navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » Questions for evolutionists
Philosophy 101
Post A Reply Post New Topic Questions for evolutionists Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208
somebody's dungeon

0 posted 2003-06-18 11:13 PM



1. Where did the space for the universe come from?  


2. Where did matter come from?  


3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?


4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?  


5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?  


6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?  


7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?  


8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?  


9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)  


10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)  


11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?  


12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?  


13. When, where, why, and how did  
a. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)  
b. Single-celled animals evolve?  
c. Fish change to amphibians?  
d. Amphibians change to reptiles?  
e. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)  
f. How did the intermediate forms live?  


14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:  
a. Whales evolve?  
b. Sea horses evolve?  
c. Bats evolve?  
d. Eyes evolve?
e. Ears evolve?
f.  Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?  


15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?  
a. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body"'"s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?  
b. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?  
c. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?  
d. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?  
e. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?  
f. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?  
g. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?  
h. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?  
i. The immune system or the need for it?  


16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?  


17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?  


18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.


19. How did photosynthesis evolve?  


20. How did thought evolve?  


21. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?  


22. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?  


23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?  


24. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?  


25. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?


26. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.


1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)  


2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?  


3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?  


4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?


5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?  


6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?  
a. It is all they have been taught.  
b. They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).  
c. They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.  
d. They are too proud to admit they are wrong.  
e. Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.  


7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don"'"t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?  


8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?  


9. What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."  


10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.  

*I am not the author of these questions



© Copyright 2003 Anne Thompson - All Rights Reserved
Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
1 posted 2003-06-18 11:27 PM


I am not an evolutionist, or a Darwinist, however, I have a question to answer the other questions... Who says that both theories can't and don't work together???
And, the questions put "How did ______ evolve" actually puts into the theory of evoution. Everything evolves from a set of external and internal influences. I actually do not believe that God, or any other n ame that He/She might be called has much to do with the evolution process.Putting everything here in the first place is definately in the field of Creationism. Evolving, I believe, isn't.

Day after day I'm more confused,
So I look for the light through the pouring rain...

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
2 posted 2003-06-19 12:37 PM


My my.  So many questions. Hardly the medium for pursuing a post-graduate degree in physics and biology.  If you're really looking for answers though and not trying to be rhetorical you could start here.
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw02.html

and here:
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/6929/h_kaku2.html

and then read Hawkings "Breif History of Time"

[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (06-19-2003 12:37 AM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
3 posted 2003-06-19 01:25 AM


Given that these aren't your questions, Anne, are you prepared to defend them?  

There are actually a few really good questions here. However, since those few are mixed in with so many others that demonstrate an appalling lack of basic knowledge, I have to assume the few were just an accident. That this survey exists at all seems to suggest we should be teaching more science in our school system, not less.

Let's look at just a few.

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Cells reproduce through mitosis, not sexual reproduction. With what did the first organism capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? Probably with itself. Asexual reproduction is still very common, certainly in the plant world, and also among many invertebrates like sea stars and sea anemones. The first organism capable of sexual reproduction was also very likely capable of asexual reproduction. Its offspring could then reproduce with each other.

Sounds icky, I know. But with whom did the children of Adam and Eve reproduce? Whether you listen to science or the Bible, we all spring from a common seed.

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

Odds are there were a great many living cells and organisms at one time that did not reproduce. They, uh, aren't here any more. Survival of the species isn't some great scientific law as much as it is happenstance. Those organism that reproduce are only here to ask these kinds of questions because they reproduced. I guess those that didn't reproduce had different questions to ask.

It's called the Anthropic Principle and often offers the simplest answers to the most complex questions. The universe is as we see it today precisely because we're here to see it. If something important changed even marginally, we wouldn't be here. Stated another way, there may well be other universes out there that have no life or have life very different from ours. We don't live in one of those.

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

Never is a very long time, and if your handwriting was as bad as mine, you might think otherwise.  

But even if we accept that English won't mutate to Chinese, that still leaves an infinite realm of possibilities. Randomly combine English letters over sufficient times spans, and everything possible to write will eventually emerge. Gee, maybe all of life as we know it is still in its English phase. In another five billion years, it might have mutated into Chinese?  

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?  
2. Where did matter come from?  
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?


Where did God come from?

Opening the door to He "always existed" opens the same door to anything else that can't be readily understood. And interestingly, "always existed" makes perfect scientific sense, whether you're talking about space or God. Time and the measurement of time does not exist as a Universal constant, but rather is a product of the universe as we see it now. Anything that was here before clocks started ticking, by our definition, always existed.

Obviously, I'm not going to play devil's advocate to all of these questions. To be honest, some I couldn't answer and still keep a straight face. But there is one last point, I'd like to address.

Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools?

Because creationism is not a single subject. There's a different brand of it for every religion dating back to some crude paintings on the walls of a cave. If we are to protect our right to freedom of religion, we CANNOT elevate one over another. If we were to teach the story of Genesis in the public schools, it would make a lot of Christians very, very happy today. Ten or twenty or fifty years down the road, however, when Christians perhaps no longer held a majority position, they would be outraged to have their children being taught Buddhism or Wicca. Separation of church and state doesn't just protect the minority religions. It protects all of us.

Evolution is not a religion. It is a scientific theory that most scientists will agree is flawed and incomplete, but is still valid enough to hold important truths. Nor does evolution necessarily contradict the Bible. Read Genesis carefully and you'll discover that the order in which God created everything is pretty darn close to that predicted by science. Coincidence? Or is evolution a tool?

Science and religion are not enemies. Mankind discovered electricity, we didn't invent it. If one is to believe in a god who created everything, then one must also believe in a god who created electricity. And gravity, relativity, and quantum mechanics. And, yea, maybe even evolution. The greatest scientific mind of history, Sir Isaac Newton, was also a fanatical believer in God. Newton knew, I think, that science, in every single instance, reinforces and substantiates the Christian faith. The study of science IS the study of God.

Jason Lyle
Senior Member
since 2003-02-07
Posts 1438
With my darkling
4 posted 2003-06-19 05:46 AM


Where did God come from?
WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208
somebody's dungeon
5 posted 2003-06-19 09:58 AM


Ringo, God says. That's all I can tell you. Evolution isn't in the Bible, so as a Christian, I believe it is a lie.

LR, would it take a post-graduate degree to answer the questions? I posted them somewhere else, and an atheist is attempting to answer all of them. A very nice young man who has as his only fault that he doesn't believe in God. He's answered the first 4 already, I'm assuming from sources online, and I understood, though didn't believe a word, of his answers.

Ron, The questions were posed by a creation scientist. I believe that they were to be taken literally, and an evolutionist, who is an evolutionist because he actually knows the equations and formulas put forth by the great Darwin, and Gould, and Dawkins and others, would know the answers.

In response to some of your other questions about man inventing, or discovering: I never said man didn't invent anything, or discover anything. Man is even capable of creating. The problem is he's not doing so from nothing.

There is a cute story that states my point.

God and man were having a discussion one day. Man tells God, "I too could create a man, just like you did". God says, "fine, prove it to me." The man bends down to pick up a handful of dirt, and God says, "get your own dirt."

God made everything from nothing, man will never be able to accomplish this feat. He's not God, so I'm surprised anyone thinks he will. But that's just me, you know, faith and all that.


Jason, God did not "come" from anywhere. He's always been, always is, and always will be. What is eternal has no origin.

Local Parasite
Deputy Moderator 10 Tours
Member Elite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527
Transylconia, Winnipeg
6 posted 2003-06-19 11:28 AM


quote:
and I understood, though didn't believe a word, of his answers.


If you understand them, why didn't you believe a word of them?  If you're not willing to listen to people's answers, however much sense they make, then your questions are pointless and I don't think anyone should waste their time trying to answer them just for your sake.

You shouldn't ask questions just to prove a point, especially when you're not willing to listen to the answers... you're trying to say that science is on your side, but you assure yourself of your points by dogmatically believing them...

So what's the point of asking to begin with?

Sorry, that just annoyed me... I don't usually speak up in this forum, I just read, but I felt the need to comment on this...

Sudhir Iyer
Member Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943
Mumbai, India : now in Belgium
7 posted 2003-06-19 11:48 AM


quote:
A very nice young man who has as his only fault that he doesn't believe in God.


Just wondering how could you say it is his fault. It is possible that it is your belief that he is wrong just as it is his right to believe that you  are incorrect.

No, I am not an evolutionist or any other fanciful personality groups that some try to seggregate people into, but I wonder what is your motivation to place forward these questions, if you are not going to believe the answers if they are not what you would like to hear.

I have nothing against you at all and also I try not to get involved in such discussions on too many occasions, but this I had to point out. Sorry for jumping in.

Regards to you and everybody else,
Sudhir

[This message has been edited by Sudhir Iyer (06-19-2003 11:58 AM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
8 posted 2003-06-19 12:13 PM


quote:
In response to some of your other questions about man inventing, or discovering: I never said man didn't invent anything, or discover anything. Man is even capable of creating. The problem is he's not doing so from nothing.

Unlike others, I don't insist anyone believe the answers to the questions. It would be nice, though, if they were at least read.

WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208
somebody's dungeon
9 posted 2003-06-19 12:24 PM


LP, I said I understood them in the sense that the equations were not over my head. He offered up the scientific theories. But then he went on to say the same thing the scientists say about those theories: "they cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and do not answer with any certainty the question of the origin of man.
WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208
somebody's dungeon
10 posted 2003-06-19 12:40 PM


Ron,

Forgive me, I didn't mean to leave you with the impression I didn't read your post.

Given that these aren't your questions, Anne, are you prepared to defend them?  

There are actually a few really good questions here. However, since those few are mixed in with so many others that demonstrate an appalling lack of basic knowledge, I have to assume the few were just an accident. That this survey exists at all seems to suggest we should be teaching more science in our school system, not less.

Let's look at just a few.

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Cells reproduce through mitosis, not sexual reproduction. With what did the first organism capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? Probably with itself. Asexual reproduction is still very common, certainly in the plant world, and also among many invertebrates like sea stars and sea anemones. The first organism capable of sexual reproduction was also very likely capable of asexual reproduction. Its offspring could then reproduce with each other.

Sounds icky, I know. But with whom did the children of Adam and Eve reproduce? Whether you listen to science or the Bible, we all spring from a common seed.

Is there proof of this somewhere? And if it happened that way the first time, how did we get to where we are now? What intelligence was introduced, and how and why was it introduced, for reproduction to happen the way it happens now, within the animal, and human species?

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

Odds are there were a great many living cells and organisms at one time that did not reproduce. They, uh, aren't here any more. Survival of the species isn't some great scientific law as much as it is happenstance. Those organism that reproduce are only here to ask these kinds of questions because they reproduced. I guess those that didn't reproduce had different questions to ask.

It's called the Anthropic Principle and often offers the simplest answers to the most complex questions. The universe is as we see it today precisely because we're here to see it. If something important changed even marginally, we wouldn't be here. Stated another way, there may well be other universes out there that have no life or have life very different from ours. We don't live in one of those.

Again, can you offer me some proof? Something I can see? Something that is all around me now, that I could perhaps watch doing these incredible things, so that I would know they actually learned to do them all by themselves? For instance. If there are lower life forms now, which there are, can I watch one evolve? From the time of man's first recorded history, has nothing evolved so miraculously as it did in the beginning so that it could have been recorded, somehow?

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

Never is a very long time, and if your handwriting was as bad as mine, you might think otherwise.  

But even if we accept that English won't mutate to Chinese, that still leaves an infinite realm of possibilities. Randomly combine English letters over sufficient times spans, and everything possible to write will eventually emerge. Gee, maybe all of life as we know it is still in its English phase. In another five billion years, it might have mutated into Chinese?


There should be evidence of these creatures that went extinct before their time. We are supposedly talking about billions of years. There would be more than just a few of these fossils laying around.

Have you read about the experiments with the fruit fly? There were mutations? Not one, not a single one was an improvement. All of them were harmful to the fruit fly. In that case, the mutations that would have taken place for evolution to be fact, would have all been harmful. We would not be the creatures we are today. It would just stand to reason, we would be abominable creatures with many eyes, many arms and so on and so forth. Wouldn't it?


1. Where did the space for the universe come from?  
2. Where did matter come from?  
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

Where did God come from?

I see you already knew my answer.

Opening the door to He "always existed" opens the same door to anything else that can't be readily understood. And interestingly, "always existed" makes perfect scientific sense, whether you're talking about space or God. Time and the measurement of time does not exist as a Universal constant, but rather is a product of the universe as we see it now. Anything that was here before clocks started ticking, by our definition, always existed.

Obviously, I'm not going to play devil's advocate to all of these questions. To be honest, some I couldn't answer and still keep a straight face. But there is one last point, I'd like to address.

Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools?

Because creationism is not a single subject. There's a different brand of it for every religion dating back to some crude paintings on the walls of a cave. If we are to protect our right to freedom of religion, we CANNOT elevate one over another. If we were to teach the story of Genesis in the public schools, it would make a lot of Christians very, very happy today. Ten or twenty or fifty years down the road, however, when Christians perhaps no longer held a majority position, they would be outraged to have their children being taught Buddhism or Wicca. Separation of church and state doesn't just protect the minority religions. It protects all of us.

Evolution is not a religion. It is a scientific theory that most scientists will agree is flawed and incomplete, but is still valid enough to hold important truths. Nor does evolution necessarily contradict the Bible. Read Genesis carefully and you'll discover that the order in which God created everything is pretty darn close to that predicted by science. Coincidence? Or is evolution a tool?

I disagree, wholeheartedly. Evolution is in fact a religion. It takes more faith to believe in something that has no basis in fact, undeniable proven fact, than it does to believe in creation.

And there are many different theories of evolution. Not just one. So the same holds true as to what you say of religion. There are more evolutionary theories popping up  about the origin of man.

One does not have to teach religion to teach creation. The perfect answer would be to teach neither, don't you think? Christians children would learn creation in church, and non-christian children would learn what their parents taught them about the origin of man.


Science and religion are not enemies. Mankind discovered electricity, we didn't invent it. If one is to believe in a god who created everything, then one must also believe in a god who created electricity. And gravity, relativity, and quantum mechanics. And, yea, maybe even evolution. The greatest scientific mind of history, Sir Isaac Newton, was also a fanatical believer in God. Newton knew, I think, that science, in every single instance, reinforces and substantiates the Christian faith. The study of science IS the study of God.

I already answered this one.

WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208
somebody's dungeon
11 posted 2003-06-19 12:46 PM


Sudhir, Please don't apologize for jumping in. You have just as much right to participate in a discussion as anyone else.

The reason behind the questions, I believe is this. There are answers to be found from the scientists for these questions. I know, because some people have actually answered some of them with some very scientific answers. The problem with their answers is this. All of the answers are theories. Not one could offer me proof as to the validity, or the correctness of their answers.

I think that is the point of the questions. I would like for people to see that the theory of evolution in fact has no basis in fact. The scientists will admit that themselves. They are supposing, hypothesizing, and just plain guessing, in the hope of putting forth an idea that will allow for the origin of man to take place outside the realm of God.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
12 posted 2003-06-19 12:54 PM




"God made everything from nothing"

What is nothing?  Do you mean chaos or formlessness?  

If God has always been, why haven't created things always been?

Just a few more questions to the pile.

WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208
somebody's dungeon
13 posted 2003-06-19 12:55 PM


Now before anyone attempts to answer these questions, with theories that have never been proven to be fact. (I'm learning that the phrase, "it's not an exact science" is actually a redundancy) When it comes to evolution, no science seems to be exact. I would like to put forth my problem with the answers that are being provided, not on this board, mostly because I think on this board no one is really going to attempt to answer them.

The Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are in fact just theories.

Creation is not a theory.

Creation was accepted by man right up until he decided to turn his back on God. Then something had to be thought up to replace creation, so that man would have something to replace the creation account with, for he was left with this problem of creation, which was all around him, and it needed explaining, outside of God.

After all, how would man convince all of mankind that there was no God, if he couldn't think up some theory to explain all the wonders of the universe, and the origin of man? So he was in a pickle.  

Now let me explain to you why, to me, a Christian who has the creator of this universe living within her heart, all of these theories are unbelievable, and ridiculous, from my point of view.

The Father of this universe, God, speaks to me through His Word. I learn something new each and every time I read the Bible. I've seen Him answer prayer. I've seen the miracle of His salvation work in the lives of many who have been washed in the blood of Jesus Christ.

I myself have been washed in the blood of Christ when I accepted the Lord as my savior, and put my faith in the Gospel, which is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. The Gospel, of which God says, "it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth."

So you could say, I have the blood of Christ coursing through my veins. Not literally, but I say it that way to make a point. We say that we are the blood of our ancestors. Have you ever heard that phrase? You are of your parents. You inherited certain things from both of them. It's written in your genetic code.  

What would you think if I told you that you didn't come from your parents? What would you think if I told you that they did not in fact create you, but that you just evolved one day from a single-celled creature, and just happened to pop up in their house one day, crib and all? Wouldn't you think I was a bit crazy? Probably more than just a bit crazy? You'd think I was a lunatic.

You see, that is what I think when I hear all these theories about how we came to be. I have the Father of the universe living inside of me. I have the proof of creation written on my heart. So how can I possibly believe a theory, that all who answered the questions, have already stated is not exact, nor able to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, when I know the truth? My mind, which is centered on the Lord, which is touched by God's infinite knowledge, every single day, cannot believe evolution. It's a physical impossibility.

I do not wish to offend anyone  in any way. I am grateful for the time anyone may have taken to search out the answers to the questions I placed on this board. If you feel that you are learning something, and you wish to answer all of the questions, please feel free to do so. But also, please understand, in my mind, your answers offer me no proof.  

Your answers do not actually answer, beyond a reasonable doubt, the questions posed. They do not satisfy, with any certainty, nor are they the answer to the one question that evolution stems from. "How did we get here, if God did not create us?"

The reason they do not, in my mind, which remember, is centered on God, is because it's impossible to do so.



Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
14 posted 2003-06-19 01:05 PM


"What would you think if I told you that they did not in fact create you, but that you just evolved one day from a single-celled creature, and just happened to pop up in their house one day... Wouldn't you think I was a bit crazy?..."

I would have no choice but to think you were crazy if you proposed evolution (or creation for that matter) happened in one day!    

[This message has been edited by Essorant (06-19-2003 01:25 PM).]

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
15 posted 2003-06-19 01:58 PM


Whiterose:

It seems to me that you are asking evolutionists to provide you with evidentiary proof of their claims that you, as a creationist, cannot produce yourself.

I would argue that evolutionary theory is not a scientific theory, but rather a historical theory.  It relies heavily on decidedly inconclusive fossil and archeological records, observations of micro-evolution within species, and similarities in the genetic make-up of species that share certain attributes (e.g., apes and humans).  

I just watched "Walking with Cavemen" on the Discovery Channel this week and it is quite obvious that the evolutionary theorist must do much to fluff up the evidentiary record with speculation in order to fill a two hour television program, including commercials.  What I took from watching that show is that we really don't know all that much about our origins.

But what does the creation scientist offer us besides a different interpretation of the evidentiary record?  A reliance on texts that he believes are inspired by God?  Assuming that the texts are reliable, are we certain that his interpretation of the divine texts is credible?

If both camps were honest with us and with themselves, and relied only on the historical and scientific evidence at their disposal, they would both have to throw their hands in the air and admit that human origin remains a mystery to the historians and the scientists in both camps.  

Truth be told, even within orthodox Christianity, there are diverse opinions regarding the interpretation of the creation account of Genesis.  Were the days literal, 24 hour days?  Were the "days" spread over millions of earth-years?  Was the universe created old?  Is the universe really only about 10,000 years old?

I'm happy for you finding comfort in your faith, but I think it is important not to mince words - what you have in your heart is not "proof" in a scientific or evidentiary sense.  What you are really saying is that you need no proof because you are comfortable that what you believe to be true is true.

Jim

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
16 posted 2003-06-19 02:38 PM


White, Rose:

I agree that this is way too many questions to ask at one time.  It ends up looking like or being just a rant of someone's.  I'm not saying that there are no good questions in there.  Just to narrow things down might get a better response, and folks might think you are ready to listen and reason with their responses also.  

Stephen.

As to evolution in general ...I am not necessarily a "young Earth creationist".  I am not a scientist, and therefore suspend my judgement on many things regarding evolutionary theory.  But then again I don't believe in the concept of a blind mechanistic universe that arose out of chance + time + matter.  I believe that God had to do it.  If not, then everything is molecules and motion ... and I do mean everything, including human rationality, morality, and all thought.

Epistemically this is suicidal belief.  Why?  Because if things like rationality arose out of the darwinian process of natural selection, then it only means that they are conducive to survival and nothing more.  So there is no foundation whatsoever for rationality or even consciousness being reflective of reality.  This means our reasoning arose out of mutations and genetic anomolies.  And everything that happens in the genetic world arose out of sheer nature, out of a cause and effect relationship.  But our reasoning itself doesn't function merely on a cause and effect level ... it also functions on a ground and consequent level.  But that's the problem. . . A naturalistic explanation of reason can't account for this unique relation.  Our brains don't come up with rational conclusions out of sheer cause and effect, but also uses syllogisms and logic based upon accurate sensory perception.  

I am not forced by chemistry in the brain to believe that since my friend Jay is in New York, he cannot also be San Francisco.  There is knowledge incorporated about the reality in the external world which is not contigent on mere brain chemistry.  If not, then there is no validity in saying I am right about Jay being in New York, and you are wrong about him being in Chicago.  Jay would still be in New York even if you and I died and thought no more on the matter.  Someone else could still verify that Jay is in New York and affirm the truth of the matter.

The difficulty I come to when approaching a totally Darwinist conception of naturalism, is that the very  faculties which are used to come to such knowledge is necessarily just another natural product of time + chance + matter.  A person's reasons for accepting evolutionary theory could be no more true than it's opposing views, than brown eyes could be more true than blue ones.  


As C.S. Lewis wrote,

"After studying his environment man has begun to study himself.  Up to that point, he had assumed his own reason and through it seen all other things.  Now, his own reason has become the object:  it is as if we took out our eyes to look at them.  Thus studied, his own reason appears to him as the epiphenomenon which accompanies chemical or electrical events in a cortex which is itself the byproduct of a blind evolutionary process.  His own logic, hitherto the king whom events in all possible worlds must obey, becomes merely subjective.  There is no reason for supposing that it yields truth."


And I guess that's where I am with evolution.  I am convinced that there is such a thing as natural selection.  We have conclusively proven it to function in small scale changes (microevolution).  Finch beaks do change under environmental changes, but they have never been shown to turn into anything other than a beak, much less finches into other animals.  Natural Selection has not been conclusively proven to be the agent of large scale changes or differences, this is only a theory.  

Where I am dead against spreading Darwinian thought is into a total explanation of reality.  When it becomes the algorithm for the whole universe, including human rationality and all thought, it has been taken way out of context.  This is philosophical naturalism, where Darwinian thought like a cancer has been allowed to spread into philosophy, sociology, and ethics.  On the other hand, if you want to accept that scientific evolution operates without a Divine controller and maker, then you cannot help but to allow it spill over.

If anyone is interested in some counter arguments as to the certainty of darwinism in science, check out Michael Behe.  


http://www.arn.org/behe/behehome.htm


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-19-2003 02:45 PM).]

Jason Lyle
Senior Member
since 2003-02-07
Posts 1438
With my darkling
17 posted 2003-06-19 03:11 PM


I question noones faith, but I must disagree with one statement you made.You stated that creationism was not a theory.

Creationism, is just another theory.It is as unprovable as the rest of them, but it is just another theory.
To state that mankind accepted it as truth until recently is the same kind of statement as to say, until recently we believed the world was flat.

I personally find no conflict with evolution and God.Is it so hard to believe that evolution was a tool of Gods in creation?

Jason

[This message has been edited by Jason Lyle (06-19-2003 03:12 PM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
18 posted 2003-06-19 06:18 PM


WhiteRose said:
quote:
The Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are in fact just theories.

Yes, they are. So, too, Anne, are electricity and chemistry. We don't really know what makes electrical and chemical bonds operate as they do, so we observe the world and create theories that can account for what we see. Sometimes, we get it horribly wrong, most times we get it only mostly wrong. But the computer screen from which you're reading these words is evidence that being a theory, by itself, isn't a condemnation of truth. Because mostly wrong also means partially right.

WhiteRose said:
quote:
Creation is not a theory.

For even a Christian, Creation is at best an incomplete story. Why is the entire universe filled with measurable background radiation? From where did all those old bones and fossils come? How can we run our automobiles and heat our homes with something Genesis never mentions God creating? The Bible tells us what we need to know, but it doesn't always tell us what we want to know.

Stephen said:
quote:
But then again I don't believe in the concept of a blind mechanistic universe that arose out of chance + time + matter.  I believe that God had to do it.  If not, then everything is molecules and motion ... and I do mean everything, including human rationality, morality, and all thought.

One doesn't preclude the other, and your conclusion need not follow from either.

When I write a computer program, I do it one line at a time. Our forum software is composed of nearly half a million such lines of code, and each line is very carefully considered and implemented. That's one way to create something and it's the one I suspect most people see when they think of God creating the universe.

Personally, however, I don't see any reason to assign our limitations to God. Wouldn't it be cool if I could fluctuate the current when I turn on my computer in just a specific way that the random bits and bytes resulting from the fluctuation would result in a tiny little program that could write a little bit bigger program that could then produce exactly the software I need to do exactly the task I had in mind? If I was omniscient, I would never have to write another line of code. And even though each of my programs started as random patterns, they would nonetheless have purpose.

With true omniscience, the word random takes on a somewhat different flavor.

WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208
somebody's dungeon
19 posted 2003-06-19 07:24 PM


Ron,
  The main purpose for the posing of the questions was to get an evolutionist to admit that evolution cannot be proven. I've had some argue that it can, and they pose theories for me. That doesn't prove a thing.

I guess my way of going about it may have been a bit offensive, for that I apologize.

In the same way that they cannot prove the theory of evolution, they cannot disprove creation, and I have begun to tire of the "fanatic", and "nutcase" remarks that I receive when I speak of creation. (not that this ever happened here)

If neither creation nor evolution can be scientifically proven, what makes me an idiot for believing one, and not the other? And what makes a person who believes creation, intelligent, and not a fanatic?

Do you understand what I'm saying? Or asking? Evolution is quoted like a mantra by non-believers. They make it out to be some ingenious set of facts that I, as a Christian, can't possibly understand. Yet, it cannot be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Okay, I'm rambling now.......

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
20 posted 2003-06-19 07:44 PM


But, Anne, NOTHING can really be proven beyond a reasonable doubt if someone refuses to listen.

The questions you posed, though I know they're not your own, show a remarkable lack of understanding of basic 9th-grade science. How can they be taken seriously in that light? It would be like someone arguing that the Bible is just a child's story when it was patently obvious they had never bothered to read it or made any effort to understand it. Christians see that happen all the time. Enough so, they shouldn't do it to others.

Understanding goes a long way towards resolving differences, I think. Those who stand in different rooms, without ever seeing each other, can yell back and forth all day and never accomplish anything useful. We need to be willing to explore someone else's room before we can declare it unfit.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
21 posted 2003-06-19 08:02 PM


Can the theory of evolution be wrong?

Sure.

But there is a confusion here, a confusion that if a theory can be possibly wrong, then we can jump to the conclusion that it is wrong. Because we aren't certain, absolutely certain, then it's not an empirical science. It's the other way around, if a theory can be possibly wrong, it can also possibly be right.

That is why we test it. If you are certain about something, there is no need to test it for you already know it's true. Empirical science (and I keep saying that because I don't want to get into logic or math) is based on asking questions, on the continual testing of its assumptions.

But no one here seems to question the theory of evolution in practice. No one is questioning that the use of antibiotics have in turn created microbes resistant to those same antibiotics. I don't see anyone here arguing that this is not true and that, instead, these microbes are a sign from God that we are doing something wrong (and of course there is no contradiction in saying both). The objection, therefore, is to the extrapolation of the theory of evolution into the past.

But that objection can be applied accross the board to any theory, scientific or religious. Did gravity work the same way a thousand years ago?

We don't know.

Did water freeze at 32 degrees F.?

We don't know.

Did the Earth orbit the sun?

We don't know.

If we don't allow ourselves to extrapolate, the only answer to be given about the past is, "We don't know."

Because, believe it or not, it is a logical possibility that it was different a thousand years ago.

So evolution can be wrong. In fact, I can almost guarantee that any current theory of evolution is wrong about something or other. But that is why it is taught as an empirical science. The strength of science is its flexibility, its ability to adapt to new evidence, not its certainty.

[This message has been edited by Brad (06-19-2003 08:08 PM).]

WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208
somebody's dungeon
22 posted 2003-06-19 08:39 PM


Ron,
  I wanted to be informed before I ever posed the questions. I found the entire copy of Darwin's Origin of the Species on line and read it. I also added to my favorites a Stephen Jay Gould website that contained articles from many, many, too many actually, evolutionists.

I read until my eyes blurred, and saw no proof offered. So I thought maybe some lay-evolutionists might have some answers for me.

Alas, I was wrong. I think I came away from this with a better understanding though about the actuality of scientific theory. So in the end, though it appears to have helped no one else, it did help me.

WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208
somebody's dungeon
23 posted 2003-06-19 08:40 PM


Brad,
  Thank you. You said what I was hoping someone would. That evolution cannot be proved, in the same way that creation cannot be proved.

Both must be taken on faith.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
24 posted 2003-06-19 09:14 PM


Brad said:
quote:
Empirical science (and I keep saying that because I don't want to get into logic or math) is ...

Coward.

Essentially, I think everything we know or think we know is still a theory. Newton was never shown to be wrong, and most of his conclusions are still presented as "Laws," but Einstein showed us why classical physics was only partially right. Even then, Newton's Laws of Motion are only laws until we start asking why and everyone admits all we've got are guesses.

But you're right, Brad, the strength of science is its adaptability. Theories that contradict observations are discarded with the morning trash, to make way for those with more to offer. Some cows are certainly better loved than others, but it seems none are sacred.

Kamala
Member
since 2003-04-17
Posts 59
CA, USA
25 posted 2003-06-19 09:25 PM


WhiteRose,

Of course both evolutionism and creationism must be taken on faith.  But to say that creationism is not a theory is one of the absurd things I've ever heard.

You believe what you believe, and that may be the reason why -- even after reading until your eyes blurred -- you still found "no proof" in evolutionism.  I don't believe your mind is truly open to hearing those theories for what they are.  You already know (believe you know) what is right and true.  And it shows in your comments, which sadly come across as extremely close-minded.

I have serious issues with ANYONE who would presume to say that another's only fault is that he doesn't believe in God.  You are in no position to judge anybody else, decide who is at fault, or decide whether or not people should believe in God.

And lest you retort with, "Well, you're judging me," let me add... I'm not judging you *as a person*, I'm judging a statement you have made.

Kamala

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
26 posted 2003-06-19 09:48 PM


The Theory of Evolution seems to say:  
Everything comes from something.

The Theory of Creation:
Everything comes from nothing.

A most most important part of a theory, is whence this or that comes.  
I believe we can prove things come from other things;  but what can we prove, or have we proved,  as coming from nothing?  In this area, it is like a form of nihilism!

All I know is I don't believe in nothings - I believe in things, and that's why the theory of evolution seems to have more solidity and realness in my own feeling.  

I still have beliefs in creation; I just don't believe in "nothing!"


Essorant

[This message has been edited by Essorant (06-19-2003 10:57 PM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
27 posted 2003-06-19 10:14 PM


quote:
And lest you retort with, "Well, you're judging me," let me add... I'm not judging you *as a person*, I'm judging a statement you have made.

And there's a difference?

Well, let's judge your statements, then. They are exceedingly judgmental, extremely close-minded, and sadly far from the most absurd thing I've heard. Your "statements" find fault with someone for finding fault with others? And you don't see the irony in that?

Of course, I'm not judging you as a person, Kamala. I'm just judging your statements. And if those statements don't start exhibiting a bit more Respect and Tolerance, they won't be around here very long. Lighten up.

WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208
somebody's dungeon
28 posted 2003-06-19 10:28 PM


Kamala,

I even stated that to the person in question, and he knew that I meant it not in a derogatory way, but as a Christian I could only think of a lack of belief in God as a fault.

So you take offense in vain. The person was not offended, and we have had a very nice, respectful debate, and have disagreed on pretty much everything.

He knows that I care about his soul, and that I said what I did for that reason.

So please, don't let it get to you, it certainly didn't bother him any.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
29 posted 2003-06-19 11:31 PM


Stephanos: "But then again I don't believe in the concept of a blind mechanistic universe that arose out of chance + time + matter.  I believe that God had to do it.  If not, then everything is molecules and motion ... and I do mean everything, including human rationality, morality, and all thought."


Ron: "One doesn't preclude the other, and your conclusion need not follow from either"


Ron, what you mean by "chance" is really not chance, if you believe in God.  But many who are thoroughgoing naturalists really mean chance when they say chance.  What you are describing would better be called providence than chance.  Providence is that which seems quite natural but demonstrates God's plan.  If you believe in "evolution" as the vehicle or mechanism by which God created, then you would fall under the category of a Theistic Evolutionist (as much as I know you hate to be put in a category )  I do not (at least for now) agree with that view, because I also think there is scientific weight to show that certain complex systems could not be arrived at via the darwinian mechanism, but I respect it nonetheless.  I am merely pointing out that your view of time + matter + chance is really a directed and monkeyed with process by a divine hand.  

But many scientists would say that you are superimposing a primitive belief in a deity on top of the random nature of reality, much like children imagine a face on the moon.  So for those who would bring that charge to both you and I, my challenge to their epistemology still stands, and my questions are still valid.  Because the idea of  rationality, morality and all thought arising from sheer nature and nothing more (including a superimposed deity), is not just my conclusion from naturalism, but theirs.  And there are many more who emphatically believe this than you might suspect.  I well imagine that there are much fewer theistic evolutionists than naturalistic evolutionists.  And for many of those naturalistic kind, it (evolution) becomes the foundation for a total view of everything, exceeding theoretical science and bleeding into philosophical presuppositions.


Stephen.        


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
30 posted 2003-06-20 12:02 PM


Well, I for one, know plenty of people who make something out of nothing.   On a regular basis.

The point you still miss Rose is that 'evolutionists' don't take evolution on faith -- they take it on evidence.  And have never admited it was RIGHT.

Only that scientific process leads towards the answers we seek.  Even your auto mechanic uses the scientific process.  You give him a symptom.  He either knows from previous experience what the possible causes may be, and can begin eliminating the possibilities, or he can extrapolate a new theory if those possibilities prove not to be your car's problem.

The universe has far more severe and subtle symptoms.  An advanced degree is most certainly required to answer your questions -- but not necessarily to understand the answers (if someone really really smart explains it.)

But if you rearrange the commas in Genesis... oops -- guess we've been down that path eh?


[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (06-20-2003 12:37 AM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
31 posted 2003-06-20 01:09 AM


Okay, Ron, I'm a coward.

Whiterose said:

quote:
Thank you. You said what I was hoping someone would. That evolution cannot be proved, in the same way that creation cannot be proved.

Both must be taken on faith.


Except I never said that. I just said it could be wrong. Apparently, my examples of logical possibility weren't absurd enough.

Once we get away from the confusion between certainty and truth (Being certain of something in know way guarantees that it is true. Being true in know way means you can be certain of it), evolution is in a pretty secure position these days.

Oliver Wendell Holmes coined the term betabilitarianism to describe his thinking and that works for me. I bet on evolution.

  

WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208
somebody's dungeon
32 posted 2003-06-20 08:57 AM


The point you still miss Rose is that 'evolutionists' don't take evolution on faith

LR,
  I respectfully disagree. To believe something that cannot be conclusively proven takes a certain amount of faith.

WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208
somebody's dungeon
33 posted 2003-06-20 09:00 AM


Can the theory of evolution be wrong?

Sure.


Brad, if it could be wrong, then it can't be proven to be right. That's the way it sounds to me. Which would also say, you can't prove evolution, just like you can't prove creation.

Both take a certain amount of faith.

Local Parasite
Deputy Moderator 10 Tours
Member Elite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527
Transylconia, Winnipeg
34 posted 2003-06-20 11:41 AM


Oh give me a break already...

Wave your hand in front of your face and tell me if it's there.... how can you tell your senses aren't decieving you?  If you think, are you, therefore?  Or is thought all you can say exists, and not even necissarily attribute it to yourself?  Can we know that we have free will, if all we'll ever be able to take is a single course of action amongst many other possibilities?

Can anything be proven 100%?  It all takes quite a bit of faith.  But whether or not something takes faith, and whether or not it's at all plausible, is an entirely different thing altogether... would you believe me if I told you I had a million dollars in my pocket?  You can't be entirely sure, but you could probably safely say that you don't think I do.  How about if I said I have five dollars in my pocket?  It's becoming a matter of less "faith" in that case, isn't it?

Faith isn't as simple as you make it out to be.  Science is us trying to figure out the world with what few empirical hints we're given.  Taking God out of science is probably just a result of the fact that he's something which we can't know very much about at all in the way that we come to know things through science.  Know why?  Because science is a result of us being under control of our experiences, and we can't control God.  In some ways, it seems more like we're just his experiment.

Like it or not, he just doesn't have a place in science.  Does evolution?  Well, yes, and as Brad said, we can observe the fact that mutations do occur in cells at the present date... do I personally think evolution is the way that everything came to be?  No clue.  Is my hand waving in front of my face?  No clue.

WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208
somebody's dungeon
35 posted 2003-06-20 02:33 PM


LP, You sure said an awful lot to say just exactly what I said.

Can anything be proven 100%?  It all takes quite a bit of faith.

I'm a bit older, I prefer to conserve my energy, so I said it in as few words as possible.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
36 posted 2003-06-20 03:00 PM


quote:

LR,
  I respectfully disagree. To believe something that cannot be conclusively proven takes a certain amount of faith.



But you see, that's just it Anne -- it isn't believed to be-- it is merely believed to be indicated.  See the difference?

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
37 posted 2003-06-20 08:18 PM


I think creation is more a myth than a theory.  It was created gradually to fill in  blank spaces that studies did not have capabiltiy to and give man some deliverance from great uncertainty.  It is an imagination more than realization and still fills in many blank spaces.  I believe man often senses the imagination part; yet imagination stems from responding to realness, and thus imagination has realness, It never completly false nor true, so there is legitimite reason to keep faith.  In a sense dragons exist for that some reptiles on earth have some dragon-like features.  We make imaginitive additions and we can't deny that, and I'm not denying that about the Theory of evolution.    Yet the theory of Evolution has science and the very bodily evidence of all the earth showing evolution on smaller and largers scales, in changes, maturing, again and again saying, to be is to become, to evolve.  Things are complex, and as we study more we will realize more and notice realization from imagination more.  And I think we have and are still doing that and realizing more how much creation comes from the womb of man's mind, imagination.
It seems nothing can be be created without process, and this is the Universe's process-- Evolution!  


[This message has been edited by Essorant (06-21-2003 03:00 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
38 posted 2003-06-20 09:01 PM


"I think creation is more a myth than a theory."

Essorant, it's only a myth if it isn't in fact true.  If there is a God who created all things, then it is true, or at least a myth that describes reality ... this of course says nothing about how much random mutation & natural selection was used in the overall outcome of things.  But there are no small number of intelligent people throughout history who have thought it to be an absurdity to imagine a universe as we see, with no designer / Creator.  These usually view the story of a mindless, directorless, and impersonal cosmos that managed (against the ultra-astronomical odds) to cough up what we see and know as nature, rife with personal, feeling, and rational beings, as quite a myth itself.  And anyway, most people who believe in Creation do not accept it as a theory but as a revelation.  Only those who do not believe it consider it to be theory.  I personally think it's a done deal.  Though it's still "open to debate" and it's always interesting, the debating is not really to determine the outcome.


Stephen.  

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-20-2003 09:03 PM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
39 posted 2003-06-20 11:24 PM


quote:
Brad, if it could be wrong, then it can't be proven to be right. That's the way it sounds to me. Which would also say, you can't prove evolution, just like you can't prove creation.


It's the other way around. If you can't prove it wrong, you can't prove it right. Why? It is the same process that determines one or the other and in order to do that you have to accept the process. If you don't accept the process, you can't accept either conclusion.

Your main concern has nothing to do with the processes in anatomy, biology, molecular biology, geology, paleontology, botany, paleo-botany, chemisty, computer simulations etc. that point to precisely the conclusion that evolution is the way things work.

Here is one example:

quote:
As we look at the herring gull, moving westwards from Great Britain to North America, we see gulls that are recognizably herring gulls, although they are a little different from the British from. We can follow them, as their appearance gradually changes, as far as Siberia. At about this point in the continuum, the goal looks more like the form that in Great Britain is called the lesser black-backed gull. From Siberia, across Russia, to northern Europe, the gull gradually changes to look more and more like the British lesser black-backed gull. Finally, in Europe, the ring is complete. The two geographically extreme forms meet, to form two perfectly good species: the herring and black-backed gull can be both distinguished by their appearance and do not naturally interbreed. [author -- Mark Ridley]


From Daniel Dennet's, Darwin's Dangerous Idea p. 45.

This seems pretty good example that species change over geographical space, does it not? I assume, also, that you accept my earlier, "Superbug" example. Now, I read a biology textbook from a religious school once and it explained that species are defined as those who can mate with each other and produce those who can also reproduce the same kind (Thus, for example, donkeys and horses are two different species because mules are generally unable to reproduce).  

If you accept this definition, how do you explain the distinctions between the herring and black backed gull, let alone a group of things that most people consider to be alive and yet don't reproduce by sex and still change?

Evolution by natural selecton explains these things quite well, and, at least, the traditional explanation of IDT or creationism does not.

Second, evolution by natural selection does not explain the origin of life. For that you have to look at some interesting experiments in the fifties on organic compounds and they can be created under certain conditions from inorganic stuff. We have not created life, but again the distinction between organic and inorganic is not, as used to be thought, one of kind. The two can connect.

Third, there is no Balance in Nature, the more we understand how eco-systems work, the more we study, the more we see that everything is in competition with one another. Contrary to popular belief, we are not the most violent species on the planet, we're actually pretty benign compared to most others (Of course, when we are violent, we're pretty good at it).

Forth, I have no problems teaching Creationism in schools. I do not think we should hide children from what people believe and argue about, I do not think we should pretend in America that science, religion, politics, or whatever should somehow be denied their place in trying to understand ourselves and other people.

I object, however, to the idea that IDT and evolution theory are in the same league until we start testing IDT in the same way as evolution. That is, start with an hypothesis and see how it works.

Now how do you propose to do that?

Last, the truth criterion that you ask for backfires in still one more way: it suggests that we stop teaching evolution in high schools (It certainly can't be in the university -- and I don't think it is taught except in high school now), it does not suggest that we give equal time to Creationism.

Oh, and you're asking us to be God instead of worshiping him. Somehow, I don't think that's what you intend.



  

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
40 posted 2003-06-21 09:33 AM



"Though a good deal is too strange to be believed, nothing is too strange to have happened."

--Thomas Hardy

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
41 posted 2003-06-21 10:01 AM


quote:
I object, however, to the idea that IDT and evolution theory are in the same league until we start testing IDT in the same way as evolution. That is, start with an hypothesis and see how it works.

Why should one test be elevated over another, Brad? Is that greatly different than suggesting evolution will only be valid when directly confirmed by God?

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
42 posted 2003-06-21 10:20 AM


Ron,

But isn't that what has already been implied? The need for faith? I'm simply suggesting the reverse.


Krawdad
Member Elite
since 2001-01-03
Posts 2597

43 posted 2003-06-21 09:57 PM


It seems to me that questions/arguments such as this one always come down to the same point.
Death.
It is all about death .
The outcome for living creatures is death.
Humans have discovered this reality.  Many have accepted it.  Many still don't like it.
The fear of it has led some, with self-knowledge and imagination in hand, to create nondeath scenarios for themselves as individuals, embodied in their gods and practiced in their religions.  Creationism, intelligent design, and after-life ideas, among others, reside in this realm of continuous individual existence.

Evolution is in another realm.
Evolution is about biological survival and includes the death of the individual as a part of the process.  Individuals that reproduce die, but leave survivors, who may themselves reproduce.  Reproduction processes embody various risks of errors and of chances for change (some good, some bad, most inconsequential).
The individuals that live long enough to reproduce can pass along the errors and changes, whatever they are.
This is evolution.  That's all it is, survival of the offspring long enough to reproduce.
No magic.
No guessing.

Kraw'

Kamala
Member
since 2003-04-17
Posts 59
CA, USA
44 posted 2003-06-22 01:11 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And lest you retort with, "Well, you're judging me," let me add... I'm not judging you *as a person*, I'm judging a statement you have made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And there's a difference?

Ron, I believe there really is a difference.  There is a difference between saying, "I believe what you are saying is wrong" and saying "I believe who and how you are is wrong."  What I am finding fault with is not WhiteRose, but rather her act of (what appeared to me to be) judging somebody else and deciding that he should believe in God.  However, I am glad that she posted a reply to me and explained it a little better.

As far as my statements go, I am sorry that they have come across as not respectful or tolerant.  That is not, nor is it ever, what I mean.  Sometimes, having words on a screen (without body language, tone of voice, etc.) can lead to misinterpretations (such as my misunderstanding of what WhiteRose was trying to say).  In that sense, I find it a frustrating medium sometimes.  But as you have said, you were judging my statements and not me... and I appreciate your having made that distinction.  As per your comments, I will try to be more attentive to how my words on the screen might affect people and/or how they might come across to people who don't/can't really know the personality behind them.

Kamala

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
45 posted 2003-06-22 07:29 PM


" Creationism, intelligent design, and after-life ideas, among others, reside in this realm of continuous individual existence.

Evolution is in another realm.

Evolution is about biological survival and includes the death of the individual as a part of the process.
"


Krawdad,

Your first statement about all religious ideas is unfounded, as it attributes all ideas about God to a fear of Death.  Not being religious yourself, this just sounds like your explain-away theory.  It is interesting that if you study Judaism, in it's earlier times a belief in God transcended the "individual survival" mentality.  There is evidence that they had no clear concept of individual survival beyond Death.  Yet they believed in God anyway.  They claimed that God revealed himself by Divine Revelation, and this was their basis for believing.  They thought it to be true.  You can call it delusion if you like, but it does not appear as something they just fashioned after their desires or fears.


Creationism is sprung directly from a belief in God, and an attempt is made to synchronize scientific findings and percieved revelation ... But it also doesn't seem to have anything directly to do with "continuous individual experience" .. even though the religious beliefs behind creationism teach an existence beyond the grave.  To suggest that this is the motive, or the main thrust behind it is a bit presumptous.


Intelligent design, is based even more upon science.  From what I have read of it, it mostly springs from serious doubts about the ability of Darwin's process of "random mutation & natural selection" to generate the diversity and complexity of life that we see.  It is based upon such concepts as "irreducible complexity" which is a characteristic of  multi-part, complex systems which are dependent upon the exact and delicate balance of parts for function.  If one part is taken away, the entire fuction is lost.  So the burden of naturalistic evolutionists is to show how each of the myriad of steps in the building of such a system could provide a fuctional advantage to an organism.  Because natural selection depends upon a functional advantage at each turn of events.  There is nothing in the scientific journals to scientifically demonstrate how something like a bacterial flagellum (one of Michael Behe's favorite examples) could have been arrived at via a Darwinian Mechanism.
      Intelligent Design has proponents who are Deists, agnostic, as well as Christian and have a wide range of beliefs.  To say that it is based upon a desire to live forever is to ignore the reality of the situation.  You would have to conclude that all of it's proponents believe such a doctrine ... And if you conclude so, you have no real basis.  This is pigeon-holing, not looking at the facts.
     For example, Michael Behe, one of the leading voices of ID, grew up Roman Catholic.  He was taught that Evolutionary theory in no way contradicted faith in God.  So his doubts of Darwin, of his own admission, did not spring out of some dialectical tension between his religious upbringing and science.  His doubts grew out of hearing scientific argumentation that questioned the ability of the Darwinian mechanism to explain everything we see.  It was a wholly scientific doubt, because his faith was not in the balance according to his beliefs.


I could equally argue that naturalistic evolution is just an attempt to attribute god-like qualities to the face of absolute nature.  Why does the mechanism of nature always "choose" what is functionally advantageous.  Why does it weed out what is "bad" and keep what is "good", and where does the standard for meting out such judgements really come from?  Why does the outcome of such a blind process ultimately get more and more complex ... developing unicellular life into ultimately intelligent, rational, even moral beings?  These are all good questions.  But I would be foolish to say that all evolutionists have unscientific motives.  I think many of them believe it to be a true scientific  explanation of the way things are.   Likewise you should be slow to suggest that all people who disbelieve evolution do so for religious reasons, and even moreso for any specific doctrine.


Stephen

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-22-2003 07:45 PM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
46 posted 2003-06-22 08:13 PM


quote:
I could equally argue that naturalistic evolution is just an attempt to attribute god-like qualities to the face of absolute nature.


I suppose you could.

quote:
Why does the mechanism of nature always "choose" what is functionally advantageous.


It doesn't.

quote:
Why does it weed out what is "bad" and keep what is "good", and where does the standard for meting out such judgements really come from?


Hard to figure out what you mean here. If good is defined but what lives and reproduces, then there's your answer.

quote:
Why does the outcome of such a blind process ultimately get more and more complex ... developing unicellular life into ultimately intelligent, rational, even moral beings?


It doesn't. The process in no way, necessarily, leads to us. Substitute plasticity for complexity and it starts making more sense.

quote:
These are all good questions.  But I would be foolish to say that all evolutionists have unscientific motives.  I think many of them believe it to be a true scientific  explanation of the way things are.   Likewise you should be slow to suggest that all people who disbelieve evolution do so for religious reasons, and even moreso for any specific doctrine.


Perhaps. It's a good thing to doubt evolution -- if it's a good theory, doubt will make it stronger. There is a good example of a non-religious doubt about evolution:

2001: A Space Odyssey

If it turns out that aliens or angels gave it a leg up, that would pretty much disprove it -- at least in its current formulation. However, that wouldn't disprove that change occurs because some things die without reproducing and some things do.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
47 posted 2003-06-22 08:26 PM


Brad,

Intelligent Design advocates do not deny that "things change" or even that natural selection changes things in smaller ways.  It does however question how irreducibly complex systems arose via random mutation & natural selection.  It is a valid question that science has not really answered.  It has only concluded that it must've happened because they're here.  But when ID theorists do this (using probability and information theory in suggesting intelligence behind the system), it's slurred as "faith", when evolutionists do it, it's called proper scientific inference.

Stephen.  

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
48 posted 2003-06-22 08:38 PM


"If it turns out that aliens or angels gave it a leg up, that would pretty much disprove it -- at least in its current formulation"


We needn't go extraterrestrial for our doubts of Darwin.  I like to consider his own words.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."


Stephen.

Jamie
Member Elite
since 2000-06-26
Posts 3168
Blue Heaven
49 posted 2003-06-22 10:14 PM


32f is the melting point of ice
J

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
50 posted 2003-06-22 10:46 PM


Fair enough. But it seems to me that IDT makes a few dubious assumptions in order to find irreducible complexity when it ain't there.

Irreducible complexity is defined by any system that could not have evolved by natural selection. If one is found, then, it pretty much refutes evolution according to IDT.

First, if we had found a system that is irreducible complex, it does not follow that evolution is repudiated. It simply means that that organism wasn't 'created' by evolution. A big problem, no doubt, but evolution would be repudiated if everywhere we looked we found irreducible complexity and that's not what we see. So I guess I disagree with Charles on this one.

Second, evolution moves from the simpler to the more complex. This is just wrong. Evolution can just as easily move in the other direction. If we have a nuclear war, then the world goes back to the cockroaches, a 'simpler' organism, but more adaptable (or so I've been told) to radiation and nuclear winter.

Third, interlocking parts to form a system if one part goes, it can't function. The trick here is how do we define a part in a system. It turns out that at the bio-chemical level, there are almost always excess 'parts' that can be done away with and have the 'system' still function. Once a useful function has been found, co-dependence and economizing can evolve for the simple reason that it makes sense to conserve energy.

Forth, singular functionality. The idea that a wing, for example, must have evolved in order to fly, but there's no reason to believe this. One theory is that proto-wings evolved because those that had them could run a little faster (or jump a little farther), flying came later. Organs change because functions change.

Fifth, it always strikes me that an argument that depends for its punch on complexity simply ignores how complex, how diverse, things really are.

But again if you just want a biology teacher to say, "Some people disagree with this. Some people believe that there has to be a designer," I have no problems. I think the more important point is that we should be trying to figure out how to teach current, mainstream biology correctly (and also to make it interesting) to students than to expend energy on logical possibilities.

As I said earlier, it's logically possible that the earth didn't orbit the sun a thousand years ago. Does that mean we shouldn't teach that it did?

  

Krawdad
Member Elite
since 2001-01-03
Posts 2597

51 posted 2003-06-22 11:39 PM


Stephanos,

You draw conclusions from statements that I did not make.  You put words in my mouth.
I am not interested in a discussion at that level.
The points I would make in spite of that are about your attribution of beneficial selection and complexity to evolution, but Brad has done that for me.
(Thanks, Brad)

Kraw'

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
52 posted 2003-06-22 11:56 PM


"Irreducible complexity is defined by any system that could not have evolved by natural selection. If one is found, then, it pretty much refutes evolution according to IDT."


No, it would refute natural selection as the panacea for all biological phenomena that we see.  As I mentioned to Ron before, Darwin's theory has been wrongly used as a nostrum to apply to all things, in both scientific and philosophical questions.  I am not implying that you do this sort of thing.  But there are many who do.  If something in nature is found which would be impossible or immensely improbable for natural selection to produce, this would at least help put Darwinism back in it's proper boundaries.  As I said before, of the ID people I have read, most of them believe in natural selection.  It is the extent of it's influence that is in question ... what it can reasonbly be thought to accomplish.



"Second, evolution moves from the simpler to the more complex. This is just wrong. Evolution can just as easily move in the other direction. If we have a nuclear war, then the world goes back to the cockroaches, a 'simpler' organism, but more adaptable (or so I've been told) to radiation and nuclear winter."


But Brad, this is not "just wrong".  Look at the total trend of evolution (if you believe it happened via that process).  Sure there may have been the flow and ebb of the tide, from complex organisms back to simpler ones, but it has always been one step back then two steps forward.  And look where we are in complexity, not theoretically speaking, but actually speaking.  You are right in saying that evolution does not dictate that it necessarily had to lead to us, but it did lead to us.  So the question about complexity is still valid.  Especially if you hold that things like consciousness and rationality are advanced evolutionary traits.  The Darwinian mechanism could have gone the other way and created more viable slimeballs with much less complexity, but it hasn't.  



"It turns out that at the bio-chemical level, there are almost always excess 'parts' that can be done away with and have the 'system' still function. Once a useful function has been found, co-dependence and economizing can evolve for the simple reason that it makes sense to conserve energy."

This is true to some degree, but it still doesn't eliminate the problem.  Let's say there is a mechanism made of 50 protein parts, and can function without 3 of them.  You still have 47 parts (and not to mention all the steps taken to assemble the parts - in engine assembly, for example, the assembly steps taken always exceed the number of parts) which you have to explain how the addition of each part provided a functional advantage to the organism.  From what I have read, this is the biggest problem ID people have with evolutionary theory.  A lot of complex systems exist with nothing in the Journals to actually show how it could happen via natural selection.  I am not a bio-chemist, and cannot go into detail defending what I barely understand.  I guess I am just openly verbalizing my doubts of Darwin as well, from everything I have heard.  But if you get a chance, try reading Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box".  You say that a good theory can withstand doubt.  I think it would be an enjoyable book for you.  I warn you though ... He goes into painful detail on the biochemical level, not the most preferrable reading for poets like yourself and I.        


"Forth, singular functionality. The idea that a wing, for example, must have evolved in order to fly, but there's no reason to believe this. One theory is that proto-wings evolved because those that had them could run a little faster (or jump a little farther), flying came later. Organs change because functions change."

I see value in this, but this is plausible only where plausible alternate functions can be suggested.  But from what I have read, there are a myriad of systems for which there are no serious suggestions of another function other than the known one.  In fact the uniqueness and apparant specification for some things are so strong, that creative suggestions for other uses become comical at times.  



"Fifth, it always strikes me that an argument that depends for its punch on complexity simply ignores how complex, how diverse, things really are."

How much more then should the converse strike you in the same way?  An argument that depends upon a single principle which is overly simplistic also ignores this diversity and complexity.  And I don't know if you noticed, but your above statement carries the very traits that should make it suspect in your mind.  For it also depends upon complexity for it's punch, right?



" I think the more important point is that we should be trying to figure out how to teach current, mainstream biology correctly (and also to make it interesting) to students than to expend energy on logical possibilities. "


But that is what is at issue with ID.  Some scientists believe very strongly that teaching Darwinian theory as the explain-all for the complexity of life is not correct.  If we don't yet know the irrefutable fact, then logical possiblitites are appropriate.  And as to the sun 1000 years ago, there is a vast difference between logically possible and logically plausible.


Stephen.

  
    
        

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-23-2003 12:05 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
53 posted 2003-06-23 12:11 PM


"You draw conclusions from statements that I did not make.  You put words in my mouth.
I am not interested in a discussion at that level.
The points I would make in spite of that are about your attribution of beneficial selection and complexity to evolution, but Brad has done that for me.
(Thanks, Brad)
"


I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.  But it did seem like you were implying that Intelligent Design was more to do with a fear of Death, than with scientific considerations.  And also that evolution was different in that regard.  If I got it wrong, then what exactly did you mean?  Sorry to misinterpret your words.


My answer to Brad & You about complexity are in my previous post above.


Stephen.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
54 posted 2003-06-23 09:11 PM


quote:
No, it would refute natural selection as the panacea for all biological phenomena that we see.  As I mentioned to Ron before, Darwin's theory has been wrongly used as a nostrum to apply to all things, in both scientific and philosophical questions.  I am not implying that you do this sort of thing.  But there are many who do.  If something in nature is found which would be impossible or immensely improbable for natural selection to produce, this would at least help put Darwinism back in it's proper boundaries.  As I said before, of the ID people I have read, most of them believe in natural selection.  It is the extent of it's influence that is in question ... what it can reasonbly be thought to accomplish.


You're right to point out that Darwinism has been used in places where it has no place going. Social Darwinism is one of the dumbest ideas around. Survival of the fittest, a phrase Darwin never used, far too easily, implies a value, a significance that isn't there. It is a description, not a value. Evolution doesn't care what happens, it isn't going to tell you what to do, it can't speak, it is not God. Yes, both protractors and proponents have sometimes mixed it up, but that's because we often conflate Nature with God. Look at the questions that were posted again. How many of those actually deal with evolution? Both sides in this argument barely understand what it is we're talking about (not you, Stephan, you seem to get it -- or almost get it. See below.).

quote:
But Brad, this is not "just wrong".  Look at the total trend of evolution (if you believe it happened via that process).  Sure there may have been the flow and ebb of the tide, from complex organisms back to simpler ones, but it has always been one step back then two steps forward.  And look where we are in complexity, not theoretically speaking, but actually speaking.  You are right in saying that evolution does not dictate that it necessarily had to lead to us, but it did lead to us.  So the question about complexity is still valid.  Especially if you hold that things like consciousness and rationality are advanced evolutionary traits.  The Darwinian mechanism could have gone the other way and created more viable slimeballs with much less complexity, but it hasn't.


I do believe it happened that way, but I have no faith in evolution. I do not believe that things will turn out right if we let evolution take its course. I believe that we can and should value consciousness and rationality (and many, many other things that we do) but I don't believe evolution cares one way or the other or at all. It's a process, an algorithm, and nothing more. There is no telos to evolution, no total trend, no way of ever saying things like evolution tends to move from simple to complex, from bad things to good things, from things we don't like to things we like.

Evolution is not a substitute for God. If people sometimes conflate the two, it's because they can't shed the idea that Nature will actually tell them something if they listen to Nature long enough. Nature doesn't talk, we do. Evolution is a description, not a prescription.  

quote:
This is true to some degree, but it still doesn't eliminate the problem.  Let's say there is a mechanism made of 50 protein parts, and can function without 3 of them.  You still have 47 parts (and not to mention all the steps taken to assemble the parts - in engine assembly, for example, the assembly steps taken always exceed the number of parts) which you have to explain how the addition of each part provided a functional advantage to the organism.  From what I have read, this is the biggest problem ID people have with evolutionary theory.  A lot of complex systems exist with nothing in the Journals to actually show how it could happen via natural selection.  I am not a bio-chemist, and cannot go into detail defending what I barely understand.  I guess I am just openly verbalizing my doubts of Darwin as well, from everything I have heard.  But if you get a chance, try reading Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box".  You say that a good theory can withstand doubt.  I think it would be an enjoyable book for you.  I warn you though ... He goes into painful detail on the biochemical level, not the most preferrable reading for poets like yourself and I.


Yeah, I suppose I should read the book. I've read about it however. Am I wrong that one of his examples is a mousetrap? If so, the problem is the difference between a purposely designed tool and no tool at all. This, perhaps, is one problem in explaining evolution. I can think of many examples that show what algorithms can do (computers), I can give many examples that show how species do indeed change over time (dogs), but these are, to some extent, designed examples. The idea of evolution is that the algorithm exists and it works, but it does not ask where that algorithm comes from. It can't. This is not a weakness of science, science is not a panacea as you yourself say.

On a different note, part of the problem is with a thing some of us call scientism. Scientism does indeed make the claims I'm trying to dispute here, but that's not science. Scientism is a type of rhetoric.          

quote:
I see value in this, but this is plausible only where plausible alternate functions can be suggested.  But from what I have read, there are a myriad of systems for which there are no serious suggestions of another function other than the known one.  In fact the uniqueness and apparant specification for some things are so strong, that creative suggestions for other uses become comical at times.


But what we have to do then is go specific, each case must be examined separately. And I disagree, poets can learn from biochemistry, I've read some really good poems and essays that have done just that. Don't ask twenty question as if the sheer number makes a point (as in the above questionaire), ask about each one and expect an answer.  

quote:
How much more then should the converse strike you in the same way?  An argument that depends upon a single principle which is overly simplistic also ignores this diversity and complexity.


But evolution isn't just one principle, it works in conjunction with physical laws. It may be evoutionary advantageous for a species of insect to grow to our size but it ain't going to happen because of the square/cube law. They would collapse under their own weight (But, hey, I still liked "Them").

As far as complexity goes, my point was that the universe is complex with or without evolution. It's not a reason to believe in evolution or not. More later, running out of time.

quote:
But that is what is at issue with ID.  Some scientists believe very strongly that teaching Darwinian theory as the explain-all for the complexity of life is not correct.


Hmmm, you're right. It doesn't. I think I've already addressed this.

quote:
If we don't yet know the irrefutable fact, then logical possiblitites are appropriate.


Are you kidding? Science is never irrefutable, that's why it's science and not religion.

quote:
And as to the sun 1000 years ago, there is a vast difference between logically possible and logically plausible.


But the original point was that logical possibility is enough to demand the teaching of creationism in schools as a science. I think that misunderstands science and assumes that it is some kind of religion. It is not. I'll have to come back to this. Out of time.


  

Jason Lyle
Senior Member
since 2003-02-07
Posts 1438
With my darkling
55 posted 2003-06-24 02:09 AM


PLATYPUS
Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
56 posted 2003-06-24 01:18 PM


Yet in another feeling it seems that everything for the Universe as one whole would be/ is here and now already, so how can the one whole Universe evolve or parts of it be evolving?   What isn't in the " here and now" of the "whole" Universe?  Though things seem to evolve to our minds, and to the world--parts of the universe, things might just be staying the same to the whole Universe, or doing what it has always done!  
Is there only a there and then within the Universe to us because we can't see everything here and now,  or is there a there and then because the whole Universe has content beyond to evolve from and to and is new and freshly evolved to this present state?  
I can't believe there was ever "nothing" but what is being called the beginning of the Universe is just an event of a character or state of the universe coming from another character or state of the universe that creationists and scientists have educatedly devised of, but don't call the universe the universe before that state for some reason, which might just be that that of so many that keep the universe in but one state overall.
But If it is not one set content, what makes a new place and time, new content and state of being, for the Universe as a whole, and parts thereof to the whole?

[This message has been edited by Essorant (06-24-2003 03:31 PM).]

WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208
somebody's dungeon
57 posted 2003-06-24 04:16 PM


Jason,
  Platypus..God does have a sense of humor, does he not?

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
58 posted 2003-06-28 09:38 PM


Whiterose,

I was wondering if I can use these questions at another forum. Obviously, I want to use them for very different purposes then you've used here.

WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208
somebody's dungeon
59 posted 2003-06-29 03:19 PM


Brad,
   Be my guest, I didn't author the questions. And they certainly were not copyrighted, so anyone is free to use them anywhere.

It's not necessary for you to tell me what you are going to use them for. I really don't want to know.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
60 posted 2003-07-08 12:11 PM


First, I want to thank Whiterose for posting these questions. It motivated me to do some research and discover the tremendous amount of literature on the web devoted to this debate. I've only touched the surface but I've got a lot of good and interesting reading ahead of me.

And I've got a lot of new words to play around with.

What initially struck me in perusing these sites was the sheer amount of patience and intelligence that so many devote to these questions. Are there those who regard others as ignorant fools, involved in conspiracies to sap the strength of the American people (on both sides by the way), or dishonest individuals attempting to make a name for themselves (again on both sides).

Sure, but I expected that.

Here is one article:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

that goes after bacterial flagellum among other things.

From a discussion on turtle evolution, to the irreducible complexity of an F117, to an explanation of why there's only so much dust on the moon, to the proper translation or 'yom' and other terms in Genesis (should it be translated as day or cycle, should morning and evening instead be translated as opening and closing etc.),  what, if anything, can be said about the evolutionists and creationists or intelligent design theorists in general?

Simply put, there is no knock out punch. No one is going to win this seemingly endless debate (if by winning, one means you're going to convince your opponent of your essential rightness). Both the Bible and Nature are endlessly interpretable and will continue to be interpreted endlessly.

For someone like me, this is a good thing. I would suggest however, that a list of rhetorical questions is not the best way to go about attacking a position you disagree with. The speed of evolutionary theory today is so fast that something like Behe's book is already considered obsolete by many. It's one of my favorite tricks in these games we play to answer a question that someone else things is unanswerable and that's exactly what evolutionary biologists are doing, again and again and again.

What does not kill you, makes you stronger.


Toad
Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161

61 posted 2003-07-08 03:36 PM



Having just started my sixth book by Richard Dawkins in as many weeks, interspersed with Internet searches for alternate arguments and counterpoints I have to agree with Brad that this is a fascinating subject.

My money, and some would say a whole lot more, is on natural selection. Of course there are buckets full of questions still waiting to be answered but the pragmatic nature of scientific study is whittling the probable from the possible and building a coherent and comprehensive body of evidence.

I hope that some of the questions originally raised in this post are reposted individually, many of them would, I believe, be a rich source of discussion. I for one would enjoy participating in any that are reposted.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
62 posted 2003-07-09 08:54 PM


"The speed of evolutionary theory today is so fast that something like Behe's book is already considered obsolete by many. It's one of my favorite tricks in these games we play to answer a question that someone else things is unanswerable and that's exactly what evolutionary biologists are doing, again and again and again.

What does not kill you, makes you stronger.
"


Brad, I wish you would take the time to read Behe's book.  (This post actually stirred my interest to pick it up again)  The kind of answers Behe says evolutionary bilogists should be giving to the questions he asks, have not and are not being given.  When you read his descriptions of biochemistry and his arguments you will see what I mean.

And remember that Behe's questions did not spring from any tension between his religion and evolution, having been taught all of his life (through Roman Catholicism) that evolution is the way God created.  

It has usually been the case that when something is accepted, and a "black box" is opened that challenges what is accepted, the response is that the new questions really don't pose a challenge at all.  From the reading I have done about the biochemical challenge of "irreducible complexity" to the darwinian process of random mutation/ natural selection, these are the kinds of answers that seem to be coming.  Not genuine answers, but answers that it was not a genuine question.


If naturalistic evolution is believed based upon rhetorical argumentation and "faith" in our ability to maintain and revise the theory in the presence of all findings, then it's survival is no more based upon truth, than the forms of biology it describes.  It is in fact "survival of the fittest".  Of course this (as you have said) is true of those on every side of the question.

At any rate it's worth a read, and then you can estimate better if the statement about Behe's challenges being obsolete is an accurate one.  I think many times people mistake "last year" for "obsolete".  If something is ignored long enough and snowed under by obscurantist replies and new frontiers, I guess it could be said to be obsolete.  


Stephen.      

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (07-09-2003 08:57 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
63 posted 2003-07-09 11:04 PM


Here is at least one article in reply to Miller.  These are interesting articles indeed.  I plan on reading Miller's and Dembski's response more closely.  I also wonder If there has been a response by Behe.


http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm

Stephen

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (07-09-2003 11:05 PM).]

Maddy vanD
Member
since 2003-09-06
Posts 99
Newfoundland, Canada
64 posted 2003-09-07 12:57 PM


personally I am both a creationist and an evolutionist...I find the theories to be obvious corollaries. Evolution is the process by which God created life. Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawkings both said that the further they probe into the physics and science of the universe and its origins, the more firmly they believed in God.

Maddy
Poetry is not pretty....poetry is real

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
65 posted 2003-09-08 11:59 AM


"...Evolution is the process by which God created life..."

~ In fact, there are several christian denominations that teach just that and believe it to be biblically correct.

River
Senior Member
since 2003-09-16
Posts 627
my own little world
66 posted 2003-11-22 07:44 PM


WhiteRose: I see you have stirred up a very lengthy debate here. I personally wanted to add an option to people here earching for answers if it hasn't been mentioned already.  
  There is a man named Josh Mc'Dowell who was an athiest and argued the same things you guys have just as wholeheartedly and earnestly. maybe you have heard of him. he wrote a book entitled "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" I just thought you should possibly check it out to further research the creationist's point of view from someone who seriusly did years and years of research. you don't have to agree with all of the information presented, but it may help you find the answers to those burning questions we all have about Creation vs. Evolution. if you like deep stuff, this gets pretty detailed.

           - River

          


Toad
Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161

67 posted 2003-11-22 10:30 PM


River,

Looking at both sides in an argument before deciding which is the most probable answer is sound advice but there is a danger of forgetting that people have a tendency to use any means at their disposal to convince you that their side is the right side of the argument. I’ve included below a link to a paper written by the late Gordon Stein that should emphasise my point. Not only because Stein highlights the devices used by McDowell to add weight to his assertions but also because if you read it closely enough you may be able to spot Stein’s own use of arguments from authority, presumptions and suspicions.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.shtml

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
68 posted 2003-11-24 04:36 PM


Toad,

This is only partially related to the evolution debate, but since you mentioned Gordon Stein, I wanted to give y'all a link to check out.  This is an audio debate between Gordon Stein and Greg Bahnsen on the existence of God, and a very interesting exchange.

http://www.straitgate.com/gbgs.ram


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-24-2003 04:37 PM).]

Toad
Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161

69 posted 2003-11-24 08:00 PM



Unfortunately the PC I access the internet with doesn’t, by choice, have a sound card. Fortunately I’ve already read a transcript of the debate and, I believe, it pretty much emphasises my point.

Both sides, in my opinion, tend towards arguments from authority, presumption and supposition and both of them were doomed to failure before they even began.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
70 posted 2003-11-24 10:24 PM


I think it's impossible to avoid presuppositions in philosophical / theological debate.  Therefore I won't discount either side for having them, nor for appealing to the authority and charisma of others who have been persuasive in their arguments.  This is natural and has always been a part of debating.  

It's just that good argumentation doesn't rely wholly on the authority of others, and won't state presuppositions without at least attempting to explain their validity.  To expect these elements not to be present would be unrealistic.  Because, to make freedom from suppositions and appeals to others the standard for valid argument, renders all arguments "doomed to failure".  Though I see the excess you are wary of, I can't make that alone my criterion for what is persuasive.


Stephen.


      

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-24-2003 10:25 PM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
71 posted 2003-11-25 08:10 AM


quote:
... I can't make that alone my criterion for what is persuasive.

LOL. Presuppositions, in and of themselves, should never be persuasive, and calls to authority should only be as persuasive as the credentials of the one being cited. Trouble is, they are persuasive for most people, so continue to be used extensively.

A presupposition that most find agreeable, if given a name, would probably be called common sense.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
72 posted 2003-11-25 12:11 PM


Ron,

Toad seems to suggest that since arguers hold presuppositions and appeal to authority, their points are invalid.  But since I know that EVERYONE has presuppositions, and that first principles are unavoidable, I cannot make the absence of them my standard of what good argumentation is.  There is simply no argument that does not have them.  But, like you, I think arguments that just state them with no attempt to justify them are poor.  


Stephen  

Toad
Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161

73 posted 2003-11-25 12:36 PM


On the contrary, my suggestion was that the devices used do not necessarily make an argument valid - that recognising the methods used allows you a better chance of judging the arguments.

[This message has been edited by Toad (11-25-2003 12:37 PM).]

Kaoru
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-06-07
Posts 3892
where the wild flowers grow
74 posted 2003-11-26 11:44 PM


Well, this could go on forever, couldn't it?

Historically, Jesus was a philosopher. Religion itself is philosophical, isn't it?

So, we could say that Jesus and Neitzsche went to the same "heaven" as Buddha and Socrates.

Or, we could just say they died, that's that.. They had no soul, they were just warm-blooded biological structures.

Nothing can truely be proven, and nothing can be proven. Nothing is nothing, and nowhere is where we'll get trying to find 100% proof of our existence and why we exist.

So.. as I'm going crazy trying to word this whole thing correctly, and understandably.. I'm just thinking..

Believe what you will.. Although some people will be closed-minded and you'll be persecuted despite WHAT you believe in.. it is your choice..

No matter how much proof is offered, you will go on believing in God.. Just like some will go on believing in Evolution.. and some will go on believing in nothing at all, denying that our existence is even real.

Fact is, whether you believe in a creator or not, you're here and you'll have a belief that belongs to you, and only you. Keep that, and get on with life.

...*end senseless rant*


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
75 posted 2003-11-27 11:29 AM


quote:

But since I know that EVERYONE has presuppositions, and that first principles are unavoidable




a presupposition?  heh heh heh

Meg -- nice to see you waxing philisophical!  

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
76 posted 2003-11-27 12:44 PM


If  Creationists and Evolutionists met in the midmost ground between both the myth and the theory, that would probably be more accurate than obstinant views from being too fond of one or the other.  They are both from the same substance just in different shapes of lore,  therefore either should work with other and join forces rather than be seperate-like camps or schools.  Either way, the Evolotionist and Creationist are both Imaginationists.  They use the best imagining thats seems to fill in the blank spaces most answerably.  The supposed evidence is too very vague and full of spaces, therefore the imagination must go by what seems most decent.  If you are not inclined to imagine something though, that certainly does not mean it may not be true.  But if you may not downsize it, that doesn't mean the smaller-looking imagination is false either.  

[This message has been edited by Essorant (11-27-2003 02:54 PM).]

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
77 posted 2003-11-28 01:02 PM


I the late 1800's the church, besieged on all fronts, created the Catholic Modernist Movement. The goal was too create a learned group of young clerics who were armed with the education and resources to defend the church from all its growing army of critics and adversaries.

The plan was a total failure. Instead many clerics were lost as scrutiny of the bible and church they were chosen to defend revealed all its inconsistencies and descrepancies.

Works of these scholars were then, of course, banned under the a newly created Pontifical Biblical Commision and clerics suspected of having 'modernist' views were dismissed or punished.

So what I suggest, instead of posing questions to answers you really don't want answered, is that you put down the fiction and read books on the subjects that challenge and expand a mind instead.

MOST importantly I suggest you look into the origins, reformations and critiques by biblical scholars of the book and relgion you hold as law.

The biggest problem i have with biblethumpers is there inability to face truths and reason. How could anyone be true to there faith or beleive without honestly having challenged it themselves?

Do you hear the echo? It's the pointlessness of everything I just said ringing in the ears of the 'faithful'

[This message has been edited by Aenimal (11-28-2003 01:03 PM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

78 posted 2003-11-29 10:05 AM


Raph, you seem to be working under the assumption that people of faith believe what they believe blindly, without research, without using their reasoning capabilities, without logic. That's painting with quite a broad brush, wouldn't you say?

Also, your use of the pejorative term "biblethumpers" speaks volumes.

How can anyone be true to their own integrity and logic with such prejudice coloring their view?

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
79 posted 2003-11-29 01:19 PM


Who knows? We as humans may be the greatest intellectual center in the universe, have the highest hand and knowledge over nature and the swiftest line coming out of our kind.  It is just our imagination that usually always likes something "beyond" and "higher" --but we shouldn't get too fixed on attributing things to "beyond" and "higher" because in the meantime the truth may actually be that we humans have a much greater role to serve not just in the world, but in the universe.  It may be difficult to imagine, but I don't think it is completly impossible     

[This message has been edited by Essorant (11-29-2003 01:24 PM).]

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
80 posted 2003-11-29 06:28 PM


You're mistaken Denise I wasn't speaking in broad terms, the fact that I used the term 'biblethumpers' states a select group and attitude of people and NOT all believers.

I found this discussion irresponsible and fruitless. To pose questions and then dismiss answers with the 'faith' angle is pure bible thumpin indoctrination.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
81 posted 2003-11-29 09:31 PM


Kaoru :  
quote:
Believe what you will.. Although some people will be closed-minded and you'll be persecuted despite WHAT you believe in.. it is your choice..
No matter how much proof is offered, you will go on believing in God.. Just like some will go on believing in Evolution.. and some will go on believing in nothing at all, denying that our existence is even real.
Fact is, whether you believe in a creator or not, you're here and you'll have a belief that belongs to you, and only you. Keep that, and get on with life.
...*end senseless rant*



I do appreciate your distaste for nasty argumentation, as you are obviously implying is likely to happen from such debate.  But your own position here doesn't really say much.  Let me give you an example ...I for one, believe there are certainties in the universe.  I am not agnostic.  I also believe that dialogue is good concerning these things, as I believe that it matters both temporally and eternally what we believe and how we think.  And from your above post, you are telling me to make no changes in my approach ...  "Believe what you will.. Although some people will be closed-minded and you'll be persecuted despite WHAT you believe in.. it is your choice..".  Then you go on to tell us to end this "senseless rant".  But my beliefs entail that the question of God/ presuppositions/ evolution/ etc.. is worthy of discussion.  It's a bit disrespectful to assume that all here feel this discussion is as senseless as you do.  Perhaps some do, but they are usually just silent.  (Hi, Brad.   )  I just wanted you to see that included in this "rant" is your view that such questions are irrelevant.  I disagree, but I don't want to call you senseless.


Toad:  
quote:
On the contrary, my suggestion was that the devices used do not necessarily make an argument valid - that recognising the methods used allows you a better chance of judging the arguments.


I can buy that.


LR:  
quote:
a presupposition?  heh heh heh


absolutely axiomatically.  


Aenimal:  
quote:
In the late 1800's the church, besieged on all fronts, created the Catholic Modernist Movement. The goal was too create a learned group of young clerics who were armed with the education and resources to defend the church from all its growing army of critics and adversaries.
The plan was a total failure.



Ah, So Christians didn't start trying to think or rationalize prior to the 1800's?  So they're just the unlearned imprisoned by myth kind of folk.  Interesting theory.  But it doesn't seem to coincide with History.  Have you forgotten about the host of scientists you studied about in school who were Christians?  And as far as Liberal Biblical criticism is concerned, it's not difficult to prove miracles as unhistorical if you rule them out a priori based upon your naturalistic view.  For quite an interesting challenge to the "higher criticism" of the Bible, you should do some reading of  N.T. Wright, one of the world's leading New Testament Scholars.

http://catalystresources.org/issues/271newman.html


http://home.hiwaay.net/~kbush/wrightpage.html


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0800626796/qid=1070159099/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-8708671-6418256?v=glance&s=books  


quote:
You're mistaken Denise I wasn't speaking in broad terms, the fact that I used the term 'biblethumpers' states a select group and attitude of people and NOT all believers.



Your previous statements about the "Church" and all the alleged inconsistencies of the Bible belie your position.  This would imply all Christians who hold the Bible to be divinely inspired.  


Stephen.


[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-29-2003 09:37 PM).]

Kaoru
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-06-07
Posts 3892
where the wild flowers grow
82 posted 2003-11-30 02:25 AM


Stephen,

I'm sorry I may have been a bit too broad. I don't want to be rude. I am an open-minded person, and I think people shouldn't feel forced to believe in something they don't feel is right.

Also, I did not mean to imply that this whole discussion is senseless.. I meant it to say that my contribution was senseless, and almost pointless.

Bringing my religious/philosophical/etc. beliefs in to this discussion, I felt was not neccesary. The fact being, that I do not want to walk blindly into this without knowing the answers to every question she's chosen to ask.

I find her questioning to be respectable, for a lot of people choose not to question at all.
The discussion seemed to be going in a rather crude direction, see, people disagree so much upon this particular subject.. I merely wanted to state the fact that none of us are fully correct, nor incorrect.

I am a nihilist. I believe in nothing, I deny my own existence..but where on earth would that fit in to this discussion?

I shouldn't have spoken at all, I suppose. I just think that tolerance is a more beautiful route to take.

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
83 posted 2003-11-30 09:33 AM


At our base, ther was an interfaith get together to celebrate Thanksgiving. In attendance were mostly Christians, however the Muslim and a few other "miscellaneous" ( A Simpson Reverend Lovejoy quote btw) faiths were represented. I knew a few Christians who were to attend and I asked them if they were going to tell those of other faiths that their faith is wrong and if they don't accept Christ as their personal saviour, they are doomed for eternity in a lake of fire. They said, no.

What I didn't understand was this - why then have an interfaith celebration of Thanksgiving if those of faiths other than Christianity need to shed their faiths and become Christians? A respect for the other faith is no where to be found.

"If this grand panorama before me is what you call God...then God is not dead."

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
84 posted 2003-11-30 01:51 PM


Stephen can you point out the phrase in my reply that claims they didn't start rationalizing until the 1800's? Aah wait it's not there. Interesting. hmmmmm Well anyway:

I started with this example because the 1800's were a tumultous time for the church. As luck would have it Darwin's theory was printed, and science, philosophy, and psychology were all beginning to challenge the church's authority.

The church armed itself with all the tools of modern thought and criticism and seeked to challenge reason with reason and as a result lost many,not all, but many of its clerics before scrapping the idea and banning all it's results and excommunicating its modernist adherents.

I also don't recall saying there were no christian scientists. There are christian scientists and many of them believe in evolutionism rather than creationalism because their beliefs aren't static as say a biblethumper would be.

  My goodness there's that word again and look it's seperated from other catholics and christians. So it must mean a select group yaddayaddablabla..we on the same page yet?

  Hmmm, alleged inconsistencies? LOL Alleged? Read the 4 gospels and tell me the inconsistencies are alleged. But let's stick with the original.
As for the Old testament being devinely inspired well. Biblical and historical analysis have found that many of the tales of the bible existed long before judaism.

The tale of the flood, for example, reaches as far back as ancient Sumeria. Some other tales and psalms were taken verbatim from other sources meant for other dieties of the region. Dieties that were amalgamated into a monotheistic god.

Now, for me at least, if those early books were transcribed directly from the word of God I'd be incredibly dissapointed in
A: his lack of originality and
B: his blatant plagiarism.
I'd like to think my god has a little more style and finesse.

  Lastly i'd like to say I've grown up catholic and therefore most of my family and friends are of catholic or christian denominations. So for you to say
I'm attacking all christians is ludicrous as in doing so I'd be condemning all of them as well.

  The attack was on the 'biblethumping' method of reason. That is to say those who can't dare face or challenge their beliefs but smugly dismiss logic, reason and any true analysis for the word. Unless you fall into this group I have no quarrel with you and if you do I still have no quarrel with you because it would be fruitless.

A person who believes in sprituality over religion, logic over dogma, can be just as close to a god as the those who follow religion. The difference is i've chosen not to follow a BOOK. A book which incidently has spawned so many other religions and factions who could rightfully claim the proper interpretation? If the book, the law, the tales of the bible are static why the different denominations and factions? Why the different versions translations and edits?

Sigh I didn't even want to get involved in this. I've discussed and argued these things too many times.

If you're still interested in this topic from whatever angle may I suggest the book:

Magic, science, religion, and the scope of rationality
by Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521374863/qid=1070218173/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-0503111-2949614?v=glance&s=books#product-details


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
85 posted 2003-11-30 04:18 PM


But, Raph, you seem to be making pretty much the same mistakes you are accusing others of making. You are promoting, apparently without question or exploration, conclusions that have not been (and likely cannot be) proven.

For example, you are assuming that clerics given the opportunity to pursue secular knowledge will change their belief system because of the secular knowledge. One could argue just as reasonably that throwing a good apple into a barrel of bad apples will usually have a fairly predictable outcome. In both arguments, however, the tenuous link between cause and effect is an assumption based largely on preconceptions

Similarly, you are assuming inconsistencies represent a lack of credibility, where others might assume inconsistencies represent a lack of understanding. You are assuming history indicates the source of a religion, where others will see only a distorted reflection of truth that lies outside of time and history. You are assuming that diversity connotes pervasive error, where others will assume such diversity is the inevitable result of free will.

Euclid built an entire system of logic, based solely on five axioms he considered self-evident. Two thousand years later, his system yet stands, but NOT without serious competition. Lobachevsky-Bolyai-Gauss geometry and Riemannian geometry are both based on Euclid's first four postulates, but differ on their definition of the fifth. Whether you believe two parallel lines will never meet, will inevitably meet, or simply cannot exist, your belief must ultimately define your geometric truths. Each of these geometries is entirely self-consistent and (drum roll, please) entirely logical. The dang thing is, we still don't know for sure which one is "right."

Logic is a platform build on a foundation of preconception, Raph. A failure to understand or accept someone else's postulates doesn't belie their internal logic. The trick, I think, is to look under the platform, both theirs and our own, to see what's there. If we do that honestly, I suspect we'll always find ours just as crowded as theirs.

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
86 posted 2003-11-30 05:24 PM


What it all comes down to is this...

Christianity claims itself to be the ONLY true religion - logic dictates that that statement cannot be proven. It cannot, unless a person returns from the dead and claims it to be true, and even then, that conclusion would not be certain. Why cannot it be proven? Because the claim is untrue. And there is ample evidence to support that claim.

It

"If this grand panorama before me is what you call God...then God is not dead."

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
87 posted 2003-11-30 07:28 PM


quote:

Bringing my religious/philosophical/etc. beliefs in to this discussion, I felt was not neccesary.

I believe in nothing, I deny my own existence..but where on earth would that fit in to this discussion?



"Let no one be slow to seek wisdom when he is young nor weary in the search of it when he has grown old. For no age is too early or too late for the health of the soul. And to say that the season for studying philosophy has not yet come, or that it is past and gone, is like saying that the season for happiness is not yet or that it is now no more. Therefore, both old and young alike ought to seek wisdom, the former in order that, as age comes over him, he may be young in good things because of the grace of what has been, and the latter in order that, while he is young, he may at the same time be old, because he has no fear of the things which are to come. So we must exercise ourselves in the things which bring happiness, since, if that be present, we have everything, and, if that be absent, all our actions are directed towards attaining it." -- Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus

I suppose Meg that the problem I see with this discussion is that all too often those who enthusiastically embrace a belief or enthusiastically reject one don't SEEM to find the happiness in either stance.

a funny bit on evolution... enjoy y'all   http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/dilber.htm

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
88 posted 2003-11-30 07:58 PM


Kaoru:  
quote:
I am a nihilist. I believe in nothing, I deny my own existence..but where on earth would that fit in to this discussion?



You're right, it wouldn't fit anywhere.  That's why I am skeptical about complete skepticism, and also nihilism.  I don't think you really have nothing to say.  If the choice comes down to either you or your philosophy, ditch the philosophy I say.    



quote:
I shouldn't have spoken at all, I suppose. I just think that tolerance is a more beautiful route to take.


Complete nihilism would call "beauty" completely subjective, or even illusory.  You are stating that there is a better route to take for everyone (of which I am in agreement), but this doesn't fit nihilism at all.  A more beautiful route for who?  For all?  Then you are stretching the bounds of your subjectivism.  Don't apologize for it ... I think you are closer to the truth when your tendency is to speak, not when you say that you have nothing to say, and really don't even exist.  



Aenimal:  
quote:
I started with this example because the 1800's were a tumultous time for the church. As luck would have it Darwin's theory was printed, and science, philosophy, and psychology were all beginning to challenge the church's authority.



Perhaps.  But my point is that there have been many "tumultuous times" for the Church ... even since its inception.  Gnosticism (which is basically Eastern Philosophy) was challenging Church dogma right from the beginning.  We read about it in Paul's letters.  Then, Arianism, Manicheism, Stoicism, Epicureanism,  Renaissance Humanism,  Scientism, Materialism, Skepticism, the French Enlightenment, etc ...  There have been thinkers throughout Church history who have responded to these philosophies.  And there have been those who have responded to those who claim that science has disproven the Bible, or that higher criticism has disproven the Bible, or that Darwin has disproven the Bible.  My point is, that the idea that some branches of human study, "began" to challenge the church in the 1800s is humorous.  Where have you been in your studies of the previous 1700 years?


quote:
The church armed itself with all the tools of modern thought and criticism and seeked to challenge reason with reason and as a result lost many,not all, but many of its clerics before scrapping the idea and banning all it's results and excommunicating its modernist adherents.



What is "modern thought and criticism"?  Are you equating this with reason?  If you are implying that the church was completely fiedistic until the 1800s, and didn't have reasoning apologists, then you are just plain wrong.  You can claim that their reason was faulty, but then we would have to hear your argumentation (on each particular case) before we should accept your conclusion.  Also, if you are saying that the Church realized that reason would make unbelievers of all her children, and so abandoned thinking as an apologetic for the Christian Faith, you are also mistaken.  You are assuming that all who believe do so violating reason, as if they were believing in Santa Clause, and choose ignorant loyalism over intellectual honesty.  Take a look at Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Pascal, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, to name a few ancients.  For more contemporary thinkers, consider Francis Schaeffer, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton and Alvin Plantiga.  I'm not trying to appeal to some intellectual prowess in order to prove that Christianity is true.  But it's kind of a false intellectualism on the side of a naturalist, to say that the Church out of desperation in the 1800s tried her hand at thinking, and had to lay it back down to save her mythology.  History just doesn't comport with that idea.  The church has always had scholars and still does.  


Now if you brought forth some particulars to be discussed / challenged, you might better make your case.  


quote:
Hmmm, alleged inconsistencies? LOL Alleged? Read the 4 gospels and tell me the inconsistencies are alleged.



I have read the gospels, have you?  Differences in the Gospels are minor, and they only prove to me that human descriptions of events will not be strictly uniform.  I appreciate the realism this provides.  In the gospels we have history, not mere theology.


quote:
As for the Old testament being devinely inspired well. Biblical and historical analysis have found that many of the tales of the bible existed long before judaism.



No.  Many ancient stories and myths have similar literary elements.  But it does not follow that the Biblical text was plaigarism, or even that it was influenced by these writings.  From everything I've looked at, I've only seen similarities, not conclusive evidence of borrowing.  


Consider this quote:


"It is all too easy to run eagerly after superficial parallels which cannot really be sustained under a closer scrutiny. Accordingly, the parallels must have similar ideas underlying them and, second, any suggestion of influence requires that the parallels be numerous, complex and detailed, with a similar conceptual usage and, ideally, that they should point to a specific myth or group of related myths in Mesopotamia. Finally, the parallels and their similar underlying ideas must involve central features in the material to be compared. Only then, it would seem, may any claim stronger than one of mere coincidence be worthy of serious consideration" Greek Myths and Mesopotamia: Parallels and Influence in the Homeric Hymns and Hesiod. Charles Penglase. Routledge:1994


quote:
The tale of the flood, for example, reaches as far back as ancient Sumeria.



You mean there were other ancient stories about floods?  How surprising.  I wonder if each was a copy of the previous one, or was there actually more than one flood?


quote:
Some other tales and psalms were taken verbatim from other sources meant for other dieties of the region.


Please remember that the Jews considered the worship of gods other than YHWH idolatry, and inherently felt that all their praises belonged to the one true God anyway.  An idols praise was misplaced in the mind of a Jew.  I wouldn't doubt that Jews rather enjoyed taking phrases that praised Baal, and turning it into praise for YHWH.  What's so strange concerning this?


quote:
Now, for me at least, if those early books were transcribed directly from the word of God I'd be incredibly dissapointed in
A: his lack of originality and
B: his blatant plagiarism.
I'd like to think my god has a little more style and finesse.



A ... If all things were created by God, even the literary imaginations and abilities of the Pagans, then how is God unoriginal?

B ... Give me examples of "Blatant Plaigiarism" and we'll discuss it.

Most would concede that the Bible is a stylistic masterpiece, and a profound literary work, even if they disbelieve it's theological content.  Is this what you were referring to by style, or were you referring to the fact that God didn't do it the way you would've done it?


quote:
The attack was on the 'biblethumping' method of reason. That is to say those who can't dare face or challenge their beliefs but smugly dismiss logic, reason and any true analysis for the word.


I agree that anyone should be willing to approach challenges to their belief system without simply ridiculing the other side.  That's true of ANYONE.  But your attempt to discredit scripture as a mere fault-ridden human work of not so good literature belies your real opinion.  This would naturally offend any Christian or Jew who considers scripture to be Divinely inspired, not just those who believe without thought or scoff at "reason".  


quote:
A person who believes in sprituality over religion, logic over dogma, can be just as close to a god as the those who follow religion. The difference is i've chosen not to follow a BOOK. A book which incidently has spawned so many other religions and factions who could rightfully claim the proper interpretation?



What does spirituality without religion mean?


What do you follow in lieu of a book?  


Is there something inherently wrong with following prescriptions that are written in a book?


Since the natural world has spawned so many different scientfic interpretations, I guess we should say the natural world is invalid of study?


quote:
If the book, the law, the tales of the bible are static why the different denominations and factions?


What do you mean exactly by static?  I think human imperfection, sin, human freedom, and individualism would be able to explain much of this variableness.  Some of the variation could be thought of as good and needed, while some may be thought of as divisive and unhealthy.


quote:
Why the different versions translations and edits?


As to different versions, different languages, different literary tastes and cultures, poetic honor and the joy of translation.  As to edits, what type of edits are you referring to?  Rejecting certain books as non-canonical?  Correcting textual variants such as grammar or omitted words and phrases?  Harmonization?  There are many types of scribal "editing" and each kind would have to be explained individually.  


Stephen.    
  


        

  


[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-30-2003 08:06 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
89 posted 2003-11-30 08:33 PM


Aenimal,

Here's a link to a book dealing with the very same subject(s) from a different perspective.  I am actually reading this one right now.  You have to have a pretty good grasp of History to understand it though.  I'm getting it in flickering bursts as I read.

The Everlasting Man
by G.K. Chesterton
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0898704448/qid=1070242243/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-8708671-6418256?v=glance&s=books


Stephen

PseudoPoet
Junior Member
since 2003-11-23
Posts 18

90 posted 2003-12-01 02:06 AM


...

[This message has been edited by PseudoPoet (12-01-2003 02:07 AM).]

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
91 posted 2003-12-01 07:39 AM


Gentlemen I'm politely bowing out of this conversation. It's not that I wouldn't argue, in fact I'd written lengthy responses to both of your replies. I then erased them left the site then came back rewrote erased them again.

The problem is I haven't the time to invest in this topic. A topic like this better suited to a physical discussion maybe over dinner with a good bottle of spirits to maintain stamina. It's a sprawling conversation I feel doesn't lend itself well to a forum discussion.

The point counterpoint style,the length between replies and misunderstandings(I've already wasted replies just trying to explain the seperation between all christians and the attitudes of select group) means this conversation would go on for weeks, months, years.

To further this point Stephen is still harping on the fact I've started with a reference point from the 1800's and would rather start...well..."in the beginning" as it were.

The more important factor is that I simply haven't the will for this discussion anymore. I've had it too many times and quite frankly am sick of BOTH sides. Religion is not infallible NOR are science and reason. I simply feel science and reason better lend themselves and their followers to growth and evolution of thought than blind devotion.

You know the greeks had an entire pantheon of gods and were no less devoted to them as we are to ours. Yet they're now relegated to 'Mythology' but we cling to ours. I find it sad that cultures in the past had the sense to change, adapt and refine their gods and practices whereas we're mired in ours.

Bloody hell there I go again when I'm trying to leave..sigh

Stephen I'll leave you with this however. You asked what is spirituality without religion? Everything. I've been able to focus myself on the FEEL of god rather then an ideal of god.

I'm off, the conversation is in good hands and I simply can't afford to get sucked into this and all apologies for getting involved in the first place!

[This message has been edited by Aenimal (12-01-2003 07:45 AM).]

Kaoru
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-06-07
Posts 3892
where the wild flowers grow
92 posted 2003-12-01 06:40 PM


At this point, I'm going to ditto Raph..

It is true, that this is better left a discussion for face to face. Not only because you can better express your thoughts and opinions that way but, you can also smack eachother periodically.



Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
93 posted 2003-12-01 08:23 PM


I feel that there are pros and cons to both face to face, and correspondence style communication.  Typed text does miss all the benefits of non-verbal communication, and is much less personal.  But there are some pluses too.  Some feel that such topics are so emotionally charged that they can't talk well about them without emotions getting in the way.  Misunderstanding and anger may be plentious with typing back and forth, but I think it is probably even moreso face to face.  Having the ability to respond slower, and to think things through is helpful.  In direct conversation, a person would walk off if we took as much time and thought as we do on a forum like this.  Also the ability to provide references, etc... is a whole lot easier in this type of exchange since such things aren't readily on the tips of our tongues.  You have time to research opposing claims, while clarifying your own.  All in all, I think I like this type of communication, even for touchy subjects, as long as we can remain civil and respectful.  Tolerance for me does not mean accepting all beliefs as equally valid, it means treating the other as a valuable individual and not being rude even in the face of disagreement.  I'm sure we all fail in this area, trying to understand each other.
  



Stephen.




    

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-01-2003 08:24 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
94 posted 2003-12-01 08:53 PM


Aenimal:  
quote:
To further this point Stephen is still harping on the fact I've started with a reference point from the 1800's and would rather start...well..."in the beginning"



Just to clarify, you did, by referring to the 1800s, imply there was a new approach by the Church.  You then described this as challenging "reason with reason".  I may have misunderstood you (help me if I'm wrong), but it seemed as if you were implying that the church had never really tried to "reason" before, and that when they did try it, it was an utter failure.  

If you did mean this, I was trying to protest that your demarcation of the 19th century was arbitary.  I'm not however denying that certain new challenges began to be faced at that time.  I was simply asking you to give evidence of the shift from absolute fiedism to "reason" that you say occurred ... because I've read a good deal and am not aware of such a clean cut line.  I was also asking you to give evidence of the "failure" and "abandon of reason" you mentioned.  Just some references beyond your own words would be enough to get me thinking and searching.  


I had no problem with your reference point, but rather with your claims of what that point signified.  If I'm wrong, I want to hear what you have to say.


Not angry,
enjoying the discussion,

Stephen.


  

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-01-2003 08:55 PM).]

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
95 posted 2003-12-02 12:24 PM


The implications. I'd argue are yours. I fell I've been specific in stating the reasons why I chose the 1800's. First with regards to the Theory of evolution which is what began this conversation. Second the newfound stress and tools for critical thought and analysis which swept all aspects of life at the time (not simply religion). And lastly because it was an example of the horrible attitude many, NOT ALL, people have when faced with alternate views of their religion.

As for a reference here's a quick one don't make me search through my books to give you a bibliography lol
http://www.bartleby.com/65/mo/modernsm.html  will do I'm simply exhausted on the topic sorry maybe next time. I'm sure it will be revived.

By the way in reference to my flood story comment yes i agree other flood stories exist but the similarities between the bible and Sumerian versions includin details on building an ark are just too close..okay im off really this time

[This message has been edited by Aenimal (12-02-2003 12:32 AM).]

Kaoru
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-06-07
Posts 3892
where the wild flowers grow
96 posted 2003-12-02 08:13 PM


Well, face to face confrontation is more than likely to be better considering voice tone alone could change the way you decide to interpret the other's opinion.

Also, Stephen, I do believe you're right about my nihilism. I do believe in having morals, which is just about the only difference between myself and a nihilist. I guess you could say I'm more of an extreme athiest.

It's almost like comparing a communist with a socialist, I guess.



Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
97 posted 2003-12-28 03:53 PM


Kaoru:

quote:
Also, Stephen, I do believe you're right about my nihilism. I do believe in having morals, which is just about the only difference between myself and a nihilist. I guess you could say I'm more of an extreme athiest.



First of all,  I agree with you about the "ought" and "should" aspect of morals.  But I disagree that it can fit comfortably in an atheist system of thought.  Let me play the D's advocate ...


Nietzsche would surely have said that your "morals" are only a loitering ghost from a predominate Judeo-Christian Heritage which he said was fading, and predicted would completely vanish with time.  His reasoning was simple ... If "morals" are invented by groups in order to control others, or to make life seem more pleasant and meaningful, then there is no reason to take them as authoritative.  

He went on to say that since evolution described morals in terms of "survival of the fittest", we could easily deduce that the Christian ethic of "turning the other cheek" is a weak and deplorable thing in terms of what is better.  According to Nietzsche, it was not the meek who would inherit the earth, but the strong ... not the nice and anemic, but the  ruthless and vigorous.  His system of thought was what helped Hitler to justify his own actions in Nazi Germany.  (He was an admirer and avid reader of Nietzsche).


How would you answer Nietzsche to defend the "oughtness" of your morals within an atheistic view?  What is wrong with his assumption that anything goes, as long as it goes strong and brave, in a world of molecular machinery?  

I still believe that the only solid answer to repudiate Nietzsche comes from the very system he denies ... Christian theism.  All other answers amount to, Morals = absolute individual preference.  But then it's hard to keep the "oughtness" of morals when they become only subjective preferences.  

I'm just one to believe that if naturalism were true (though I don't believe it is), Nietzsche wasn't so far off.  And I'm always interested in the various atheistic answers given to his challenge.  


And isn't Robert Anton Wilson also all about the Crowleyan ethic "Do what thou wilt shall become the whole of the law"?  Do what you will, and the "ought to" imposed by morals becomes pretty meaningless.


Stephen.


[This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-28-2003 04:08 PM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
98 posted 2006-02-05 02:57 PM




Perhaps the real Ron would care to stand up?  

In which thread are you devil's advocate?

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
99 posted 2006-02-05 08:06 PM


Aren't people allowed to change their minds around here?


Translation for evolutionists:

Aren't our minds allowed to evolve around here?

[This message has been edited by Essorant (02-05-2006 09:10 PM).]

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
100 posted 2006-02-05 08:16 PM



“I'm just one to believe that if naturalism were true (though I don't believe it is), Nietzsche wasn't so far off.  And I'm always interested in the various atheistic answers given to his challenge.”

I like a challenge

“He (Nietzsche) went on to say that since evolution described morals in terms of "survival of the fittest", we could easily deduce that the Christian ethic of "turning the other cheek" is a weak and deplorable thing in terms of what is better.  According to Nietzsche, it was not the meek who would inherit the earth, but the strong ... not the nice and anemic, but the  ruthless and vigorous.  His system of thought was what helped Hitler to justify his own actions in Nazi Germany.  (He was an admirer and avid reader of Nietzsche).

Survival of the fittest doesn’t relate to strength at all, it relates to an ability to survive and in a social environment the meek and the nice have a distinct advantage over the ruthless but strong – it’s called cooperation through mutual benefit.

Something Hitler should have realised.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
101 posted 2006-02-05 11:40 PM


Ron knows I'm just razzing him Ess... he is known to advocate a position without it being 'his'.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
102 posted 2006-02-07 01:17 AM


Grinch:
quote:
Survival of the fittest doesn’t relate to strength at all, it relates to an ability to survive and in a social environment the meek and the nice have a distinct advantage over the ruthless but strong – it’s called cooperation through mutual benefit.

Something Hitler should have realised.


I agree, up to a point.  If Nietzsche (or anyone else) says that altruism and the "kinder virtues" are at an evolutionary disadvantage, he would be mistaken.  Why?  Because for the most part, Evolution has become a tautology, which says that if something exists, it had an evolutionary advantage.  From that standpoint, morality, immorality, meanness, and kindness, all exist in abudance and therefore have been a help to survival.  


But if Nietzsche could not cogently say that "Christian" virtues are at an evolutionary disadvantage, neither can moral naturalists (like yourself) say that ruthless strength is at an evolutionary disadvantage.  Naturalistically, it can (and does) go both ways.  It's too simplistic, to say that the "good guys" always fare better in this life, while the "bad guys" always run amuck.  


So my original point remains the same, that in a purely naturalistic system, moral "oughtness" cannot be defended out of sheer pragmatism ... a little supra-natural smugglling always takes place, where it is implied that good morals are transcedently virtuous, not merely pragmatic tools.  Though I don't deny morals the epithet "useful", I deny that pragmatism can recommend them on their own terms.  In other words, moral oughtness, cannot be taught as obligatory.  I'm aware that some would tell me that since they are not obligatory in actuality, it doesn't matter whether or not morals can be incumbently taught.  But some considerations come into play here ...  1) Moral teaching does influence behavior.  2) The more coherent the teaching, the more likely it will be followed.  3) Those who believe in God, believe that the obligatory nature of morals will be realized, fully in the consummation of time, if only partially here and now.  So moral oughtness matters, even if, and while, transgression is possible.


So, from a naturalistic scheme, I don't think you would have much to say to Hitler about his choices.  Some win, some lose.  That's the nature of gambling, for the martyr as well as the malefactor.


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (02-07-2006 02:24 AM).]

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
103 posted 2006-02-07 03:21 PM



Stephanos,

You’re falling into the same trap as Nietzsche, morals are not hereditary or inherent in the make-up of humans so Darwinian evolution in its truest form can’t be applied on the individual level however they can be applied to societies.

Strength, morality, immorality meanness and kindness in individuals are individual traits and in some cases just plain individual choices and as such they can’t be removed or affected by evolution. Nietzsche's trap is that he explains individual benefit in evolutionary terms where no evolution takes place. The real evolution is that of general morality within a society however individual choice means that immorality is always an option, which is why immorality does, and will always, exist.

Which is better immorality or morality?

Morality is better for the survival of a society and individuals within that society

Immorality is sometimes better for the individual

Here’s an example.

In a society of five people each of the five searches for food daily, if they find food they keep half and share the remainder with those in the group that didn’t find any. This is good for the society and good for the individuals within that society. Now suppose one of the five decides to lie about whether he’s found food, he gets to keep everything he finds plus he gets extra from other members of the group who believe he has no food. That individual is better off cheating, right? Well yes unless the others discover his lie and decide not to share food with him in the future, sometimes the consequences are high enough to discourage immorality. You could of course invent eternal damnation as a consequence and use that if you like but it’s not necessary for the model to work. In fact if eternal damnation were the only consequence it’d be better to be an Atheist.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
104 posted 2006-02-07 09:06 PM


Grinch
quote:
You’re falling into the same trap as Nietzsche, morals are not hereditary or inherent in the make-up of humans so Darwinian evolution in its truest form can’t be applied on the individual level however they can be applied to societies.

I don't think I agree with you.  Evolution (if you accept it) must have given rise to moral sense.  And what affects societies must affect individuals.  If you deny that morality is not rooted in genetics, you're definitely in the minority, since most evolutionary thinkers make a connection between darwinism and mental processes.  

But regardless of how you think evolution would relate to morals, my original point is the same:  From a naturalistic scheme, morals cannot be recommended except on the basis of pragmatism (which you've admitted is dubious, to the moral question).  You cannot get "ought" out of the equation, except by leap into 1) arbitrariness, or 2) a view like the Judeo-Christian world-view, where morality represents a "higher" law.  


Stephen.  

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
105 posted 2006-02-08 02:03 PM



Are we the only ones left?

I don’t mind being in a minority, I don’t even mind being wrong every now and then but in this case I’m convinced I’m not.

Darwinian evolution is often labelled survival of the fittest but that fitness doesn’t mean the strongest or the fastest or even the nicest, the fitness defined in Darwinian evolution is specific to two areas – the ability to survive and the ability to produce offspring with the ability to do the same. Evolution in this sense doesn’t happen overnight, it works over generations and all the time mutations are appearing, the positive mutations are beneficial and aid survival the negative mutations reduce the chance of survival or reproduction. Eventually you end up with a species whose individual members have inherited the best attributes from every generation that ensures survival  – evolution sieves the good from the bad.

If morality is the best policy, which I think we agree is the case, and morality was a product of genetics Darwinian evolution would have eradicated immorality.

The fact that immorality exists under such circumstances proves that morality isn’t controlled by genetics; it also disproves the question regarding tautology that you raised earlier - everything that exists doesn’t have to have an evolutionary advantage.

I don’t mind the ‘ought’ – as long as there are consequences:

You ought not to kill

You ought not to steal

You ought not to sleep with you sister

You ought not to smoke

We can all picture the consequences of the first three and the majority of us choose to heed the warning, the last one however has less obvious consequences and was never seen as anti-social (that’s changed of course) so the choice is easier to get wrong. In all cases the arbitrary choice isn’t that arbitrary when the consequences are understood, of course you know that, you’re arguing the same point it’s just your consequences are super-natural.

Thou shalt not kill because you may get killed yourself for doing it and you may also suffer eternal damnation is fine – but I along with the majority of the human race are convinced by the first consequence, why invent more?

Why not substitute ‘arbitrary choice’ for ‘best bet’ or even ‘most selfish’ (if you don’t jump on that last one I’m doing something wrong).



Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
106 posted 2006-02-08 04:40 PM


Grinch:
quote:
If morality is the best policy, which I think we agree is the case, and morality was a product of genetics Darwinian evolution would have eradicated immorality.


Then where did moral sense come from ... where did consciousness come from, for that matter ... if not from "genetics" ?

You have a theory we haven't heard of?


quote:
The fact that immorality exists under such circumstances proves that morality isn’t controlled by genetics; it also disproves the question regarding tautology that you raised earlier - everything that exists doesn’t have to have an evolutionary advantage.

I don’t mind the ‘ought’ – as long as there are consequences:


You keep contradicting yourself.  You affirm that morality doesn't have to have an advantage.  Then you say that there must be "consequences", which undergird moral behavior.  If there are consequences, even to the point of losing your own life, (your example), this IS a survival issue, and directly pertains to the evolutionary question.


But, (more in line with your former view) I don't see that temporal consequences of immoral activity are necessarily inescapable.  That's why egoism, as a explanation of why people think they should be "good", is inadequate.  


quote:
In all cases the arbitrary choice isn’t that arbitrary when the consequences are understood, of course you know that, you’re arguing the same point it’s just your consequences are super-natural.

Thou shalt not kill because you may get killed yourself for doing it and you may also suffer eternal damnation is fine – but I along with the majority of the human race are convinced by the first consequence, why invent more?

Why not substitute ‘arbitrary choice’ for ‘best bet’ or even ‘most selfish’ (if you don’t jump on that last one I’m doing something wrong).


That's my point ... if "consequences" (how things may affect oneself) are the sole reason for being good, then morality cannot be said to be obligatory, or even that it should be obligatory.  Now if you're going to tell me that moral behavior is preferential, or the best prospect for personal gain, you have stepped out of arena of ethics altogether, and can only reinvent the word "moral".  Because, by definition, morality involves what is right or wrong, regardless of personal gain.  It's interesting that you said "Better Bet", that's telling, to me, that you've accepted egoism.  But egoism is a bankrupt philosophy when it tries to provide an explanation or foundation for morals.


Does that mean, that I think there's no such thing as self interest, or that self interest is always wrong.  No.  But I don't think that's all there is.  The problem with a naturalistic scheme, in my mind, is that it cannot recommend moral behavior for any reason beyond egoism.  From your viewpoint, you should not blame the man who steals food, as long as he doesn't get caught.  And even if he did get caught, you'll be able to chide him for being an imprudent business-man, a poor stock-broker, or a careless gambler ... but certainly not immoral.


Lastly, you keep bring up "Hell".  I do believe in Hell, but it is only distantly related to the question at hand.  Hell is the final state of those who lose God forever, rejecting his offers of love, forgiveness, and mercy.  God disciplines and corrects people for sins, all the time, in many many ways, and natural consequences are a part of that.  Hell represents a final state, and totality of being, not a knee-jerk threat for doing something wrong.    


When I say that God is necessary for morals, I'm not referring to his methods and means of reward and punishment, nor to the final destiny he has decreed for the individual.  Rather I was referring to the fact that without a basis for morality being "a higher law", it becomes a preferential and arbitrary teaching.  But preference, and arbitrariness, are both contrary to the very definition of what morals are:  What is really right and wrong.        
  

Stephen.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
107 posted 2006-02-08 05:56 PM


Stephanos

“Then where did moral sense come from ... where did consciousness come from, for that matter ... if not from "genetics" ?”

Moral sense doesn’t exist, people choose to do one thing or another based on potential consequences and risk, even if it did exist it would have to be closer to Lamarckism than Darwinism, and that doesn't make any sense
Genetics does supply the capacity for consciousness but the nature and use of that consciousness isn’t prewritten by genetics. If it were a moral couple would produce moral offspring and murderers would begat more murderers.

You have a theory we haven't heard of?

Yes, actually I do.

Unfortunately it explains speciation not moral genetics.

“You keep contradicting yourself.  You affirm that morality doesn't have to have an advantage.  Then you say that there must be "consequences", which undergird moral behavior.  If there are consequences, even to the point of losing your own life, (your example), this IS a survival issue, and directly pertains to the evolutionary question.”

Falling off a cliff while searching for food is a survival issue and has about the same evolutionary impact and relevance as far as Darwinism is concerned – none.

“But, (more in line with your former view) I don't see that temporal consequences of immoral activity are necessarily inescapable.  That's why egoism, as a explanation of why people think they should be "good", is inadequate. “

Which one? Ethical Egoism, Psychological Egoism, Rational Egoism or Normative Egoism?

Conditional Egoism would be closest to my example, of course there will always be people who break the rules and even those that get away with it. Which is what we would expect to see reflected in the real world if it were true, but as long as the majority follow the rules society survives.

“When I say that God is necessary for morals, I'm not referring to his methods and means of reward and punishment, nor to the final destiny he has decreed for the individual.  Rather I was referring to the fact that without a basis for morality being "a higher law", it becomes a preferential and arbitrary teaching.  But preference, and arbitrariness, are both contrary to the very definition of what morals are:  What is really right and wrong.”

What is really right or wrong isn’t based on any higher law, if it was surely it would be universal not the broad spectrum and diversity of acceptability we see in the real world. Or is it that your moral framework just happens to be closer to the higher law ideal than everyone else’s? Or is your ideal perspective influencing your judgement?

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
108 posted 2006-02-09 01:12 AM


Grinch:
quote:
Moral sense doesn’t exist, people choose to do one thing or another based on potential consequences and risk...



Moral sense doesn't exist?  lol.  I guess the entire branch of philosophy we call "ethics" was mistaken.  The part of the equation that you are leaving out, is that desired consequences often have moral considerations surrounding them.  If I won't play mail-box baseball, because I feel that it would be morally wrong to do so, the desired outcome is based upon an ethical consideration.  You can't simply wish the moral question away, it's pretty persistent at voicing it's concerns when we are weighing or ascribing value to consequences.  


quote:
even if it did exist it would have to be closer to Lamarckism than Darwinism, and that doesn't make any sense.
  

I see no inherent reason within the tautology of evolution (though I don't believe it), that would rule out rational minds developing a moral barometer, or conscience.  When you mention the absurdity of squeaky clean moralists always giving birth to philanthropists, and murderers always giving birth to mafia members, you are missing my point.  When I was suggesting the necessity (from your naturalistic view) of genetics giving rise to morals, I was speaking of a moral measuring apparatus in the conscience .... not any kind of constraint to follow it, or to disobey it.  That would be the question of free will, a whole other topic.  


quote:
Falling off a cliff while searching for food is a survival issue and has about the same evolutionary impact and relevance as far as Darwinism is concerned – none.
  


You really don't know that, do you?  It could have been a precondition for the development of mammilian wings, climbing claws, or even eyes with depth-perception.  If even it didn't happen that way, it could have.  Brad is always tellling us that it didn't have to turn out the way it has.  And from evolutionists, I've heard many postulated scenarios that weren't much different than what you describe.  


If the development of a tiny flagellum, to swim a tiny bit faster than an enemy microbe, may influence evolution, then that tells me that (according to evolutionists), individual genetic changes, and individual commonplace experiences CAN affect evolution.  Darwin depended upon incrementalism for his theory to work.


quote:
Which one? Ethical Egoism, Psychological Egoism, Rational Egoism or Normative Egoism?


They are all based on similar principles.  Egoism can be referred to in general, for the purposes of our discussion.  But if you want to bring out the differences between these variations, for discussion, that would be fine.  


quote:
Conditional Egoism would be closest to my example, of course there will always be people who break the rules and even those that get away with it. Which is what we would expect to see reflected in the real world if it were true, but as long as the majority follow the rules society survives.



Actually conditional egoism is the most viable form of egoism for me too ...  Because I have nothing against self interest per se.  Conditional egoism proposes that self-interest can and should be pursued, as long as the outcome doesn't violate a moral principle.  I personally find that this a great concession, on the part of an egoist.  Why?  Because self-interest is not the foundation for moral considerations.  The moral question is separate from, even above, the drive for self interest.  

But that raises the whole moral question all over again.  Why should morality condition my drive to fulfill self interest?  Why should it pose a limit?  I'm not saying that you don't have an answer.  I'm just saying it will necessarily be an answer which itself has a moral foundation.  


quote:
What is really right or wrong isn’t based on any higher law, if it was surely it would be universal not the broad spectrum and diversity of acceptability we see in the real world. Or is it that your moral framework just happens to be closer to the higher law ideal than everyone else’s? Or is your ideal perspective influencing your judgement?



I think you're overplaying the differences, and downplaying the similarities between moral systems of societies throughout history.


Though you might want to read the essays in their entirety ... (here is the book online) ... I wanted you to look at an appendix in C.S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man", which juxtaposes the strikingly similar moral prescriptions found in ancient cultures, such as Roman, Egyptian, Jewish, Babylonian.


http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition4.htm


And as Lewis himself wrote: " ...think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two make five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to--whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked. (from "Mere Christianity")  


Stephen.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
109 posted 2006-02-09 07:50 AM


Stephanos,

Moral sense doesn't exist?  lol.  I guess the entire branch of philosophy we call "ethics" was mistaken.

Ethics doesn’t rely on an intrinsic and universal set of in built ‘Higher laws’, there is no fixed and predetermined list of ethical and non-ethical acts against which human beings compare choices. Ethics and morality are descriptions of the end product in the same way that fashion is a description of the end product of wearing clothes. You may say that some people have an in built ‘fashion sense’; I just think that people around them and a desire to fit in influences their choice in clothes. If I’m right ‘moral sense’ and ‘fashion sense’ don’t need to exist for Ethics and fashion to exist.


The part of the equation that you are leaving out, is that desired consequences often have moral considerations surrounding them.  If I won't play mail-box baseball, because I feel that it would be morally wrong to do so, the desired outcome is based upon an ethical consideration.  You can't simply wish the moral question away, it's pretty persistent at voicing it's concerns when we are weighing or ascribing value to consequences.

I wasn’t leaving out reward as part of the consequence equation, I just hadn’t got round to it yet.

Positive consequences when it comes to decision making is as important as negative consequences, we weigh the negatives (risks) against the positives (possible gains) before making any choice. Religion hasn’t missed this fundamental element; it may in fact be this aspect of religion that explains why good people do bad things

If I kill someone I may get killed myself (risk) but I may also end up with seventy something virgins and a first class ticket to eternal happiness (possible gain).

I can be convinced not to kill by the first argument - the majority of people generally are - but if a person’s religious belief is strong enough they could decide that the possible gains outweigh the risks.

I see no inherent reason within the tautology of evolution (though I don't believe it), that would rule out rational minds developing a moral barometer, or conscience.  When you mention the absurdity of squeaky clean moralists always giving birth to philanthropists, and murderers always giving birth to mafia members, you are missing my point.  When I was suggesting the necessity (from your naturalistic view) of genetics giving rise to morals, I was speaking of a moral measuring apparatus in the conscience .... not any kind of constraint to follow it, or to disobey it.  That would be the question of free will, a whole other topic.

Genetics produced the brain and the capacity to reason, genetics did not produce the moral framework against which that reason is applied. Your argument would be like saying genetics produced ears so music is a construct of genetics

You really don't know that, do you?  It could have been a precondition for the development of mammilian wings, climbing claws, or even eyes with depth-perception.  If even it didn't happen that way, it could have.  Brad is always tellling us that it didn't have to turn out the way it has.  And from evolutionists, I've heard many postulated scenarios that weren't much different than what you describe.

Falling to your death off a cliff has zero impact but I agree falling off a cliff and not dying because of some mutated improvement is fundamental to Darwinian evolution but in a very specific way. For evolution to work the chances of falling off a cliff have to be very very high, in the case of bats this would be the case if all their foraging took place on cliff faces. A human falling off a cliff is statistically less likely; cliff faces aren’t our natural habitat. If a human fell off a cliff face and died there’s zero effect in evolutionary terms, even if a mutated human fell off a cliff and survived there would be no evolutionary advantage passed to his offspring either because falling off cliffs doesn’t happen often enough.

But that raises the whole moral question all over again.  Why should morality condition my drive to fulfill self interest?  Why should it pose a limit?  I'm not saying that you don't have an answer.  I'm just saying it will necessarily be an answer which itself has a moral foundation.

You’ve got it backwards; self-interest is the foundation morality is a product of that self-interest.

Lewis highlights a good point:

Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two make five.

The point is that the imagined straw dog country doesn’t exist, it has to be imagined and the reason it has to be imagined is that people in the real world recognise that fighting battles and being kind can be in their own self interest.

Think of a country where people were admired for always rushing into battle, or where a man felt proud of always being kind to all the people who have double-crossed him. You might as well imagine a country where two and two make five.

This imagined country doesn’t exist either.

Now think of a country where people went to battle only when it was in their own best interest to do so, or where it was in their own self interest to be kind to people who might be kind in return and to shun anyone that double crossed you.

Countries like this exit throughout the world, all built on the foundation of self-interest.
  

beautyincalvary
Member
since 2006-07-13
Posts 98

110 posted 2006-08-08 12:35 PM


1. Where did the space for the universe come from?  
How could someone be expected to know this?

2. Where did matter come from?  
Two giant balls of gases collapsed into each other, creating all matter.

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
It came supposedly from the collapse (the Big Bang).

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?  
Meaning what? Do you mean humans are perfectly organized? Because we’re not. There are so many things that don’t work right. That is why evolution is still selecting what’s working and what isn’t.

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?  
That makes no sense. Who says “something” was an organizer?

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?  
The key is from inorganic to organic. Stanley Miller showed us it was possible. Go research it.

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?  
What a reasonable question.

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?  
Again, another reasonable question.

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)  
The species, of course. The creator of these questions is thinking too much like a human. Animals don’t worry about themselves surving in the way humans do. The can die as soon as they’ve reproduced. How do I explain this? It makes perfect sense. The individual animal’s (or plant’s) goal is to reproduce in order for the species to survive.

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)  
If a mutation works better for a species to survive, natural selection will keep that mutation, and eventually, the species will evolve. Enough mutations (granted these new mutations are separated from the original), the species will have so many new mutations it is incapable of reproducing with the original. (English and Chinese are too different. Recombining LATIN letters can someday produce Spanish books.)

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?  
Since an all-powerful Creator can NEVER be disproved, it is possible to many people, but irrelevant to others.


12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
I admit I don’t know enough to answer this. I am fifteen years old. I’m not an expert.


13. When, where, why, and how did  
a. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)  
b. Single-celled animals evolve?  
c. Fish change to amphibians?  
d. Amphibians change to reptiles?  
e. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)  
f. How did the intermediate forms live?  
Evolutionists will readily admit all these specifics have not been obtained yet. The human genome was first drafted in 2001. WE’ve come a LONG way with what we do know.

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:  
a. Whales evolve?  
b. Sea horses evolve?  
c. Bats evolve?  
d. Eyes evolve?
e. Ears evolve?
f.  Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?  
These are very unreasonable questions. I suppose this is all in the Bible!


15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?  
a. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body"'"s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?  
b. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?  
c. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?  
d. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?  
e. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?  
f. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?  
g. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?  
h. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?  
i. The immune system or the need for it?  


16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?  


17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?  
Mutations!

18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
Since psychologists and neurologists hardly know anything about feelings, is it rationals to expect evolutionists to explain what is so vague already? And who says humans are the only things with feelings.

19. How did photosynthesis evolve?  


20. How did thought evolve?  


21. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?  


22. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?  


23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?  


24. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?  


25. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?
The trillions of years between the two and everything that happened for it to be possible.

26. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.


1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)  
Yes.

2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?  
Less faith, more science. Because with more evidence, I know my views will change.

3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?  
It can’t be disproven. I don’t believe it.

4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
Yes, as much as it is to present the theory of gravity.

5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?  
It changes depending on the person.

6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?  
a. It is all they have been taught.  No.
b. They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).  Np.
c. They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.  No.
d. They are too proud to admit they are wrong.  No.
e. Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.  No.
EMPERICAL KNOWLEDGE.

7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don"'"t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?  Ha… Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man… these are upright walking people.


8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?  
Divine creation is NOT science. It is PHILOSOPHY. It does not belong in the schoolroom; leave it for Sunday school.

9. What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."  I am not wrong. I guess I’ll go to hell. I mean, I haven’t been baptized. I’ll go to Limbo. After all, that’s where God sends children who haven’t been baptized.


10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.  
If creationism is taught in schools, goodbye to science! HELLO, ARISTOTLE! We are not that primitive. Except, the people won’t even realize how primitive that is because they think we were once Adam and Eve, exactly how we are today.

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » Questions for evolutionists

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary