perceived complexity. with an intent to pay this designer character a compliment, ID fails in so doing.

association of design or deliberate guidance imperceptible to measurement to scientific discoveries invites moral judgment or questions of competence on the part of this designer when evidence of design with subjective void of intelligence is presented. among history's account of failed designs which mutually support the theory of natural selection, ID transfers negative connotation to the designer as to the intent of this suffering. as to the contentions which associate the 'design' with acts of intelligence, i say they fail whaen contrasted to a more reasonable assessment based on the whole picture which accounts for success and failure: sometimes intelligent design, sometimes foolish design to the point of failure, but apparently learning as time goes by.

from what philosophical bases these contentions can be argued, i see a reasonable assessment of the material world to be fitting with evolution theory, decidedly, and that evolution more effectively calls on appraisals of the nature of earth and deity, than does this ID supposition, which aims to attribute a characteristic to the nature of the universe, without contemplating the evidences provided by it with commensurate scrutiny.

if ID has lost a leg in application to science, and is so crippled to stand as a philosophy, can it be said, indeed, that it has no leg to stand on?

 

[Father Time]

That's not having an open mind that's just being foolish. There is no way we can falsify ID, no experiment we can possibly perform.

We could falsify aliens on other planets if we visited or photographed every planet, but we don't have the budget to do that. Nonetheless it's still within the realm of science.

as a self-proclaimed philosopher, and with ID being more a philosophy than a scientific theory, i would venture to challenge it.

i see it as a half-baked proposal. the raw part of the loaf contends that if evidence of complexity implies evidence of intelligence, evidence of simplicity may as well imply stupidity. pursuing that, a closer look at our universe indicates simplicity behind perceived complexity. with an intent to pay this designer character a compliment, ID fails in so doing.

association of design or deliberate guidance imperceptible to measurement to scientific discoveries invites moral judgment or questions of competence on the part of this designer when evidence of design with subjective void of intelligence is presented. among history's account of failed designs which mutually support the theory of natural selection, ID transfers negative connotation to the designer as to the intent of this suffering. as to the contentions which associate the 'design' with acts of intelligence, i say they fail whaen contrasted to a more reasonable assessment based on the whole picture which accounts for success and failure: sometimes intelligent design, sometimes foolish design to the point of failure, but apparently learning as time goes by.

from what philosophical bases these contentions can be argued, i see a reasonable assessment of the material world to be fitting with evolution theory, decidedly, and that evolution more effectively calls on appraisals of the nature of earth and deity, than does this ID supposition, which aims to attribute a characteristic to the nature of the universe, without contemplating the evidences provided by it with commensurate scrutiny.

if ID has lost a leg in application to science, and is so crippled to stand as a philosophy, can it be said, indeed, that it has no leg to stand on?

Uh sure, I guess

[youtube]p_nqySMvkcw[/youtube]

 

[JoLouis]

You're all full of shit (and comical at times), but Antagon, you're also a major windbag, lol.

 

[antagon]

your opinions, JoLo, are worth about as much as your neg-rep, -1. thanks, tho, for making your thoroughly profound contributions.

 

[JoLouis]

I just wanted to say that I was enjoying the 2 of you butting thesauri.
One's arguing a belief that something is there without proof, and the other is arguing that something isn't there, also without proof. Does that help?

 

[THE LIGHT]

Not one provable find, not one provable experiment. Nothing except a long list of assumptions. The fact remains. There is no evidence that one animal species has ever evolved into 2 or more different species. NONE, NADA. We have had what? 5000 years of recorded histories? Are we to believe that all the evolution of animals into multiple other animals occurred and then stopped before man was able to record it? That in the last 2 to 3 thousand years no species has been found that evolved into 2 or more different species is not important nor germane to the supposed theory of evolution? How so very convenient.

Fossil records show species evolving over hundreds of thousands and millions of years.
Not 5000 years.
Take a look at some cell structures and viruses. Many of those evolve in seconds.
Respectfully, have you taken Biology 101 at a university?

Just because you take Biology doesn't mean the Biology that you are taking is correct. It just means you took it.

In this case it appears that is the case for you.

 

[THE LIGHT]

On the other hand, it is not blurring science with faith to acknowledge that religious convictions/beliefs/faith or whatever you want to call it does answer questions that science cannot, and there are billions of question that we cannot answer using science or faith.

The way I see it, any credible scientist acknowledges that we currently know a teensy fraction of all the science that there is to know and that science is no more adequate to prove or dispute religious faith than religious faith is adequate to prove or dispute science.

In my world science, incuding evolution, and religious faith coexist together quite comfortably. The way I see it, God was author of both.

"religous convictions/beliefs/faith or whatever you want" can answer religous questions but never scientific questions.

That's why I don't let the religion of atheism tell me what science is. There is one book that has always got it right and that is the Bible. The rest come and go because they are based on what man hopes/prays/believes is true and has nothing to do with reality.