Relativism and skepticism are logical suicide

[Beryllos]

That’s evolution. It proposes human beings as the result of blind, mindless, natural forces. That’s the evolutionary story.

That is your understanding and your opinion. Mine is that natural forces were created by God, and while natural forces are not mind, they serve God’s purpose and reveal to us something of the mind of God.

In my opinion, evolution is God’s second greatest material invention (material meaning of our world). It brought order from disorder. Amazing!

Not that you asked, but God’s greatest material invention, again in my opinion, was the emergence of life, living matter, from inanimate earth, water, and wind. Even with all our proud science, we can’t replicate that, but God accomplished it with those wonderful natural forces.

 

[Dan123]

How can science recognize the difference between a human and a non-human ancestor?

Evolution doesn’t put clear cut lines but gradients of slow change. Which coincidentally is what we see in the ground when we go digging. You don’t need to consider that proof but the two are consistent. Drawing lines between species is not clearcut anywhere in the animal kingdom except over long periods.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

That is your understanding and your opinion.

I’m giving the scientific theory, not my opinion. What you gave is an opinion that can be nowhere found in the scientific literature.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Evolution doesn’t put clear cut lines but gradients of slow change.

Yes, at one time there were no humans. Then there were humans.
How does evolution describe how that happened? There were half-humans? How does evolution explain the first human life?

Drawing lines between species is not clearcut anywhere in the animal kingdom except over long periods.

That’s what evolution says. The difference between human and animal is a gradual change caused entirely by material mutations. Gradually, an animal gave birth to a human.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Relativism simply says that the truth value of a proposition is contingent upon the premises of the proposition.

That’s not relativism. That’s just how deductive logic works.

Skepticism merely says that one can freely discard propositions, which are inadequately established.

That’s not philosophical skepticism. That’s just critical thinking.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

There is no such thing as “truth”, however there are zillions of true propositions.

We’re saying that statement is not possible without Truth.

 

[Dan123]

I’m giving the scientific theory, not my opinion. What you gave is an opinion that can be nowhere found in the scientific literature.

No, you aren’t. First evolution includes non-random mating as one of the selection pressures, that involves minds, either conscious or via instinct. And again while scientists who work in the field may trend more towards non-religion, evolution itself doesn’t require there to be no deity. You’re inserting that and then attributing it to others. It feels like you just want scientists to do the hard work and turn over a rock some day and go ‘oh, well, there must be a God then’. God isn’t a part of the scientific concept of evolution for the same reason he isn’t part of the scientific concept of how diseases are spread. God may still play a role in helping people heal or avoid diseases, but you won’t find that in Germ Theory until you can demonstrate it. It doesn’t mean you can’t believe in germs if you believe in God.

 

[Dan123]

Yes, at one time there were no humans. Then there were humans.
How does evolution describe how that happened? There were half-humans? How does evolution explain the first human life?

It’s like asking when does a cake batter become a cake, or how many generations after moving from one country to another does that family become ‘part’ of that new country. It’s a gradient not a sudden change.

 

[Dan123]

That’s what evolution says. The difference between human and animal is a gradual change caused entirely by material mutations. Gradually, an animal gave birth to a human.

This is what I mean when I point out you aren’t actually describing evolution but your own ideas of what it ‘should’ say. Evolution doesn’t describe a difference between animals and humans for the factors its concerned with, that is reproduction. That doesn’t mean there aren’t differences, just that evolution doesn’t concern itself with them.

 

[Dan123]

That’s not philosophical skepticism. That’s just critical thinking.

“Skeptic philosophers from different historical periods adopted different principles and arguments, but their ideology can be generalized as either (1) the denial of possibility of all knowledge or (2) the suspension of judgement due to the inadequacy of evidence”

Each of you has it half right it seems.

Philosophical skepticism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Bill_B_NY]

First evolution includes non-random mating as one of the selection pressures, that involves minds, either conscious or via instinct

It has to explain the origin of mating. It cannot just assert its existence.
But more importantly, evolution is random.
Any function multiplied by a random variable is random.
Mutations are random.
Environment is random.

Those are two random variables - thus, the process is random.
The theory claims that it is a blind, undirected process.

God isn’t a part of the scientific concept of evolution …

Evolution proposes to explain the origin of human beings with out reference to God. It does this by claiming that humans are different from animals only by different mutations, It’s entirely material.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Evolution doesn’t describe a difference between animals and humans for the factors its concerned with, that is reproduction. That doesn’t mean there aren’t differences, just that evolution doesn’t concern itself with them.

Evolution claims it has the explanation of the origin of human life.
It therefore must know the difference between human and non-human animal ancestors. It must declare what that line is.

 

[Dan123]

It has to explain the origin of mating. It cannot just assert its existence.
But more importantly, evolution is random.
Any function multiplied by a random variable is random.
Mutations are random.
Environment is random.

Those are two random variables - thus, the process is random.
The theory claims that it is a blind, undirected process.

Mutations are random. Selection pressures are frequently non-random. Non-random selection isn’t random otherwise Poker would be random because the shuffling and dealing of the cards is random. A system of random and non-random element will not produce random results.

Evolution proposes to explain the origin of human beings with out reference to God. It does this by claiming that humans are different from animals only by different mutations, It’s entirely material

As was pointed out above the concept of a soul differentiates them much more clearly, and is squarely in the realm of religious discussion. An entirely compatible theist evolutionary stance was proposed but you’re insisting on making it incompatible by inserting things not asserted by evolution.

Evolution claims it has the explanation of the origin of human life.
It therefore must know the difference between human and non-human animal ancestors. It must declare what that line is.

Evolution doesn’t specifically deal with human life it deals with all life. So far the life we’ve discovered has fit extremely well with the framework it provides, including humans. Even fields of study that didn’t even exist when the idea first was proposed such as genetics have demonstrated the connection between disparate life on Earth.

 

[Beryllos]

I’m giving the scientific theory, not my opinion.

You are misrepresenting the scientific theory, overextending it into areas where it can say nothing. It says nothing one way or the other about where the laws of nature came from. It properly can say no more than “These are the properties of time, space, matter, and energy.” True science can make no claim or denial regarding the Creator or his intention.

What you gave is an opinion that can be nowhere found in the scientific literature.

Not quite, but you’re getting warm. To make statements such as I have made requires faith. I am a scientist, and a good one if I say so myself, and I am a person of faith. I am able to integrate these two aspects of my world view. I see incredible beauty and order in the universe. There is disorder as well, but the order is more than sufficient to convince me that the material world and its forces, etc., were created by a loving and wise God.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

A system of random and non-random element will not produce random results.

Can you give an example of that? A random variable makes the process random, as I see it.
We mix together some known liquids. Then we blindly add something randomly. What will be the outcome? It’s random.

Evolution doesn’t specifically deal with human life it deals with all life.

I believe evolution deals specifically with the origin of human life and makes specific claims about it. That is what the science claims. There was on earth at one time, no human life. Then there were humans. Evolution claims to explain it.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

You are misrepresenting the scientific theory, overextending it into areas where it can say nothing.

Can evolution make claims about the origin of human life or not?
Can science distinguish between the first human and a non-human ancestor?

 

[Dan123]

Can you give an example of that? A random variable makes the process random, as I see it.
We mix together some known liquids. Then we blindly add something randomly. What will be the outcome? It’s random.

Sure. Suppose we have a matchbox car race with some weird rules. One of the cars is going to be released a full second before the others. Which car will be completely random each time. Great efforts are gone through to ensure randomness.

One car goes, and a second later the rest are released. Does the one released early always win or do non-random variables such as the quality of the car build come into play?

Is the result random?

 

[Beryllos]

Can evolution make claims about the origin of human life or not?

Yes. We probably came from something like bacteria.

Can science distinguish between the first human and a non-human ancestor?

I don’t think so. Science says human is just another animal. Is that a scientific problem?

 

[Dan123]

I believe evolution deals specifically with the origin of human life and makes specific claims about it. That is what the science claims. There was on earth at one time, no human life. Then there were humans. Evolution claims to explain it.

Sure, because we see a progression of change leading up to what we’d consider modern humans that appears to mirror the same progression we see in the rest of the animal kingdom.

Just to be clear on the topic of theistic evolution, are you asserting God could not possibly have used evolution the way an artist uses a paintbrush to bring about his creation?

 

[Bill_B_NY]

One car goes, and a second later the rest are released. Does the one released early always win or do non-random variables such as the quality of the car build come into play?

Is the result random?

You’re saying you can predict the order in which the cars end, right? 1,2,3,4 - it’s not random, right?