Creation, design, and evolution oh my!

[traillius]

scientists and others go back and forth alot on these types of things. Here is my opinion, using a metaphor.
First defining terms:
God: The person holding the shovel
The Shovel: Natural processes of development
The Hole: The universe
dig the hole : create the universe, or shape it

Creationism : God dug the hole, but because he doesn’t need the shovel, the shovel doesn’t exist. He simply willed it and it happened.
( intelligent ) design: God used the shovel to dig the hole, not because he needed the shovel, but because he likes order and science.
(Atheistic) Evolution: The shovel exists, and we can only see the shovel. Since we can’t physically or scientifically ‘see’ the shovel, there is no explicit evidence that the shovel is being used by anyone or anything. Therefore a creator doesn’t exist. The shovel dug the hole itself.
What do you think?
Should anyone want to know, I believe in the second option, intelligent design. It makes the most sense to me.
Before one gets into " which Creator is the actual creator " one must establish whether or not the existence of a creator is feasible, in and of itself.

 

[edwest2]

Discussing evolution here has been temporarily banned. Just a heads up.

God bless,
Ed

 

[traillius]

I wasn;t aware of the ban. Please delete this thread instead of my account. I am sorry.

 

[AntiTheist]

We don’t need to discuss evolution. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that we don’t have a good alternate explanation for the origin of the diversity of life.

What makes you think it’s a god?

Ultimately, the theist argument always comes down to an argument from incredulity: “Well, how else could it have happened??!” That’s not an argument.

The shovel dug the hole itself.

Imagine a puddle waking up in a hole. “Wow,” it thinks, “this hole I’m in fits me perfectly. This hole must have been specially created with me in mind.” [Thanks, Philip K. Dick, for the example]

Now seriously, what’s wrong with the puddle’s idea? Think about it for a little while.

 

[tonyrey]

Ultimately, the theist argument always comes down to an argument from incredulity: "

Incredulity is justified when we are confronted with an absurd hypothesis, such as “Irrational processes are more fundamental than rational beings”…

 

[wanstronian]

Discussing evolution here has been temporarily banned. Just a heads up.

God bless,
Ed

Yes - ‘temporarily’ - for three months so far…

Imagine a puddle waking up in a hole. “Wow,” it thinks, “this hole I’m in fits me perfectly. This hole must have been specially created with me in mind.” [Thanks, Philip K. Dick, for the example]

Now seriously, what’s wrong with the puddle’s idea? Think about it for a little while.

I think this was Douglas Adams, not Philip Dick. Given in a speech at Digital Biota 2 in 1998. But the message is a strong one, regardless of its source.

 

[wanstronian]

Incredulity is justified when we are confronted with an absurd hypothesis, such as “Irrational processes are more fundamental than rational beings”…

The actual abiogenesis hypothesis (as opposed to the specious misrepresentation you always trot out) has a significant amount of scientific credibility through experimentation. ‘God did it,’ on the other hand, is a product of ignorance, special pleading and an innate desire to make the evidence fit a presupposed conclusion. It has no evidential basis whatsoever.

 

[tonyrey]

Incredulity is justified when we are confronted with an absurd hypothesis, such as “Irrational processes are more fundamental than rational beings”…

The actual abiogenesis hypothesis (as opposed to the specious misrepresentation you always trot out) has a significant amount of scientific credibility through experimentation.

You are the one guilty of misrepresentation. It is not merely abiogenesis that is the issue - although that in itself is a colossal difficulty - but the derivation of conscious, rational, purposeful, autonomous beings from irrational, inanimate, purposeless atoms. On what is the scientific credibility through experimentation for that hypothesis based? Please cite your sources. If you cannot do so your claim is entirely unjustified and worthless.

‘God did it,’ on the other hand, is a product of ignorance, special pleading and an innate desire to make the evidence fit a presupposed conclusion. It has no evidential basis whatsoever.

It is ironic that you regard “God did it” as a product of ignorance when “matter did it” is the epitome of ignorance! At least the concept of God is based on our sole certainty - that we are conscious, rational beings - whereas the concept of matter is a merely a mental construct based on inference from our perceptions. You interpret reality not in terms of its basic elements but of its basest elements! Your special pleading is motivated by a simplistic assumption that science is the most valuable.form of knowledge. Your presupposed conclusion is that causes are more fundamental than reasons, that matter is more powerful than mind and that the past is more significant than the past, present and future put together.

Instead of considering the entire process of development you look backwards and stake everything on the beginning at the expense of what follows - a curious prejudice because in daily life we regard purpose as the most important factor. It matters less whether we are ignorant of what has happened than whether we are ignorant of what we and others intend to do - and the reasons why. That word “Why?” is infinitely more significant and valuable than “How?” By rejecting that fact you sacrifice persons on the altar of particles and reduce all life to a meaningless, valueless and purposeless episode in the darkness of eternity… What is the evidential basis for that conclusion?

 

[DPMartin]

It is interesting that creation/evolution is such a heated issue. It seems to always come down to a knock down drag out fight, if you will. Why the anger is my question? You can’t make some one, make a choice in any matter, nor are we responsible for the choices of others, when they have been informed. If some one asks an honest question answer it, so what if they disagree. As lone as you answer an honest question with an honest answer, shouldn’t that be sufficient?

Lets face it, philosophy is open game on anything stated. (Now as lone as I can do what I just said I’ll be ok)

 

[wanstronian]

You are the one guilty of misrepresentation. It is not merely abiogenesis that is the issue - although that in itself is a colossal difficulty - but the derivation of conscious, rational, purposeful, autonomous beings from irrational, inanimate, purposeless atoms. On what is the scientific credibility through experimentation for that hypothesis based?

There is, as far as I’m aware, no scientific evidence for the origin of consciousness. I have never claimed there is. There IS scientific evidence to support the theory of abiogenesis. The best guess science has for consciousness, is emergent properties. Examples of emergent properties are rife in the natural world, as you are doubtless aware. The clear relationship between physical brain complexity and cognitive ability appears to support this idea, rather than the idea of divine bequest.

Please cite your sources. If you cannot do so your claim is entirely unjustified and worthless.

It’s interesting you say that - consider yourself hoisted by your own petard!

It is ironic that you regard “God did it” as a product of ignorance when “matter did it” is the epitome of ignorance!

You again neglect to consider that science doesn’t make definite claims for the origin - it makes its best guess with the information available and, as a matter of process, is always willing to update that as new information becomes available. Science is about learning. Compare and contrast to ‘God did it,’ which is pure assertion with no evidence and, therefore, no possibility of escape from dogma.

At least the concept of God is based on our sole certainty - that we are conscious, rational beings - whereas the concept of matter is a merely a mental construct based on inference from our perceptions.

True - we could not conceptualise God if we were not conscious. What do you think this proves?

You interpret reality not in terms of its basic elements but of its basest elements! Your special pleading is motivated by a simplistic assumption that science is the most valuable.form of knowledge.

As it has proved to be consistently, to date.

Your presupposed conclusion is that causes are more fundamental than reasons, that matter is more powerful than mind and that the past is more significant than the past, present and future put together.

You’ve lost me there, I’m afraid. At a fundamental level, we can see cause and effect - we can see no evidence of reason (intent) behind the process.
The matter IS mind, as far as we are able to tell. There is categorically no evidence to suggest otherwise, and plenty of evidence in support.
I’m not sure what you’re bleating on about with your ‘past, present, future’ thing, I’m afraid. Perhaps you can clarify.

Instead of considering the entire process of development you look backwards and stake everything on the beginning at the expense of what follows - a curious prejudice because in daily life we regard purpose as the most important factor. It matters less whether we are ignorant of what has happened than whether we are ignorant of what we and others intend to do - and the reasons why. That word “Why?” is infinitely more significant and valuable than “How?”

Only if there’s an answer. If you believe there is a fundamental reason (intent) for our existence, then by all means ask what that reason is. Bear in mind that the only answer you’ll ever get will be a subjective, unprovable one, one which you have no right to inflict on the rest of the universe. Also bear in mind, crucially, that there is no evidence to suggest that ‘why’ is even a valid question in this context.

By rejecting that fact you sacrifice persons on the altar of particles and reduce all life to a meaningless, valueless and purposeless episode in the darkness of eternity…

Yes, you run out this ‘valueless life’ myth regularly (although you’ve clearly been working on your rhetoric) - it shows you don’t understand the first thing about that which you judge. Do some reading. A good starter might be to google “10 myths and 10 truths about atheism” for the LA Times article

What is the evidential basis for that conclusion?

I wouldn’t know - it’s not my conclusion - it’s just your misrepresentation of my conclusion.

 

[Thing]

The actual abiogenesis hypothesis (as opposed to the specious misrepresentation you always trot out) has a significant amount of scientific credibility through experimentation. ‘God did it,’ on the other hand, is a product of ignorance, special pleading and an innate desire to make the evidence fit a presupposed conclusion. It has no evidential basis whatsoever.

I sort of remember an old experiment about this. Someone put all the chemicals they’d need to make RNA into a beaker and passed a current through it. They got a small bit of RNA, unfortunately it dissolved straight away in the chemicals it was made from.
RNA needs to be protected by a lipid shell in nature in order to survive being disolved but the lipid shell needs a different set of chemicals to form, lipids would not form in the chemicals of the RNA beaker. And the RNA would not form in the lipid chemicals. And of course the RNA could not survive without the protective shell of lipids, the RNA dissolved in the chemicals that created it.

 

[donsnow]

Second heads up!

The temporary ban is on threads about atheism and evolution. This is a disobedient thread.

 

[tonyrey]

Second heads up!

The temporary ban is on threads about atheism and evolution. This is a disobedient thread.

My argument in this thread concerns Creation and Design. It is impossible to have any discussion at all about God and Christianity without some reference to materialism but that is quite distinct from an explicit discussion about atheism and evolution. When one reads a statement like:

“Ultimately, the theist argument always comes down to an argument from incredulity:”
one is entitled to respond with:

"Incredulity is justified when we are confronted with an absurd hypothesis, such as “Irrational processes are more fundamental than rational beings”…

Then to the statement:

“‘God did it,’ on the other hand, is a product of ignorance, special pleading and an innate desire to make the evidence fit a presupposed conclusion. It has no evidential basis whatsoever…”

I responded:

“It is ironic that you regard “God did it” as a product of ignorance when “matter did it” is the epitome of ignorance! At least the concept of God is based on our sole certainty - that we are conscious, rational beings - whereas the concept of matter is a merely a mental construct based on inference from our perceptions. You interpret reality not in terms of its basic elements but of its basest elements! Your special pleading is motivated by a simplistic assumption that science is the most valuable.form of knowledge. Your presupposed conclusion is that causes are more fundamental than reasons, that matter is more powerful than mind and that the past is more significant than the past, present and future put together.”

Here my concern is** not **with atheism or evolution but with the nature of knowledge, mind and matter, causes and reasons.

“Instead of considering the entire process of development you look backwards and stake everything on the beginning at the expense of what follows - a curious prejudice because in daily life we regard purpose as the most important factor. It matters less whether we are ignorant of what has happened than whether we are ignorant of what we and others intend to do - and the reasons why. That word “Why?” is infinitely more significant and valuable than “How?” By rejecting that fact you sacrifice persons on the altar of particles and reduce all life to a meaningless, valueless and purposeless episode in the darkness of eternity… What is the evidential basis for that conclusion?”

If you read those paragraphs carefully you will realise that I am **not **concerned with evolution but with causality and purpose, with “How” and “Why?” The reference to abiogenesis was not made by me and I promptly changed the subject to the issue of scientific credibility and the folly of attempting to explain everything scientifically.

 

[tonyrey]

IScience is about learning.

Yes. Learning about material objects - which is far less important than learning about moral integrity, personal fulfilment, human relationships and co-existence in society.

Compare and contrast to ‘God did it,’ which is pure assertion with no evidence and, therefore, no possibility of escape from dogma.

“Matter did it” is pure assertion based on the dogmas of empiricism. At least the concept of God is based on our sole certainty - that we are conscious, rational beings - whereas the concept of matter is merely a mental construct based on inference from our perceptions.

True - we could not conceptualise God if we were not conscious. What do you think this proves?

It proves that our sole certainty is the reality of the mind, thoughts and consciousness. Matter is a mental construct which is susceptible to constant revision.

Your special pleading is motivated by a simplistic assumption that science is the most valuable.form of knowledge.

As it has proved to be consistently, to date.

False! Love and understanding of others are the most valuable.forms of knowledge - as you will discover if you ever live in a society dominated by violence and bloodshed.

Your presupposed conclusion is that causes are more fundamental than reasons, that matter is more powerful than mind and that the past is more significant than the past, present and future put together.

You’ve lost me there, I’m afraid.

I’m not surprised! You’re used to looking backwards rather than forwards!

At a fundamental level, we can see cause and effect - we can see no evidence of reason (intent) behind the process.

How do you know what is the fundamental level? Do you have privileged insight? Can you demonstrate why the ultimate explanation lies in **physical **cause and effect?

The matter IS mind, as far as we are able to tell.

Who are “we”?

There is categorically no evidence to suggest otherwise, and plenty of evidence in support.

You are forgetting that evidence is a mental concept… You assume matter produces mind which interprets mind to be no more than matter! Rather convoluted…

I’m not sure what you’re bleating on about with your ‘past, present, future’ thing, I’m afraid. Perhaps you can clarify.

Your deprecatory “bleating” reveals your failure to recognise the inadequacy of the analytic, atomistic interpretation of reality. You explain everything in terms of how a process begins and completely ignore the significance of the outcome. If you found an unknown machine the first thing you would do would not be to take it to bits to discover how it was made but to work out the** purpose** for which it was made.

Instead of considering the entire process of development you look backwards and stake everything on the beginning at the expense of what follows - a curious prejudice because in daily life we regard purpose as the most important factor. It matters less whether we are ignorant of what has happened than whether we are ignorant of what we and others intend to do - and the reasons why. That word “Why?” is infinitely more significant and valuable than “How?”

Only if there’s an answer. If you believe there is a fundamental reason (intent) for our existence, then by all means ask what that reason is.

It is clear that you are not interested in asking because you are already convinced there are no reasons why we exist.

Bear in mind that the only answer you’ll ever get will be a subjective, unprovable one, one which you have no right to inflict on the rest of the universe.

How do you reach that conclusion? You are forgetting that the process of reasoning itself is purposeful. Is that subjective and unprovable? Does it exist in a vacuum? Is it in reality simply a purposeless sequence of cause and effect? That is the logical outcome of your scientific approach.

Also bear in mind, crucially, that there is no evidence to suggest that ‘why’ is even a valid question in this context.

Is it a valid question in any context? How do you determine when it is valid and when not? Do you have an established criterion for making that decision?

Yes, you run out this ‘valueless life’ myth regularly…

Don’t you regard life as valueless? If not why not? On what do you base its value? On your subjective opinion which counts for nothing in the realm of science? If so why pretend that it is no more than a myth? You can’t have it both ways…

 

[traillius]

Second heads up!

The temporary ban is on threads about atheism and evolution. This is a disobedient thread.

Noted, please see my other post above, regarding the acknowlegdement, and a request for closure.

 

[Thing]

Noted, please see my other post above, regarding the acknowlegdement, and a request for closure.

“In the natural sciences, abiogenesis or biopoesis is the theory of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of already living things change over time, or with cosmology, which covers how the universe might have arisen.” - wiki

I think you can talk about abiogenesis and cosmology without touching on evolution.

 

[donsnow]

“In the natural sciences, abiogenesis or biopoesis is the theory of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of already living things change over time, or with cosmology, which covers how the universe might have arisen.” - wiki

I think you can talk about abiogenesis and cosmology without touching on evolution.

I respectfully disagree because the proponents of evolution have so intertwined it with real science and a Darwinist world view that permeates many areas of discussion. Even areas of discussion such as abiogenesis or biopoesis do not escape the tendrils of permeated evolution.

The author of this thread has already requested its closure. You receive a second heads up that this is a disobedient thread, and you want to argue the point?
Seeeesh, and my mother thought I was thick headed? You take the cake on not knowing or not respecting appropriate limits and boundaries, imho.

 

[Thing]

I respectfully disagree because the proponents of evolution have so intertwined it with real science and a Darwinist world view that permeates many areas of discussion. Even areas of discussion such as abiogenesis or biopoesis do not escape the tendrils of permeated evolution.

The author of this thread has already requested its closure. You receive a second heads up that this is a disobedient thread, and you want to argue the point?
Seeeesh, and my mother thought I was thick headed? You take the cake on not knowing or not respecting appropriate limits and boundaries, imho.

You’re right I don’t like limits and boundaries… I was born free… Born free, as free as the wind blows …
As free as the grass grows
…Born free to follow your heart
Live free, and beauty surrounds you
…The world still astounds you …Each time you look at a star …i wish i could sing…
*Stay free, where no walls divide you …
You’re free as a roaring tide …
So there’s no need to hide …
la la la la laaaww