Being a Theistic evolutionist?

[Charlemagne_III]

Prior to the Miller-Urey experiment there were a number of papers describing the atmosphere of the early Earth. Miller and Urey used those papers to determine the mix of gases in their experiment. As further papers appeared, with perhaps a slightly different measure of the early atmosphere, so other scientists repeated the Miller-Urey experiment with the amended atmospheric composition. Science builds on earlier science, and frequently goes back and checks on its results.

None of this proves something about amino acids but nothing about abiogenesis.

Go back and read up on abiogenesis. Whatever differences there are between the first living organism and the simplest form of life today show evolution, but they do not answer the question of how inorganic life began the biosphere.

You just can’t demonstrate that. What we can demonstrate is that certain functions of the first organism came together all at once and without any explanation from you other than law or chance, when they clearly look as if they were intelligently designed to begin the adventure of life on earth. This is not to resort to religion, but to use one’s head (common sense would help) to admit that many truly strange events happened billions of years ago to make life possible.

We recognize intelligent design among human beings, so it is philosophical, rather than a religious statement, to say that life was intelligently designed. Where one goes with that as far as explaining the nature of the Intelligent Designer** is** religion. But science doesn’t have to go there, and atheistic scientists certainly will not.

Many great scientists, including Newton and Einstein, have spoken freely about a God of some kind or other behind nature. That did not stop them from becoming great scientists.
But when you get to the likes of Richard Dawkins, you hear the shallow notion that anyone who looks for a God behind nature is something of a dunce.

It is clear to me that you do not believe in a creator God. So you are then obliged by your philosophy to draw certain conclusions that defy the possibility of Intelligent Design.

Isaac Newton Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.
“This most beautiful system [the solar system] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Albert Einstein Special and General Theories of Relativity
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”

 

[rossum]

Whatever differences there are between the first living organism and the simplest form of life today show evolution, but they do not answer the question of how inorganic life began the biosphere.

Abiogenesis is still being worked on. That is why we do not yet have a working theory of abiogenesis. We have a number of hypotheses and a few partial answers.

You just can’t demonstrate that.

Correct, but we’re working on it. You are in danger f arguing a “God of the gaps” here. That is a recipe for a shrinking God that gets smaller as science fills in the gaps.

What we can demonstrate is that certain functions of the first organism came together all at once and without any explanation from you other than law or chance, when they clearly look as if they were intelligently designed to begin the adventure of life on earth.

No you cannot “demonstrate” that. It is your opinion only – that “look” is significant. “Look, there is water in that mirage!”

We recognize intelligent design among human beings, so it is philosophical, rather than a religious statement, to say that life was intelligently designed.

No, it is a ludicrous statement. There were no human beings around when life started. You are making the huge assumption that it is possible to recognise non-human design. I agree that we can recognise human design in most cases. You have still to demonstrate that we can recognise non-human design. We return to the question of a tested and reliable design detection method.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No, it is a ludicrous statement. There were no human beings around when life started. You are making the huge assumption that it is possible to recognise non-human design. I agree that we can recognise human design in most cases. You have still to demonstrate that we can recognise non-human design. We return to the question of a tested and reliable design detection method.

As I have said so many times for you, I cannot go back in time to prove anything. But neither can you. All you can do is point to modern experiments that prove nothing against intelligent design because they are intelligently designed.

Your assumption there was no design at the time of abiogenesis is atheistic. No?

 

[Peter_Plato]

No, it is a ludicrous statement. There were no human beings around when life started. You are making the huge assumption that it is possible to recognise non-human design. I agree that we can recognise human design in most cases. You have still to demonstrate that we can recognise non-human design. We return to the question of a tested and reliable design detection method.

rossum

The problem here is conflating “human design” with “intelligent design” as if intelligence is and can only be a human quality. If “design” or “intelligence” itself is, like mathematics, a discoverable quality about reality, then we need to be open to the possibility that “intelligent design” is a discernible characteristic about reality itself, one endowed by nature upon us because it pre-existed in nature. We are capable of designing intelligently precisely because nature is intelligent in designing.

I suppose scientists have a vested interest in not ceding this idea because as long as intelligence is merely a human quality there is warrant for claiming that scientists or “those who know” have authority for determining “what is best.” As soon as “intelligence” or “design” become qualities about reality, the possibility that humans do NOT have a de facto right to dictate what ought to be has to be admitted.

In the end, I suppose, it comes down to “knowledge is power” and as long as no pretender to knowledge outside the human camp exists, “smart” humans retain to themselves the default power and authority to determine outcomes. Intelligent design implies there is someone “out there” who does know more than we do, which is an admission the “bright” among us are loathe to make. As long as the myth that there is no one who “knows better” can be promulgated, the longer and more extensively we can continue to make the decisions “we” choose to make.

 

[Peter_Plato]

the catholic clergy aren’t scientists and are responding seemingly in a sensible way to what the world is telling them is a fact. but if you look deeper and you’re open minded, you see that it’s not a fact.
the clergy aren’t informed well enough and probably not too smart for this kind of thing. it does take some brains to learn about it all .

An interesting commentary by Fr. Barron on this idea of the competency of Catholic clergy and the Church’s position vis a vis science - a position that is so susceptible to being radically misrepresented because it is far more complex than the simplistic representations that attempt to depict it:

wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Cosmos-A-Spacetime-Odyssey-A-commentary-by-Fr.aspx

 

[rossum]

As I have said so many times for you, I cannot go back in time to prove anything. But neither can you.

And I have agreed with you many times. I have also pointed out that “proof” is for mathematics, not science. Science accepts the best answer we have based on the evidence to hand. Currently that best answer is abiogenesis for the origin of life and evolution for the development of that initial life into the manifold species we see today.

If you have additional evidence that can replace those two current explanations then please produce it. Remember that “it looks designed to me” does not constitute scientific evidence.

If you want to change the current scientific answer, then you need to provide evidence to support your new answer. Einstein replaced Newton thanks in part to the evidence gathered by Eddington in 1919.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The problem here is conflating “human design” with “intelligent design” as if intelligence is and can only be a human quality.

I was not conflating the two. I said that we are mostly capable of recognising human design. The fact that we can do that is not sufficient to guarantee that we can recognise non-human design. Did anyone recognise that Slartibartfast designed the Norwegian fjords before Douglas Adams? We cannot just assume that non-human design will resemble human design.

If “design” or “intelligence” itself is, like mathematics, a discoverable quality about reality, then we need to be open to the possibility that “intelligent design” is a discernible characteristic about reality itself, one endowed by nature upon us because it pre-existed in nature. (emphases added)

You have an “if … then …” construction here, as I am sure you recognise. What evidence do you have of the correctness of the antecedent? We can deduce nothing from a false antecedent.

Where is your evidence that design is a discoverable quality about nature? We are again returning to the matter of a reliable design detection mechanism.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If you have additional evidence that can replace those two current explanations then please produce it. Remember that “it looks designed to me” does not constitute scientific evidence.

I am not offering an alternative either to abiogenesis or evolution. We are talking not about whether these events have happened, but how they happened. If you have proof that neither event was intelligently designed, please offer it. There is no such proof. In the absence of such proof, intelligent design can be intelligently designated … unless you are an atheist, in which case your philosophy needs to be debated, rather than your science.

If you want to change the current scientific answer, then you need to provide evidence to support your new answer.

**Actually, there is no scientific evidence that abiogenesis or evolution are not intelligently designed. **

Einstein replaced Newton thanks in part to the evidence gathered by Eddington in 1919.

Newtonian physics still works, and acording to a survey of the Royal Society in 2005, Isaac Newton narrowly edged out Albert Einstein as the greatest scientist who ever lived.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

We cannot just assume that non-human design will resemble human design.

Nor can you just assume that non-human design will not resemble human design.

Where is your evidence that design is a discoverable quality about nature?

**Where is your evidence that design is not a discoverable quality about nature? **

We are again returning to the matter of a reliable design detection mechanism.

One thing is for sure: you don’t have one!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

rossum

Would you agree that, so far as abiogenesis is concerned, for atheists intelligent design is out of the question?

 

[edwest2]

The problem here is conflating “human design” with “intelligent design” as if intelligence is and can only be a human quality. If “design” or “intelligence” itself is, like mathematics, a discoverable quality about reality, then we need to be open to the possibility that “intelligent design” is a discernible characteristic about reality itself, one endowed by nature upon us because it pre-existed in nature. We are capable of designing intelligently precisely because nature is intelligent in designing.

I suppose scientists have a vested interest in not ceding this idea because as long as intelligence is merely a human quality there is warrant for claiming that scientists or “those who know” have authority for determining “what is best.” As soon as “intelligence” or “design” become qualities about reality, the possibility that humans do NOT have a de facto right to dictate what ought to be has to be admitted.

In the end, I suppose, it comes down to “knowledge is power” and as long as no pretender to knowledge outside the human camp exists, “smart” humans retain to themselves the default power and authority to determine outcomes. Intelligent design implies there is someone “out there” who does know more than we do, which is an admission the “bright” among us are loathe to make. As long as the myth that there is no one who “knows better” can be promulgated, the longer and more extensively we can continue to make the decisions “we” choose to make.

This appears to be the case. Since materialism is the unbreakable barrier, and a reason to ignore a ‘higher power,’ then yes, some will use science as a basis for their lifestyle choices, or even to compel others to make certain choices. This does not mean that all science is invalid, just that it is incomplete and/or can be off course. Take the trajectory of something traveling a long distance to strike a target. The possibility of hitting the target decreases the longer that something continues along its flight path since it can be deflected by minor things, meaning if science makes a few tiny wrong assumptions, the wrong target may be hit, and the error not recognized. If science continues on the materialist only flight path, it is more likely to end up with certain assumptions about things it cannot demonstrate as true.

We are a creative project. Intelligence was involved.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Mike_SoCal]

Evolution is just a theory that can easily be disputed.

Don’t Torture yourself by trying to make the Bible fit the Evolution theory.

Adaptation is a normal part of life and can be easily proven. Evolution has few facts to back it up. Atheist have made evolution their faith.

If you believe Evolution then you must believe that all life evolved from outer-space rocks carrying organic material which is statistically impossible.

The Bible says we are created in the image of God.

 

[rossum]

I am not offering an alternative either to abiogenesis or evolution.

Then you have lost the scientific aspect of this argument. Science is about the best answer we currently have. Unless you can provide a better alternative then you lose. Abiogenesis and evolution are the best currently available answers to the existing diversity of life on Earth.

We are talking not about whether these events have happened, but how they happened. If you have proof that neither event was intelligently designed, please offer it.

I have discussed your use of the word “proof” before. Your continuing to use it shows that you lack sufficient knowledge of how science works. We have evidence of abiogenesis through chemistry. Currently we have no evidence of abiogenesis through design. In science the side with the better evidence wins.

Unless and until the ID side can produce supporting evidence it will continue to lose the scientific argument.

There is no such proof.

In science there is always an extra possible answer to any question: “We don’t know”. If there is insufficient evidence to support any proposed hypothesis, then science falls back on “we don’t know”. It is never the case that something wins by default.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Would you agree that, so far as abiogenesis is concerned, for atheists intelligent design is out of the question?

No. As Richard Dawkins has said, life on Earth could have been designed by some alien life forms. There is currently no evidence to support that hypothesis, but it is a possible hypothesis.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Natural science uses the scientific (inductive) method with nature as its authority.
The first principle is to observe without prejudice.

I am not so sure that science is about the best answers. “Best answers” sounds more like an opinion of an human interpreter. Then, the question arises – Do interpreters always double check the “answer” against the authority of nature?

Let us apply the above to the science of human evolution. What does nature say about current humans and the humanlike features of archaic fossils? For example, the protruding brow ridge above the eyes? Did the natural environment and/or predators necessitate protection of the eyes? Or were those bones the result of stress coming from the mandible location due to changes in food sources?

The point is that when we go back millions of years in the hominin lineage, nature can have more than one answer. What would nature say about a being with an agile anatomy and rational capabilities? Certainly, there had to be something special about the only hominin, which is extant.

When we consider theistic evolution in Catholic terms, we need to go beyond research conclusions to find out what nature was capable of doing going millions of years backwards. It is possible that the modern humans aka Adam and Eve could dominate nature.

 

[rossum]

I am not so sure that science is about the best answers. “Best answers” sounds more like an opinion of an human interpreter. Then, the question arises – Do interpreters always double check the “answer” against the authority of nature?

Science is about the best answer we currently have. All scientists are aware that the current answers may be improved by new discoveries. The recent discoveries about the CMBR have improved our answers about what happened during inflation immediately after the Big Bang. Some hypotheses have now been discarded because they did not make the right predictions.

The examination of the CMBR was just such a check against nature. Different hypotheses predicted different types of polarization. Only the hypotheses that predicted the correct polarization now survive.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No. As Richard Dawkins has said, life on Earth could have been designed by some alien life forms. There is currently no evidence to support that hypothesis, but it is a possible hypothesis.

rossum

It’s unfortunate that you cite the atheistic philosophy of Richard Dawkins, but it shows that you sympathize with that atheistic philosophy since you invoke it.

Anything, including aliens (but never God) could have intelligently designed abiogenesis.

But as Stephen Meyer has pointed out in Signature in the Cell, any reference to an alien source for life just ends up pushing the problem back through time. It does not solve the problem. Aliens would have had to begin with their own moment of abiogenesis. You cannot say that the aliens might have themselves begun by being seeded by other aliens ad infinitum. This is for the simple reason that the universe is only about 14 billions of years old. It is not eternal. So the problem of alien seeding is refuted, and Richard Dawkins continues to shout to the world how shallow a philosopher he is.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In science there is always an extra possible answer to any question: “We don’t know”. If there is insufficient evidence to support any proposed hypothesis, then science falls back on “we don’t know”. It is never the case that something wins by default.

rossum

This is clearly not true with respect to scientists like Dawkins, who know (or claim they know) that evolution has removed the need for a God hypothesis. Evolution has done no such thing. Moreover, scientists like Dawkins certainly don’t have “evidence to support any proposed hypothesis” about aliens seeding life on Earth.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This is clearly not true with respect to scientists like Dawkins, who know (or claim they know) that evolution has removed the need for a God hypothesis. Evolution has done no such thing. Moreover, scientists like Dawkins certainly don’t have “evidence to support any proposed hypothesis” about aliens seeding life on Earth.

Ironically, even the concession by Dawkins that aliens might have seeded life on Earth reveals a kind of capitulation to the notion that abiogenesis appears to have been intelligently designed.

 

[rossum]

It’s unfortunate that you cite the atheistic philosophy of Richard Dawkins, but it shows that you sympathize with that atheistic philosophy since you invoke it.

“thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” - Leviticus 19:18. Since I have quoted the Bible then I obviously sympathize with that theistic philosophy since I invoked it. This is not a sensible argument. Every critic of Richard Dawkins quotes Richard Dawkins as well. Every critic of the Bible quotes the Bible.

But as Stephen Meyer has pointed out in Signature in the Cell, any reference to an alien source for life just ends up pushing the problem back through time. It does not solve the problem.

Neither does God. What is the origin of God. If you require Professor Dwkins to explain the origin of his aliens, then he is equally entitled to ask you for the origin of your God. Merely changing the word used for the designer(s) from “aliens” to “God” does not mean that the question does not have to be answered.

rossum