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

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
That claim is a negative based on the absence of any statement about purpose one way or the other. If you think evolution does make a statement about purpose one way or the other, there is an easy way for you to demonstrate it.
Click to expand...
I have been accused by a few here of a “personal interpretation”. hmmmm

Yes, evo theory says it is purposeless. This is not that hard to find. It argued against teleology and put it to bed, until recently.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
That claim is a negative based on the absence of any statement about purpose one way or the other. If you think evolution does make a statement about purpose one way or the other, there is an easy way for you to demonstrate it.
Click to expand...
I have been accused by a few here of a “personal interpretation”. hmmmm

Yes, evo theory says it is purposeless. This is not that hard to find. It argued against teleology and put it to bed, until recently.
Click to expand...
You may find some sloppy school texts that don’t make the distinction between scientifically-observable purpose and religious purpose, using just the one word, “purpose” for both contexts. But a proper scientific statement of evolution refers only to what is observable. So it says that there is no observable purpose. It says nothing about the possible un-observable purpose in mutations and selection.

It properly argues against teleology which posits that the purpose of these changes is scientifically observable.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You may find some sloppy school texts that don’t make the distinction between scientifically-observable purpose and religious purpose, using just the one word, “purpose” for both contexts. But a proper scientific statement of evolution refers only to what is observable. So it says that there is no observable purpose. It says nothing about the possible un-observable purpose in mutations and selection.

It properly argues against teleology which posits that the purpose of these changes is scientifically observable.
Click to expand...
Once again, are you changing the definition of evolution to one of intelligent design? Just we cannot see the purpose scientifically?
 
tel·e·ol·o·gy
ˌtelēˈäləjē,ˌtēlēˈäləjē/Submit
nounPHILOSOPHY
the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes.
THEOLOGY
the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world.
 
It’s not teleology that is argued against it’s intelligent design, For example a group of atoms haven’t been moved together by an intelligent being. They have moved together because it’s in their nature to do so. There is no purpose in the sense there is no immediate or intermediate intelligent mover.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
You may find some sloppy school texts that don’t make the distinction between scientifically-observable purpose and religious purpose, using just the one word, “purpose” for both contexts. But a proper scientific statement of evolution refers only to what is observable. So it says that there is no observable purpose. It says nothing about the possible un-observable purpose in mutations and selection.

It properly argues against teleology which posits that the purpose of these changes is scientifically observable.
Click to expand...
Once again, are you changing the definition of evolution to one of intelligent design? Just we cannot see the purpose scientifically?
Click to expand...
I am explaining how I, as a religious person, and a scientific person, understand evolution. So naturally I will explain it in terms of intelligent design, because that is what I believe happened and is happening. But where I part ways from most of the intelligent design community is that I do not believe that they have scientific proof, using only the scientific method, of this intelligent design. What is the problem with that?
 
IWantGod said:
It’s not teleology that is argued against it’s intelligent design, For example a group of atoms haven’t been moved together by an intelligent being. They have moved together because it’s in their nature to do so.
Click to expand...
Actually, the way I look at things, it is both. It is both in their nature to do so, and they are also moved by an intelligent being. The way I see it, the intelligent being (God) created and is creating their nature on a continuous basis to give atoms their nature. I don’t see it as an either/or. I don’t see nature as something distinct from God.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
It’s not teleology that is argued against it’s intelligent design, For example a group of atoms haven’t been moved together by an intelligent being. They have moved together because it’s in their nature to do so. There is no purpose in the sense there is no immediate or intermediate intelligent mover.
Click to expand...
Follow my post. It was argued against in the past by evo proponents 150 years ago or so. It went out of favor and is now being considered once again.
 
Yes i agree. There is a metaphysical way of looking at it and a physical way. God is not moving atoms in the sense of me pushing a chair. That is what i mean, but yes God is giving reality to potential, and so he is a mover in that sense.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
I am explaining how I, as a religious person, and a scientific person, understand evolution. So naturally I will explain it in terms of intelligent design, because that is what I believe happened and is happening. But where I part ways from most of the intelligent design community is that I do not believe that they have scientific proof, using only the scientific method, of this intelligent design. What is the problem with that?
Click to expand...
If I understand you correctly you can subscribe to ID the philosophy, but not ID the science because you do not think they have the proof yet? or it is unprovable?
 
buffalo said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
I am explaining how I, as a religious person, and a scientific person, understand evolution. So naturally I will explain it in terms of intelligent design, because that is what I believe happened and is happening. But where I part ways from most of the intelligent design community is that I do not believe that they have scientific proof, using only the scientific method, of this intelligent design. What is the problem with that?
Click to expand...
If I understand you correctly you can subscribe to ID the philosophy, but not ID the science because you do not think they have the proof yet? or it is unprovable?
Click to expand...
I would not go so far as to say it is unprovable. God has revealed himself many times in the past. He could do it again. But I think He would find better ways and reasons to do that than to show something unnatural in the way species evolve. I think Lourdes is a much better miracle than displaying instantaneous creation of head lice.
 
Do you realize that one can prove something to be true and yet it is nevertheless unprovable by science? Context is important.

The problem i have with ID is that it argues for a complete paradigm shift based only on the improbability of something occuring. But in principle, even if there is only the smallest possibility that it can occur naturally, this is not a good reason in itself to declare that it happened by design. I agree with this paradigm because it works.

You reject the principle of methodological naturalism which is fine, but as soon as you do that you are rejecting science.

God of the gap arguments, which is what ID is, has failed in the past because people assume that it’s unlikely that nature can produce something, but we have seen time and time again that nature can produce seemingly unlikely things. It could be that Zeus is throwing lightning bolts whenever we see thunderstorms, but we are not going to further our knowledge if we go down that road.

I generally ignore God of the gap arguments because it has proven to be like building ones faith on sand.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
What evidence would convince you ID was the better explanation?
Click to expand...
Like i said in the OP. Show me evidence that all the animals that exist today have existed for as long as animals have existed. If you can do that then Evolution is false.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
IWantGod:
It’s not teleology that is argued against it’s intelligent design, For example a group of atoms haven’t been moved together by an intelligent being. They have moved together because it’s in their nature to do so.
Click to expand...
Actually, the way I look at things, it is both. It is both in their nature to do so, and they are also moved by an intelligent being. The way I see it, the intelligent being (God) created and is creating their nature on a continuous basis to give atoms their nature. I don’t see it as an either/or. I don’t see nature as something distinct from God.
Click to expand...
That sounds like you are try to make evolution more plausible by throwing God in to the mix.
 
It’s true Exodus 20:9 mentions the length of a creation day, but looking at the revelations of the Holy Spirit we may need to understand it slightly differently. Psalm 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8. So a creation day could have taken no time at all or a long time.
 
Last edited:
It is you my friend who must show evidence that a rat became a cat (or similar) and you cannot do this. The Bible says God made each kind.
 
The evidence does not point toward the idea that the earth was created in six days, or a young earth, or the idea that animals have always been the same. If there had always been giraffes and hippos and pigeons and Platypus’s etcetera, and therefore no evolution of species, then the evidence would bare that out. You wouldn’t find any new species.

I’m sorry but it isn’t me that needs to provide evidence. Science already provided all the evidence.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top