Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[Rubee]

In other words, there are two things here: The symbol and the sound ‘RICHARD III’. The language is the medium between the meaningless symbols and the meaningful RICHARD III. This medium is just a set of rules or logic that says “this specific arrangement is attached to this specific sound”. An arbitrary decision by humans that becomes standardized so that this arrangement always means something specific in the spoken language. The fact that it’s specific and standardized is how everyone can read it and understand. The fact that it’s arbitrary is how we know it’s the activity of human intelligence rather than nature.

The ntides and codons, like the symbols of an alphabet or the 1-0 in CS, also have a medium that enables human geneticists to accurately read specific meanings in specific arrangements in a standard way. In addition, there’s no natural connection between ntides and these things geneticists read in their arrangements. It’s arbitrary in signification and logical in the sequencing. 100% like human spoken languages, written languages, and computer science.

 

[Edgar]

Straw man. It doesn’t promote atheism and neither does it deny God.

“Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented” - William Provine

 

[Edgar]

Evolution comes under biology. Biology includes evolution. Evolution is the only scientific theory that explains how we are where we are. Biologically speaking. So that would be taught in the biology department of the science wing.

Education is the passing on of knowledge. A weak and flawed scientific theory that attempts to explain the history of life on earth falls a very long way short of knowledge. It doesn’t even qualify as history. Rather, is it simply a story, and one that offers nothing at all to the advancement of science nor any practical use.

 

[Edgar]

No it isn’t.

Whose side are you on? For a professing Christian, some of your views are very typical of atheists. Did God play any part at all in the creation of living organisms, in your opinion?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Straw man. It doesn’t promote atheism and neither does it deny God.

“Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented” - William Provine

Straw man. Evolution does not deny God.

 

[Bradskii]

Vonsalza:

No it isn’t.

Whose side are you on? For a professing Christian, some of your views are very typical of atheists. Did God play any part at all in the creation of living organisms, in your opinion?

Why do you ask? For the sake of this discussion, it’s a given. Even for me.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Evolution comes under biology. Biology includes evolution. Evolution is the only scientific theory that explains how we are where we are. Biologically speaking. So that would be taught in the biology department of the science wing.

Education is the passing on of knowledge.

That’s why you lost at Dover. The DI was discovered trying to pass on religious views cloaked in science.

Well, that was fun. But amongst the scurry of posts recently, what have learned? We need a summary.

Firstly, it appears that the only evidence needed that ID is true is the fact that life exists. So what all our chums at the DI are doing, experimenting, investigating, gathering data etc appears to be a complete waste of time. They only need to determine if the object they are studying is alive or not. Someone should tell them.

Secondly, ID wears two hats. One that doesn't say that God is the creator and one that says He is. They are the same people. Which we knew in any case - see the Dover trial for a legal judgement on that.

Thirdly, there has been an admission that Christians and Christian scientists accept the ToE. Consequently, the ToE cannot deny God Well, unless there is a graganuan amount of cognitive dissonance being experienced.

Fourthly, the guys at the DI, Christians all, will not admit that the creator is God! Everybody outside this revered institute does, but they refuse. Perhap the devil is at work in the demon haunted halls of the Design Institute.

Fifth, it appears, despite claims to the contrary (by Ed), there are indeed practical uses for the ToE, and many examples were given (one, wierdly enough, by Ed himself). Yet this was still denied. It seems odd that so many tens of thousands of people working for many decades in a variety of industries earning billions of dollars are using techniques that don't actually work.

Sixth, despite being asked numerous times for examples of how the proposal that God is the creator of all life can be used in a scientific and practical way (as was asked about the ToE), there has been deathly silence. Oh, except someone mentioned that things are made of individual parts.

Seventh, it was finally admitted that Christians who knew that the ToE was the best explantion for life as it stands were not actually denying God (a contradiction for a Christian) but denying certain aspects of scripture. That is, they reject a fundamental interpretation of certain aspects of scripture. Well, we knew that already, but it was nice to have it confrmed.

So, all in all, an interesting discussion. Here's looking forward to it continuing…

 

[Aloysium]

For those who don’t have ADDH, and can tackle a wall of words:

Firstly, the evidence for ID and other creationist interpretations is the same as that of ToE, the science. Someone should tell those who don’t understand this, to try to separate the facts from the story in which they are cast. That one is a living being, capable of perceiving, feeling, thinking and acting, one who can know and give of themselves, as a unity of psychophysical structures, suggests the existence of something greater than those parts, a person who had a beginning, as did the first of our kind.

Secondly, the complexity of the parts within the unity of each individual living thing, at a physical level is bound by the forces of nature, which in themselves cannot produce the order we observe in even the simplest organism. That there is an ordering principle behind this, seems clear. However, it may be an illusory order. The order may be the manifestation of a life force. Nature may be an eternal being, which transforms itself into various forms, one pretending to be many. There may exist a purely transcendent god. Or there is God. That organisms did not come to be, serendipitously, is common to all these understandings.

Thirdly, there has been an admission that Christians and Christian scientists accept the ToE, as many people believe in the duality of mind and brain. It doesn’t require a graganuan amount of cognitive dissonance, simply an acceptance of a point of view assumed from authority.

Fourthly, not knowing any of the guys at the DI, I assume that, because they are trying to keep religion out of the science, they do not include, in their work, investigations into the nature of the mind behind the order. Their being Christians likely gave them an insight as to the ToE’s failure to conform to reality, leading them on this search.

Fifth, the science, which does have practical uses, is separate from the story in which it is cast. That story has personal and social applications, which impact in on how so many tens of thousands of people working for many decades in a variety of industries earning billions of dollars are using techniques that arise from the science.

Sixth, despite explaining numerous times how the proposal that God is the creator of all life operates on the same level as that of the ToE, as far as communication is concerned, one might have well just sat in silence. Oh, except someone reflects back that what they understood amounted to a word salad.

Seventh, it seems sometimes that certain people think they are speaking to one person, when each of us would have a personal understanding of the knowledge we all have access to. Some Christians, those who profess that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Saviour, believing the ToE is the best explantion for life as it stands, deny certain interpretations of scripture. Similarly, there are atheists who believe the earth was seeded for life by aliens. That is, they reject other people’s understanding in adhering to their own. Well, we knew that already; why would anyone need that to be confirmed?
[/quote]

 

[IWantGod]

as well as the presence of the growing complexity of organisms in time, is as contrary to reason, as believing a monkey could ever type Richard III.

I don’t have a problem with an event having a low probability which is why i tend to ignore probability arguments except in very specific circumstances, especially when they are directed at scientific theories. Also i have no problem with the idea of God working his plan or if you like “blue-print” through the process of natural activity. I have no reason to think that God either couldn’t or wouldn’t do that, since we are talking about the intellectual power of God after-all. Not to mention that randomness and chance serves variation.

And since we are dealing with the probability of something and not necessarily the impossibility of something, you have no reason to say that it is contrary to reason; at least you haven’t provided a very convincing reason that would compel your opponent to agree with you.

The body of Theistic-Philosophy will not have a positive development if it feels the need to contradict science in order to succeed. It speaks more of an insecurity more than it does intelligent understanding and discernment.

 

[Metis1]

As far as Christians are concerned. And that cause is God. But you are claiming an unknown designer. Not God.

That wasn’t my point as I thought I made clear, as I was saying that one cannot scientifically posit that there’s only one deity that caused all.

Secondly, in many polytheistic faiths sometimes deities work in conjunction with one another, therefore one creation hypothetically could have multiple deities involved.

Thirdly, to repeat again, I do believe in the one God of the Bible, but I don’t do as such based on objectively-derived scientific evidence.

 

[Aloysium]

The body of Theistic-Philosophy will not have a positive development if it feels the need to contradict science in order to succeed.

It doesn’t contradict science. It contradicts the myth of our times - evolution. Creationism, while totally consistent with every physical and chemical relationship that empiricism reveals, actually fulfills the science, setting not only the context in which everything happens, but pointing to it’s meaning, and the glory of our Creator.

 

[Metis1]

There is literally no way that “creationism” can be confirmed, especially since there was no human around to confirm it. I may be old, but I wasn’t around 13.7 billion years ago to see it happen, nor was anyone else. If one thinks so, then maybe produce a human fossil or some other evidence that dates back to that time.

To deny evolution is to deny all the evidence that points to it and also to deny basic logic itself based on what we see every day, namely that all material entities appear to change over time and genes are material entities-- period. One doesn’t need a ph.d. in physics nor genetics to understand that.

A far better question is to ask how did it get created from a judeo/Christian perspective, and the answer to that is “God”. That’s a faith perspective that I fully accept but it is not a scientific perspective since there is simply no such objectively-derived evidence for it.

The trouble comes in when one uses a subjective religious perspective to trump an objective scientific perspective, or when an objective scientific perspective is used to trump a subjective religious perspective.

To put it another way, the Bible deals with faith, not science.

 

[Aloysium]

There is literally no way that the ToE can be confirmed, especially since there was no human around to confirm it. We are able to place ourselves intellectually at different times and places, even 13.7 billion years ago. In doing so, we translate everything we discern into concepts that reflect both the object which is other to our being, and we ourselves as frames of reference. What we experience is a relationship. To know the truth, is to know the object as our beloved.

To deny creation is to deny all the evidence that points to it and also to deny basic logic itself based on what we see every day, namely that random change and natural selection are aspects of death. All material entities are expressions of a kind of being that is set in eternity, although its manifestations change over time. A human being is a human being, regardless of genetic make-up. A PhD. in physics or genetics does not guarantee access to the truth.

The question as to how all this wonder has come into being, from a judeo/Christian perspective, finds its answer in “God”. It is within our relationship with Him that the scientific perspective is one that reveals His infinite glory. Since there is simply no such empirically derived evidence for it, those of us who have our eyes closed to everything but the story of evolution being promulgated through the educational system and the media, will not get it.

The trouble comes in when one sees a dichotomy between science and metaphysics, not realizing that they constitute one truth - reality. In doing so, the “science” is depleted and distorted; the ToE is an illusion.

To put it another way, the ToE deals with faith, pretending to be science.

 

[edwest]

Then why post here?

 

[rossum]

To put it another way, the ToE deals with faith, pretending to be science.

Strange. You appear to be saying here that science is superior to faith. A somewhat strange attitude for someone who professes a faith.

 

[Aloysium]

Science is an aspect of faith, that includes a belief in a rational and understandable universe, the validity of pholosophical systems that allow us to know through methods such as empiricism.

I don’t know why you keep posting this same comment and always fail to respond to the answer. You have mentioned that you believe there to be no ultimate truth and no ontological foundation to things, so maybe that has something to do with it. I don’t get it.

Again, you for some reason choose to believe that science is superior to faith, so when I say that the ToE is faith, you automatically think I am saying it is inferior. I am most certainly not. What it means is that the ToE is a metaphysical statement, not science. It is based on assumptions about how the world works. People have faith in how they understand these and faith in the authorities who have conveyed to them that story.

 

[rossum]

Science is an aspect of faith, that includes a belief in a rational and understandable universe, the validity of ph(i)losophical systems that allow us to know through methods such as empiricism.

For me, science as a way to understand the material universe is not a matter of faith; it is a matter of observable results. Science demonstrably produces results, such as the internet and our computers that connect to it. That is not a matter of faith; it is an observed result.

You have mentioned that you believe there to be no ultimate truth and no ontological foundation to things, so maybe that has something to do with it. I don’t get it.

Nagarjuna and Prasangika-Madhyamika philosophy is off topic on this thread.

Again, you for some reason choose to believe that science is superior to faith, so when I say that the ToE is faith, you automatically think I am saying it is inferior. I am most certainly not. What it means is that the ToE is a metaphysical statement, not science. It is based on assumptions about how the world works. People have faith in how they understand these and faith in the authorities who have conveyed to them that story.

The ToE is not a metaphysical statement. It is a material statement about the development of material life on earth. DNA is material. Mutations are material alterations in material DNA. Natural selection is a material counting of grandchildren. Neutral drift is a material counting of copies of alleles in a population.

I am not a philosophical materialist. In matters of science I am a methodological materialist. I do not believe that either Avalokita or Manjusri intervene to change the results of scientific experiments.

 

[Nelka]

I can’t believe this thread is still going!

After 8000+ posts I don’t think people will agree that evolution is wrong.

 

[Aloysium]

For me, science as a way to understand the material universe is not a matter of faith; it is a matter of observable results. Science demonstrably produces results, such as the internet and our computers that connect to it. That is not a matter of faith; it is an observed result.

Me too.

Nagarjuna and Prasangika-Madhyamika philosophy is off topic on this thread.

I’m trtying to understand how you see things so that I can formulate a relevant reply.

The ToE is not a metaphysical statement. It is a material statement about the development of material life on earth. DNA is material. Mutations are material alterations in material DNA. Natural selection is a material counting of grandchildren. Neutral drift is a material counting of copies of alleles in a population.

Actually, the ToE is not based on observations. We do not observe molecules randomly coming together to create life. It is essentially no different than the belief that dirt creates vermin. All known alterations in DNA, not caused by the inherent properties of cells, such as horizontal gene transfer or translocations, that are built in mechanisms for adaptation and to promote diversity in organisms and their environments, are at best neutral, or at least offset by having two chromosomes. Theyy ultimately result in disease, and that is why your beloved XXX crayfish will survive only about 100,000 years, because of the accumulation of chromosomal damage, caused by random physical events on the genome. It will be disappear due to “natural selection”. I do understand the philosophical basis for evolution but believe it to be relevant only in the world of Marvel Comic Books.

I do not believe that either Avalokita or Manjusri intervene to change the results of scientific experiments.

Neither do I. It’s believed to be gremlins that sabotage the results, working against all the efforts to control variables in the lab.

 

[Techno2000]

I can’t believe this thread is still going!

After 8000+ posts I don’t think people will agree that evolution is wrong.

Well, Rubee who joined us on this thread believe recently, that this theory was true, but is now is having doubts.The problem is, there is so much bias out there
that you can’t get both sides of the story.