Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[ricmat]

The TOE requires nothing like that. As a mere scientific theory, it cannot say anything about purpose or lack thereof. These kinds of issues lie outside the scope of science.

Purpose or lack thereof are philosophical issues. Of course, many atheists claim that the TOE as a scientific theory implies purposelessness, but with this they confuse science with philosophy. This is bad for science, bad for philosophy, and bad for a rational-analytic approach to things.

We should not emulate them in their confusion. We should take the TOE as mere science, strip it from atheistic philosophical connotations and point out that these are not implied in the science proper. Then we should incorporate the TOE as science into our philosophical worldview – while fully knowing and explicitly pointing out that we argue from a philosophical perspective while the science itself is neutral to any worldview (that neutrality is something that most atheists, if not explicitly then implicitly, deny).

This will show proper analytical thinking that is superior to and far deeper than the shallow, simplistic thinking of most atheists.

As I’ve stated previously, I’m not against evolution in principle. It has a place, but IMO much smaller than it is generally given credit for. So yes, go ahead and incorporate that into our world view.

Purpose (or more generally, design) certainly does have a place in science. When analyzing something unknown, it makes a tremendous difference whether or not one is “allowed” to hypothesize purpose / design as a factor in how the unknown thing came to be. The artificial demarcation between science and philosophy is to the advantage of the atheistic world view. In this battle (which I know we are both fighting on the same side) you seem so intent on inflicting a few casualties here and there on the other side that you are oblivious to our own much more numerous casualties resulting from your strategy.

Science is a sub-set of philosophy. Always was, always will be. Proper analytical thinking requires that they be integrated, not separated.

On a lighter note, imagine Star Trek if it were written today:

“Captain Kirk - we’ve just found this artifact amongst some ancient ruins on the planet below. Should we analyze it to figure out it’s purpose?”

“Heck no, we know that it just evolved via random mutations and natural selection. Evolution did it somehow, it can do everything, you know. We need to use proper analytical thinking here, which means purpose is “off limits.” If we think it has some purpose, or that it was designed, we’d be branded as religious nut cases. Besides, to think it has purpose is unscientific, and we certainly don’t want to be called that!”

 

[rossum]

You are the one who is incorrect. There are only two elements that are the basis of all life: carbon and hydrogen. This is indisputably a miniscule target.

You are sadly misinformed. Have a look at the chemical formulae for the five bases A, C, G, T and U. None of them can be made with just carbon and hydrogen. Your source was scientifically misinformed and hence is unreliable.

You have omitted the** initial improbability** of just two elements occurring in the precise quantities required for life

Again, your source is misinforming you. Those two elements do not occur in the “precise quantities” required for life. There are millions of tons of both lying around on Earth not part of any living organism at all. How many millions of tons of hydrogen are locked up in non-living water on Earth? Billions upon billions of tons of hydrogen are tied up in stars all over the universe. How many millions of tons of carbon are locked up in non-living carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or in carbonate rocks in the Earth’s crust? Whatever source you are using its science is ludicrously bad. I strongly suggest that you find a different source which gives you some correct science to base your arguments on.

Nor have you explained why matter **had to **exist,

This thread is discussing “Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution”, it is not discussing cosmology or stellar astrophysics.

biological processes had to emerge

They didn’t. I am not aware of any biological processes on the moon, the sun or in interstellar space.

and evolution had to occur…

Once you have a population of imperfect replicators competing for limited resources you will get evolution.

How do you justify your belief in physical necessity?

I don’t have to justify it because I have no such belief. I accept cause and effect. If the causes are in place then the effects will happen. Physical life has a physical cause, which is closely linked to chemistry. My ideas on non-physical life are very different to yours because we follow different religions.

rossum

 

[Al_Moritz]

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

Peace,
Ed

First, if you consider the statement as a whole, here Miller and Levine confuse science and philosophy with the inclusion of the word “undirected” – especially Miller should know, in fact knows, better than that (why Miller made that mistake, or if Levine wrote that text, did not correct it, is beyond my comprehension).

Second, it also contains a phrase that is scientifically incorrect: “Evolution is random”. This is incorrect since, while random mutations are indeed just that, random, natural selection is not, especially cumulative natural selection. Again, Miller knows better, so I am at a loss why the statement stands as is.

However, if you leave out the second part of the sentence, which contains the mistake of “random” applying to evolution as a whole, and the confusion of science with philosophy by inclusion of the word “undirected”, you end up with the following statement:

“Evolution works without either plan or purpose”.

This is correct, yet correct only in the sense that natural causes as such and considered in themselves (including evolution) indeed work without either plan or purpose. Nature is blind.

If they achieve a purpose, then only because they are part of God’s plan, and God, unlike nature that is steered by Him, is not blind of course. As Christians we all believe that natural causes are part of God’s plan, they are neither “godless causes” nor do they stand in competition with God. But natural causes being part of God’s plan is is a philosophical statement, not a scientific statement.

 

[rossum]

The TOE requires Purposelessness? I have never heard of that before.

Just as the Theory of Gravity appears to require purposelessness as well.

Scientific theories are not in the business of providing purpose. If anyone wants purpose they are better off looking at moral philosophy or similar rather than scientific theories.

“I get my purpose in life from Boyle’s Law”

rossum

 

[buffalo]

First, if you consider the statement as a whole, here Miller and Levine confuse science and philosophy with the inclusion of the word “undirected” – especially Miller should know, in fact knows, better than that (why Miller made that mistake, or if Levine wrote that text, did not correct it, is beyond my comprehension).

Second, it also contains a phrase that is scientifically incorrect: “Evolution is random”. This is incorrect since, while random mutations are indeed just that, random, natural selection is not, especially cumulative natural selection. Again, Miller knows better, so I am at a loss why the statement stands as is.

However, if you leave out the second part of the sentence, which contains the mistake of “random” applying to evolution as a whole, and the confusion of science with philosophy by inclusion of the word “undirected”, you end up with the following statement:

“Evolution works without either plan or purpose”.

This is correct, yet correct only in the sense that natural causes as such and considered in themselves (including evolution) indeed work without either plan or purpose. Nature is blind.

If they achieve a purpose, then only because they are part of God’s plan, and God, unlike nature that is steered by Him, is not blind of course. As Christians we all believe that natural causes are part of God’s plan, they are neither “godless causes” nor do they stand in competition with God. But natural causes being part of God’s plan is is a philosophical statement, not a scientific statement.

So your answer would be - Adam did not look as God planned?

 

[rossum]

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

So, if you are looking for purpose then look elsewhere. Leave evolution to deal with the “Origin of Species” and look somewhere else for the “Origin of Purpose”.

Why do you expect a scientific theory, to provide a moral purpose to your life?

rossum

 

[buffalo]

So, if you are looking for purpose then look elsewhere. Leave evolution to deal with the “Origin of Species” and look somewhere else for the “Origin of Purpose”.

Why do you expect a scientific theory, to provide a moral purpose to your life?

rossum

Sure - we can find God in His works.

 

[Al_Moritz]

The artificial demarcation between science and philosophy is to the advantage of the atheistic world view. In this battle (which I know we are both fighting on the same side) you seem so intent on inflicting a few casualties here and there on the other side that you are oblivious to our own much more numerous casualties resulting from your strategy.

Science is a sub-set of philosophy. Always was, always will be. Proper analytical thinking requires that they be integrated, not separated.

Well, here we respectfully disagree.

And while science is a sub-set of philosophy in the sense that science is unthinkable without its own philosophical axioms, like that the world is intelligible and that experiments must be repeatable (things that cannot be proven from within science but which have to be asumed from the outside), science is not philosophy in the sense of being a worldview. Science is a tool to investigate the natural world. That’s it, no less and no more.

 

[rossum]

Progress toward what? How do they know they are closer without knowing the end?

I can observe that the cell walls of living bacteria are basically lipid bilayers. If I can make a lipid bilayer enclosure then that is to me progress towards making a living cell – we have the wall to enclose the cell.

I can see that abiogenesis can make a primitive cell wall. I can see that the ID designers have no evidence to support the claim that they can make such a cell wall. I can see that abiogenesis is closer to making a cell than ID is currently.

ID is trailing badly, as is confirmed by the fact that you can show me no evidence of ID work in this area while I can show you evidence of scientific work. All you can do is to ask questions about what I am showing you; you have nothing to show me in return. Nothing at all. ID is scientifically vacuous.

Do you deny that making a cell wall is progress towards making a living cell?

rossum

 

[ricmat]

Well, here we respectfully disagree.

OK

Science is a tool to investigate the natural world. That’s it, no less and no more.

But for what purpose?

OOPS…I mentioned the unmentionable word again

 

[rossum]

Why would you assume the single point I was speaking of is in London?

I did show that there are points where your statement is false. Time alone will not show me all the surface of the Earth.

rossum

 

[Al_Moritz]

So your answer would be - Adam did not look as God planned?

Huh? What does this have to do with the post you replied to?

Also, I gave the answer already. You did not pay attention. Look a few pages back.

 

[rossum]

Sure - we can find God in His works.

“An inordinate fondness for beetles.”

rossum

 

[Al_Moritz]

OK

But for what purpose?

OOPS…I mentioned the unmentionable word again

To show how nature works. If you assume that nature was made by God or nature just is what it is, is irrelevant for the scientific concept of ‘nature’ or for the purpose of showing how nature works.

 

[ricmat]

To show how nature works. If you assume that nature was made by God or nature just is what it is, is irrelevant for the scientific concept of ‘nature’.

So for what purpose would you want to show how nature works?

 

[buffalo]

Huh? What does this have to do with the post you replied to?

Also, I gave the answer already. You did not pay attention. Look a few pages back.

Just to clarify - was that a yes or a no?

 

[Al_Moritz]

So for what purpose would you want to show how nature works?

In order to understand nature, as a broadening of human knowledge. Also, if you understand nature better you can use it for technology purposes (but many would not want to mix up basic sciences with applied sciences).

If you want to show how nature works in order to satisfy your philsophical worldview, e.g. in order to explore God’s creation or to convince yourself that “no God is needed”, this is a philosophical purpose outside the scope of science. It can be legitimately laid over the pursuit of scientific knowledge by the individual, but it is not part of science proper.

 

[ricmat]

In order to understand nature, as a broadening of human knowledge. Also, if you understand nature better you can use it for technology purposes (but many would not want to mix up basic sciences with applied sciences).

If you want to show how nature works in order to satisfy your philsophical worldview, e.g. in order to explore God’s creation or to convince yourself that “no God is needed”, this is a philosophical purpose outside the scope of science.

It seems to me that everything given to us by God, science included, is for the purpose of manifesting his glory and majesty. To take all that scientific knowledge and then deny that it has anything to do with God is not what God intended. It’s not outside the scope of science. It is the purpose of science.

 

[Al_Moritz]

It seems to me that everything given to us by God, science included, is for the purpose of manifesting his glory and majesty.

I agree.

To take all that scientific knowledge and then deny that it has anything to do with God is not what God intended.

Of course it is not. But this is a philosophical/theological issue, not a scientific one.

 

[ricmat]

I agree.

Of course it is not. But this is a philosophical/theological issue, not a scientific one.

Everything is a theological issue. What is your purpose here? Why do you exist?