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

[RandomAlias]

Could the universe be designed?

Like I’ve told you before, the universe appears to have been designed to increase order by an ingenious combination of random processes and natural selection, one of God’s more awesome inventions.

 

[buffalo]

and not a consequence of scientific investigation.

Science is the gathering of knowledge. We observe design all around us. Your belief in design is warranted in both camps.

 

[edwest211]

How would science know that?

 

[buffalo]

Like I’ve told you before, the universe appears to have been designed to increase order by an ingenious combination of random processes and natural selection, one of God’s more awesome inventions.

This goes against Aquinas and principle of sufficient reason which says that a lesser cause cannot bring about a greater effect.

 

[Cruciferi]

Family get togethers must have been… interesting…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

and not a consequence of scientific investigation.

Science is the gathering of knowledge. We observe design all around us. Your belief in design is warranted in both camps.

Not the common use of the word “science.”

 

[Cruciferi]

When the next mass extinction event occurs, I’ll be very interested to see how well everything rebounds.

Perhaps we’ll have another Permian–Triassic extinction event? Just think, all those endangered species we like will be wiped out… Oh, well, they were weak and needed replacement anyways. Evolution will vomit something out of the primordial abyss.

 

[buffalo]

Definition of science​

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study

• the science of theology

b : something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge

• have it down to a science

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through [scientific method](Scientific | Definition of Scientific by Merriam-Webster method)

b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : [natural science](Natural | Definition of Natural by Merriam-Webster science)

4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

• cooking is both a science and an art

 

[Aloysium]

a poll taken several decades ago found that most Christian theologians do accept the basic ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.

Would it be possible to post a link to the study?

 

[HarryStotle]

Bradskii:

What you posted was ‘What he is describing is actually Design!’ Who cares? Call it what you will.

I do. Take out the words evolution and this paper would be an ID paper. We are seeing more and more of this in the current literature. The landscape is shifting right beneath your feet.

Perhaps the theory of evolution will evolve (or undergo a metamorphosis of sorts) to the point that it will no longer be recognizable as its former iteration?

 

[rossum]

This goes against Aquinas and principle of sufficient reason which says that a lesser cause cannot bring about a greater effect.

Since God is the cause of everything (except God) then any effect we observe in the world only has to be less than God, which is a very easy hurdle to leap.

Or are you are telling us that Einstein’s parents were both greater physicists than Einstein and both of Usain Bolt’s parents could run faster than their child?

I do not think that many people will agree with you on the second version.

rossum

 

[HarryStotle]

Going beyond science and turning to my own personal belief, informed by my Catholic faith, I can say that not only could the universe be designed, but that it was in fact designed. However that is my religion, and not a consequence of scientific investigation.

Will it ever be? A consequence of scientific investigation, I mean?

If you answer, “No, scientific investigation will never confirm that the universe was designed,” then you are basically claiming that science and faith will never come together concerning what was, as a plain matter of fact, designed.

If you answer, “Yes, perhaps,” then why would you deny intelligent design proponents the opportunity to demonstrate how and where that occurred?

This is the quandary you have put yourself into.

 

[rossum]

Could the universe be designed?

If and only if there existed designer(s) of sufficient power at the time of the origin of the universe. In the absence of such designer(s) then the universe could not have been designed.

This only applies to the physical STEM universe of course. The philosophical universe: All That Exists, cannot have been designed since no external designer(s) could exist.

rossum

 

[HarryStotle]

There is nothing wrong with presenting an anti-evolution argument. Arguments and debates in general are good things. So I am not criticizing anyone merely by addressing their anti-evolution argument. You are clearly calling into question something that you believe is not adequately addressed by evolutionary science. Why not just own up to it like buffalo and everyone else here who is skeptical of evolutionary science?

Own up to what? Why do I need to feel compelled to take one side or the other?

Why can’t I be critical of either one, or both, if there is something to be critical of?

As it is, I see some merit in both positions, with neither one having made a completely compelling case.

The reason I cannot strike some middle ground, or no ground at all, would be?

The jury might still be deliberating with neither side having made an iron-clad case. Why the need to reach a final verdict prematurely? To be on some proverbial “winning side?”

 

[HarryStotle]

buffalo:

Could the universe be designed?

If and only if there existed designer(s) of sufficient power at the time of the origin of the universe. In the absence of such designer(s) then the universe could not have been designed.

This only applies to the physical STEM universe of course. The philosophical universe: All That Exists, cannot have been designed since no external designer(s) could exist.

rossum

Sounds like an an ontological argument based upon a definition.

Universe = all that exists, therefore nothing exists outside the universe.

I call sophistry.

The philosophical universe: All That Exists, cannot have been designed since no external designer(s) could exist.

What about internal or integral designer where ‘All That Exists’ is Designer All the Way Down?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Going beyond science and turning to my own personal belief, informed by my Catholic faith, I can say that not only could the universe be designed, but that it was in fact designed. However that is my religion, and not a consequence of scientific investigation.

Will it ever be? A consequence of scientific investigation, I mean?

I don’t know. Could be. But I’m not holding my breath.

If you answer, “Yes, perhaps,” then why would you deny intelligent design proponents the opportunity to demonstrate how and where that occurred?

I’m not denying ID proponents the opportunity to demonstrate scientifically that their claims are true. The trouble is they just haven’t done that. At some point, one gets tired of listening to unscientific arguments and having to show again and again how those arguments are unscientific. It is not the goal that is unscientific, but the methods used to support that goal. If ID proponents would just stick to the scientific method they might find a more receptive audience among mainstream scientists. On the other hand, maybe, just maybe, they can’t use scientific arguments because there are no scientific arguments that support their point. (Maybe.)

 

[rossum]

Universe = all that exists, therefore nothing exists outside the universe.

A perfectly good definition in logic, philosophy or set theory. The Universal Set contains everything of relevance to the particular problem.

In logic we can start with the premise: “The universe is all that exists.” Yes, one consequence of this premise is that nothing exists external to the universe.

I did make clear that this philosophical/logical ATE universe is not the same as the STEM universe of the physical sciences.

rossum

 

[RandomAlias]

When the next mass extinction event occurs, I’ll be very interested to see how well everything rebounds.

Perhaps we’ll have another Permian–Triassic extinction event? Just think, all those endangered species we like will be wiped out… Oh, well, they were weak and needed replacement anyways. Evolution will vomit something out of the primordial abyss.

An interesting scenario, in which we would all be endangered. All I know for sure is that life is resilient, within limits. Evolution doesn’t “vomit out” or actively do anything. Evolution is the tendency of living things to adapt to circumstances such as they are. Evolution is a tendency, not a certainty, and so extinction is always a possibility.

 

[buffalo]

Since God is the cause of everything (except God) then any effect we observe in the world only has to be less than God, which is a very easy hurdle to leap.

Or are you are telling us that Einstein’s parents were both greater physicists than Einstein and both of Usain Bolt’s parents could run faster than their child?

I do not think that many people will agree with you on the second version.

One other thing - the final cause of things aka teleology.

Good science includes, formal, material, efficient and final causes. Scientism eliminates formal and final.

Where all 4 are included faith and reason are both true.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

One other thing - the final cause of things aka teleology.
Good science includes, formal, material, efficient and final causes.

You do not get to make the rules of what constitutes science. The common understanding of the term is that science does not include this particular branch of philosophy.