»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Intelligent Darwinism?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Intelligent Darwinism? |
|
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi! Per the suggestions of Stephanos and Drauntz, I put up these questions: 1. How is atheism related to Darwinism? 2. Was Darwin an atheist or a reporter? I thought he was a member of the Church of England.... 3. If you took "intelligent design" away from Darwin, what difference would it make? 4. Is "intelligent design" a Western notion, not debated elsewhere? Any one up for the old thesis, antithesis, synthesis? Best, Jim |
||
| © Copyright 2007 Jim Aitken - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
1 Darwinism or to be more precise the theory of natural selection gave Atheists an explanation of their disbelief. Atheists don't believe in a creator and Darwinism explains the diversity of life without the need for one. 2 Darwin was both atheist and reporter and just to confuse things was religious for part of his life too, the order was religious, reporter then atheist. 3 Intelligent design plays no part in natural selection or Darwinism, in fact it's the exact opposite so it wouldn't make any difference. 4 Intelligent design is the belief in a creator which isn't geographically restricted. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Grinch! Well, I guess that explains it all  One positive thing about certainity is that it's certain. Best, Jim |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I am certain of two things: 1. Darwin was right on the whole. 2. Darwinists (or evolutionists -- akin to gravitationalists or globularists) are wrong about something, somewhere, and sometime. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
oceanvu: quote: 1) I'm sure that atheism is not integrally related to Darwinism, since such a gradual process would still require God. However, its advent (which is late in a long chain of gradualistic naturalistic explanations of origins, only being innovative by providing a scientific theory for its mechanism) was doubtlessly reared alongside general religious malcontent, and atheistic tendencies. I can cite you many quotations to back that up. So, yes atheism has been ideologically related to Darwin's ideas, but is not necessarily related. Though I've tended to disagree with them, I know there are many Theistic evolutionists whose thinking I respect. 2) I think it could be argued that he was a disgruntled churchman, as it were, during a time when church membership was simply a part of cultural practice, with or without the inward belief. Of course I can't say for sure. There are, however, writings which might support that idea. Needless to say there is controversy surrounding the whole question of Charles Darwin's religious (or non-religious religious) beliefs. 3) I don't understand this question exactly. Though I think I might know what you're getting at ... it's unclear. Could you rephrase / clarify / expand on it? 4) Since the West is where most of the scientific activity of the world originated from, I think it is mainly Western, in the same way Darwinism is mainly Western. Of course Darwinism is the big established orthodoxy right now, and ID the smaller and less organized, less funded, reformatory nemesis. So it's no surprise that Darwinism as a Western idea, has had a wide and far reaching influence. Brad: quote: I am certain of two things: 1) Darwin was wrong on the whole (that the mechanism of natural selection has the explanatory power to give account for the complexity and diversity of life that we see) though judging from his own ink he was much more agnostic and "hypothetically humble" than his later representatives. 2) Darwinists (or evolutionists -- akin to gravitationalists or globularists) are right about something, somewhere, and sometime. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (05-09-2007 12:09 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
God is the Universe's head Nature the body of the whole, And Man its toe, swollen and red; Thus goes the Universe's Soul. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Stephen re: "So, yes atheism has been ideologically related to Darwin's ideas, but is not necessarily related. Though I've tended to disagree with them, I know there are many Theistic evolutionists whose thinking I respect." This addresses the "synthesis" possibility. There's clearly a record in the rocks, (and gaps, so far), which doesn't negate the possibility, probability, or actuality -- depending on the strength of one's stance -- that a Creative Impulse kick-started the whole works. I once asked a Buddhist friend: "What was there before the big bang?" His answer was: "Something, right?" So I got to thinking about that, and what I've come up with so far is that the something that was there before that is What Creates, and What continues to create. I lean toward the synthesis, the Theistic Evolutionsist approach, a kind of Wonderful Blend. Best, Jim |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Essorant: re: "God is the Universe's head Nature the body of the whole, And Man its toe, swollen and red; Thus goes the Universe's Soul." My goodness! I find myself agreeing with you in principle, if not in specific terminology. PS, I put up a poem for you in the Critical A forum, (Grocery List) just to rattle your cage in a friendly way about the nature of poetics. Take a peek? Best, Jim |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: That's a bit like asking, "What time was it before it was five o'clock?" We live in a world wholly dominated by the passage of time, and our resultant faith in the religion called Cause And Effect would put most Christians to utter shame. We believe, with absolute conviction, that for every Effect there must be a preceding Cause. Few ever even try to question that conviction, and I suspect fewer still could actually imagine a world where Cause And Effect did not hold sway. The word "before" assumes a universal time frame that, according to Einstein's equations, simply does not exist. Stephen Hawking was the first to realize that a rapidly collapsing singularity, when run in reverse motion, looks an awful lot like an explosion. And reverse motion, of course, is just another way of saying reverse time. We can't talk about anything before the Big Bang because, when time ceases to run linearly or perhaps ceases to exist at all, the word before no longer has any meaning. Time, as we know it today, only began flowing some fifteen billion years ago. And even today it doesn't flow quite so evenly as the human mind perceives it. Hawking probably said it best (and certainly more succinctly) in 2005. When asked to explain why the question "What came before the Big Bang?" was meaningless, he compared it to asking "What lies north of the North Pole?" |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: What do you know of Ron, that is uncaused, besides God? Bring your Christian Theology into the discussion as well as your ponderings of intelligent fools (which even the smartest of us are). You may accuse me of bringing humanistic ideas (such as a faith in Cause and Effect) into Theology, as a kind of foreign thing. But even before the age of science, the apostle Paul said things like: "Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made". Does this not involve something akin to an inference? I don't think that Paley was so far off in his watchmaker analogy. And in that sense, Hawkins is wrong, or at least unaccomodating to the nature of language. It may make no sense to ask (in the sense of time alone) what came before the big bang. But it surely makes sense to ask whether or not the wonders we see, were intended, or merely happened. Time may, in eternity, be only a poor metaphor for something higher. But whatever it is, it is not a negative.Jim: quote: I can see that. Though, I think there are things about evolutionary theory which make it dubious. I don't, however, object to it on a mere theological basis. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Stephen, I'm not even sure where to begin. LOL. Maybe you should talk to Werner Heisenberg? But, really, what I know of that is uncaused is exactly my point because what I know of depends entirely ONLY on what I know of. That's the whole problem with the way Jim's question was phrased. The human mind seemingly does not work well outside its own narrow confines, which is why much of modern science (especially relativity and quantum mechanics) is very, very non-intuitive. It just doesn't make sense! But that's a limitation imposed on us, on our own limited senses, not a limitation on the universe. To again paraphrase Hawking (who was, himself, paraphrasing Einstein), God not only plays dice with the universe, but He sometimes throws them where they can't be seen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I get your point Ron. I'm reading a book right now on Einstein. Mind-blowing stuff. But I guess I can only reply that Hawkings was still surmising that God was doing something, in a very positive sense, hidden or not ... invoking both time and space and narrative into his playful paraphrase. Stephen |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
1. How is atheism related to Darwinism? It ain't. 2. Was Darwin an atheist or a reporter? I thought he was a member of the Church of England.... You could have left off the little um, "I thought he was a member of the Church of England"... It could be that Darwin, was a thinker who had ideas, and insufficient explanations--like so many of us do now? It is possible to recognize evolution and see the spark of creation of soul as co-existant. Now pardon me while I go scratch myself and swing from trees just because it is fun. 3. If you took "intelligent design" away from Darwin, what difference would it make? It would make a personal difference, in achievement of "faith"--I happen to think that the differences meld in the dissolution of "Id"--and mythology and the stories of religion are all hero journeys. *ahem* (I believe in "faith".) 4. Is "intelligent design" a Western notion, not debated elsewhere? I don't know. I have not traveled, although I have investigated different religions--they all require the aforementioned "leap of faith". I have noted though, that the happiest peoples I have met, never questioned, maverick style, these leaps of faith. What I do know, however, is that if you call someone a "gimp" and tell that gimp he is cripple, and drum that "fact" into his head relentlessly "his" entire life, then what you have achieved is the creation of a "gimp". Maybe. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Oceanvu2 Yes, I did see your poem in Critcal Analysis. Sorry I didn't respond. I was not sure what to say. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, When have you ever been at a loss for words? Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Alas, If we talked together in "real life", Stephanos, you would know how difficult and clumsy I am with words. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Stephen, Why does natural selection require the existence of a god? quote: I agree but it should be made clear that the record in the rocks isn't put forward to prove or disprove what kick-started natural selection - the fossil record is simply offered as evidence that evolution occurred during the time the rocks were laid down and that's as far as it goes. You're free to posit the notion that an intelligent designer created single celled animals and evolution by natural selection took over from there but that's contrary most religious beliefs and texts and definitely just as hard for this atheist to swallow. quote: I had to comment on the gaps, they're often put forward as an argument against evolution when in fact they're simply evidence that fossilisation is a very very rare occurrence. To be fossilised a creature needs to die in an area where it's body will be covered almost immediately by exactly the right kind of mud of soil, where no scavengers or further movement can scatter the bones. Then the hard parts of the body such as bone and teeth have to undergo permineralization, a process where the bones are infused with mineral deposits, which dissolve and replace the existing structure to create perfect rock casts of the original bones. The odds against fossilisation are immense but lets make them less immense, lets say that one in a thousand was fossilised, given those odds out of a species that numbered one hundred thousand individuals only one hundred would be fossilised. That's one hundred fossils scattered across the area they lived, if that happened to be the USA that’s roughly two per state - it's amazing when looked at like that we find any fossils at all. What the fossil record shows, even with the gaps, is the steady change within species which evolution by natural selection predicts and explains. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Everyone’s going to find out soon enough Carpe diem . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch, no time to respond now ... Will have to get back to this when I can. I'm going to China. God bless all, Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Why don't you drop by Korea? |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Ron: Re: "We live in a world wholly dominated by the passage of time, and our resultant faith in the religion called Cause And Effect would put most Christians to utter shame. We believe, with absolute conviction, that for every Effect there must be a preceding Cause. Few ever even try to question that conviction, and I suspect fewer still could actually imagine a world where Cause And Effect did not hold sway" OK, maybe I'm one of the few, but I can readily imagine at least a subset of the "world" where cause and effect does not hold sway. This is the realm (at least) of human creativity. What "causes" an artist, mathematician, logician, theoligist, or grocery store clerk to see things in a way that haven't been seen before? It goes back to basics. What "caused" an early human to notice that if you chipped flint, you got a sharp edge? What "caused" early humans to outline their hands on a rock? What "caused" the first painter to notice perspective? For me, this causal element remains "What Creates," and it's darned mysterious. I just put up some questions. I have some opinions. I don't have definite answers. Best, Jim |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Et noctem. |
||
|
Kitherion Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
Hey Ocean! (Mwah! ^_^) Intelligent Darwanism... what an oxymoron! Teehee, just kidding. But still, in order for natural selection to be, intelligent as you say ^_^, it has to have a driving factor, other than survival. I would quite happily still be a fish if it meant I survived (which, since we still have fish today, means that they did ^_^). Love Me "Our Father who art in Heaven... Hallowed be thy name..." |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
"nobody loves me..."  |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I thought natural selection dealt with the ability to adapt? True, a survival trait, but a very creative one. Such as, when faced with a predator turn green/blend in to the bushes. When vying for a mate, get flashy or do a funny dance kind of thing, much like people do, only some are less intelligent than wild animals. How did the first one to ever manage such creativity find another? Make another? Meet another that would accept his or her "strange" ability? Hmmmm. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I'm the kinda girl attracted to the Green Man dancing nude in the forest. *shrug* The fact that I have that personality trait gave me my saving graces--my children. (Don't ask.) I gotta say, too, that they continually make me feel like I did something right. If I leave nothing behind but them, then I did the right thing. I have said some mean things about my hubby--one of which is that I deserve a Pulitzer Prize just for "upping" the gene pool--but he agrees--and I don't know how to fight that kind of complacency either. (He's shruggishly smiley...) I guess, I'm lucky. *grin* That is kind of absurd, but in some weird ways---I have had the best bad luck of anyone I know! (Buy the book?) And hey--it ain't all luck--I have made great friends along the way.  |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, I am currently in Taiyuan China. I didn't see your reply, else I would have arranged for a special parachute to "drop by". Actually, I came from up through Siberia, so I would have had to fly a little further south. Leaving Sunday for Guanzshou (sp?), why don't YOU stop by. You know these Eastern parts better than this boy from the Deep South. I'm having a hard time with the food here. To all: The adoption is going great. Bonding, have been together now 1.5 days. Look forward to getting back full swing into the philosophy debates. But for now, I don't have the mind for it. Keep things interesting while I'm gone. Stephen |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Serenity -- RE: “Nobody loves me.“ Aw, I love ya! (And as far as I know, that hasn’t proven to be the kiss of death, yet!” 1. RE: “It could be that Darwin, was a thinker who had ideas, and insufficient explanations--like so many of us do now? It is possible to recognize evolution and see the spark of creation of soul as co-existant.” In general, I agree with you, and this is what I was suggesting in originating post by “thesis, antithesis, synthesis, anyone? As a Recovering Presbyterian -- and I grant that isn’t not one of life’s heaviest burdens to bear -- I don’t see a contradiction between an initial spark of creation of the universe and the specifics of natural selection as they relate to the diversity progression of life form on earth, but I do have trouble with “God” and “soul” thoughts. It’s not because they seem to be Christian case-specific. I have the same problems with the Hindu Atman-Brahman connection and the Sikh “Veil of Illusion.” At one point, in the Judeo-Christian Bible God defines himself as: “I Am That I Am.” Essentially, this is unknowable. There is a strong argument, however, and widely cross cultural, that this can be experienced. I don’t think, however, that the experiential mechanism necessarily implies a “soul.” 2. RE: “mythology and the stories of religion are all hero journeys. The Hero with a Thousand Faces” is only one aspect of Joseph Campbell‘s work, dealing with hero stories of death and renewal. In other writings (and in writings by others) he brings up the wide spread Garden of Eden story, (not a “hero” story) which seems to go: We used to live in this wonderful place, then we did something to annoy the Gods, God, the Goddess, Spider Woman, etc, and now we’re stuck in this place where life is a stinker, and then you die, but, with any luck, sooner or later we get to go home.” What happened in the Garden? This is my quick take on it : When humans, Adam/Eve for example, ate from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, two things happened. In the Judeo-Christian version, Adam/Eve’s unity with their world was broken, and they made the distinction: “I Am Not That” which physically surrounds me. Somehow, I’ve been placed apart. (Hence a longing for reunion.) The mechanism for this sense of apartness is the acquisition of language. Per Mark, “In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” In religion and mythology, the usurpation of the “Word,” or language, a God quality, is the usurpation of the ability to make distinctions between “This” and “That.” Prior to events in the universal Garden, only God had the ability to make distinctions, or separations, like between Heaven and Earth, Night and Day, you and me, etc. If I’m reading this right, we’ve been paying a heck of a price ever since… 3. RE: “*ahem* (I believe in "faith".)” Here’s one of those nasty maverick notions: “Belief” doesn’t make any difference. Someone might “believe” that all the waters of the world stem from the armpit of a great frog,” or “all disbelievers in our given take on things should be boiled in oil and served up as Crispy Critters,” but the “beliefs” don’t count for squat. How one ACTS can and does make all the difference in the world. 4. Re: "I have noted though, that the happiest peoples I have met, never questioned, maverick style, these leaps of faith.” That one would take a book (your book, not mine) to talk out. 5. Re: “Now pardon me while I go scratch myself and swing from trees just because it is fun.” So, I’ll share Deb’s and my experience yesterday with you: We booked a hotel room across the street for a celebration of Deb’s birthday. Deb is the final stages of MS, and sleeps in a hospital bed in the living room. I sleep next to her in a chair. This doesn’t make for much cuddling or connubing. We both miss cuddling and connubing. So, we cuddled and connubed and ate chocolate cake with a mocha butter-cream icing for breakfast. This was FUN! You’re a cherished on-line Pal even if it gets a little testy now and then. Best, Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch quote: My statement is really that the nature of things requires the existence of God. "random mutation/ natural selection" is merely one mechanism that works upon bilogoical things in nature. I don't disbelieve in it. I rather disbelieve the scope with which it has been lauded. I don't believe that such an impersonal process has the power to account for the total picture that we see. But even if you want to believe natural selection has such an ability, you have the question of abiogenesis, and all of life up to the point of genetic reproduction. I suppose that other impersonal processes have to be invented and vested with a god-like serendipity in order to account for the total picture, if you're not going to think that God has done it. G.K. Chesterton summed it up well, for me ... quote:(from "The Everlasting Man") Stephen |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Tell Deb I love her...?  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Thanks, Stephen. Finally, someone on the other side of the fence gets it. Are you back home? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Theres a lot in that sentence of mine you quoted. When you say "gets it", what exactly are you referring to? And yep, I'm back in the States. I waved as I was passing you Brad. Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Stephen, At best Chesterton in the passage you quoted has either misunderstood natural selection and evolution completely or at worst is trying to muddy the waters. The length of time is important and has everything to do with the question. quote: In evolutionary terms there would be millions of years between the waving of the evolutionary wand and the descendant of the sailor acquiring porcine attributes, the original sailor would have shown no change at all. Nor would his son, or grandson, or great great grandson. To all intents and purposes the Greek witch would have failed, no miracle would have occurred and the sailor would be free to sail away unharmed. As far as abiogenesis is concerned natural selection and the theory of evolution doesn't attempt to answer the question of how life began but rather how it developed. As you rightly say that is another question, which will no doubt be answered by a separate and equally valid theory at some point. Rwood quote: The key word here is ACCEPT, if you replace it with PREFER the answer is easier to see. The peahen prefers to select the most suitable peacock mate by the size of his tail (in this case size apparently does matter), the peacock with the biggest tail is deemed the fittest by this measure and because tail size is determined largely by genetics an increase in tail size over several generations is inevitable. In effect it is the peahen that makes the peacocks tail so big. Natural selection is simply the term given to the process - large tails are preferable so peacocks with larger tails are naturally selected. Turning green and blending with your surroundings can be explained in the same way, if a species has the capability or propensity to turn green and that trait is preferable or advantageous - ie it increases the chances of survival or reproduction - then natural selection will ensure that the ability is passed on. All that doesn't really answer your real question though does it, the real question is how does one individual with the ability to turn green amid a population of millions determine or affect the selection process. The answer to that is that in most cases one individual doesn't it's a selection process from the entire gene pool. I'm guessing that you blush sometimes don't you, course you do, we all do, granted some of us blush more easily than others and the degree varies but we all do it to some degree. Now imagine for a second that the ability to blush gave you an advantage as far as survival was concerned, perhaps it allowed you to hide from a short sighted predator against a red background. In such a scenario the ability to blush more readily and to a greater degree would be naturally selected. Given time and progressive propagation of the blushing gene this could even produce humans with the ability to turn the most vivid red at will, not because one individual could blush better than the rest but because the ability to blush was naturally selected from the entire gene pool. Hope that helps. |
||
|
Aurelian Member
since 2007-03-20
Posts 109TX, USA |
Survival of the fittest, however, doesn't explain the arrival of the fittest. Neo-Darwinism posits that the creation of new genetic material comes through mutations. But mutations don't seem to be sufficient to explain the intricate workings of an organ such as the eye, many aspects of which would seem to be useless until the whole was in place. Darwin once said that if an organ could be shown to be completely useless until fully formed, it would prove his theory of gradual, naturalistic development false, and it seems there are now many such examples. The Darwinist may counter that there well may have been a use for the undeveloped organ which we do not yet know, and perhaps they are right, but isn't that the very "blind faith" they accuse Theists of? If a man went to Mars and found the face of George Washington carved into the side of a mountain, would it be rational to assume it got there by the chance bombardments of meteorites? Or would it be more reasonable to assume that although we have no other proof of extra-terrestrial intelligence or prior human space travel to Mars, one of those two had to be true? And yet, the Darwinist posits that the face of the real George Washington, a structure far more intricate and complex than a mere carving, came about through similar random processes. Nothing personal to my Darwinist friends here, but I find that idea a bit silly. Perhaps life developed slowly over a period of millions of years, with "survival of the fittest" weeding out the losers, but random mutations don't seem to me to be a sufficient mechanism to produce the development. It seems to me that intelligence had to be involved. And I believe, I think with good basis, that "Intelligence" has to itself be eternal and uncreated. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: Chesterton doubtless understood evolution enough to make his point. And his point is that even if evolution were true, it doesn't even touch the necessity of Theism. How does length of time have everything to do with the question of God? If you say that given enough time, impersonal nature may accomplish god-like feats, (including you, a mere conglomeration of molecules privileged enough to presume real insight about the whole show) then you are only proving my point. And my point (as well as Chesterton's I think) was that such a conclusion would have to be made somewhat independently of any gradualistic theories about development ... which do not remove the difficulty of atheism in the face of complexity and teleology. Remember that Chesterton (like myself), though skeptical about evolution, was open to the possibility that it might be true. quote: This was a merely a playful analogy, to illustrate that wonders, whether slow or quick, are still wonders. Not the type of statement for clinical parsing. quote: My point is proven again. Where the theory of evolution stops, your larger ideology (with faith-like characteristics) takes over. You said there was "no doubt" about the eventual filling in of naturalistic explanations; But you know as well as I, where there is no doubt, there is no science. Things of this kind of conviction take on a religious tone, even if not religious in the traditional sense. But my point stands, that the atheism (and implicit faith that there is nothing more than mechanical nature) is still separate from any evolutionary science. Stephen. |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
To me, 1. God is truth. not a faith or a belief. 2. Creation is a truth. not a faith or belief 3. Evolution is a scientific theory. not a truth, faith or belief 4. Atheism is a belief 5. Darwinism is a belief 6. Darwin was a scientist 7. Intelligent design means creation. if not then a belief which can be in everywhere Stephanos, Thank you for the correction. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Drauntz ... "Believe" is not a noun, but a verb. For the noun, you should use "Belief". Ex ... Atheism is a Belief. Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Aurelian, The human eye is often put forward as a wondrously complex object that cannot be explained by natural selection and the evidence in favour of eye evolution has existed for some time, such as the work of Dan-Erik Nilsson and Susanne Pelger, which is accepted by the scientific community as poof of the evolution of eyes. Instead of regurgitating that explanation I thought I'd turn the argument on it's head and use the creationists favourite tool - criticism of the opposing arguement. If the human eye was created why did the creator do such a botched job of it? Why create an eye with blood vessels on the surface of the retina that interrupt the flow of light through the eye and impair vision? Surely an intelligent and omnipotent designer with a clean sheet could have come up with a better solution. Oh wait a second he did because the human eye isn't as good as some of the other examples in the animal kingdom, for instance I can't see into the ultraviolet spectrum like diurnal birds of prey - if a designer had a better model why did he give me an earlier or substandard model? In fact if the creator is omniscient how come there even was an earlier or substandard model, surely he/she didn't add imperfections on purpose. Wouldn't a creator create one single eye design, the best possible and stick to it. Evolution through natural selection predicts that various eye designs will exist and that those designs will have evolved to be more complex in species where survival is dependant on better vision. It predicts that simple eye forms will co-exist with more complex forms and almost every type in-between. So what about those gaps in-between? Have you ever seen a brick arch? The brick arch is reliant on the keystone, that's the single brick at the very apex of the arch, without the keystone being in place to supply support all the other bricks in the arch would collapse in a heap. You could say that the arch is irreducibly complex, take away any brick, especially the keystone and the arch ceases to function. To create an arch you use a device called a form, it's normally a wooden pattern or scaffold around which the arch is built. Until the arch is complete the form supplies the support and is removed only after the arch is in place when the keystone is left to do its job. The gap where the form was is exactly the same as the gaps in eye evolution; they are both redundant once the building work is complete and are removed. quote: It depends on how precise the rendition of the likeness is, for instance if the rock formation just looked a little bit like George Washington in a certain light and if you squinted I'd say the meteorite theory would have some credibility. If you mean an absolute perfect likeness similar to mount Rushmore I, and probably every self-respecting evolutionist would agree that it would be reasonable to posit the notion of a sculptor. Has any Darwinist ever suggested any different? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Stephen, quote: Chesterton may be arguing that a creator was the spark for life and that evolutionary process then took over but allowing that weakens your position even further. The origin of life is unclear but whatever it was it was very very simple, so simple in fact that the creator probably wouldn't need to be any more complex than human beings themselves. The next problem is that evolution is largely directionless from a simple starting point the end product is largely unpredictable and uncontrollable, which is contrary to the omniscient nature of god that's normally portrayed. Then you have the obvious contradictions that evolutionary timescales create for your bible, Genesis would have to be accepted as a fallacy or lie and would call into question the validity of other parts if not the whole text. quote: But Stephen clinical parsing is the way we analyse the validity of statements. Chesterton was trying to say that the time discrepancies between the Bibles version and the actual age of the earth and the length of time life has existed is no big deal. He chose an analogy, playful or otherwise, that doesn't add up. The Greek witch is not required to give the sailors descendants porcine features over millions of years natural selection is quite capable of doing that without him. Claiming that the Greek witch did do it despite the passage of a few million years seems a little far-fetched - in fact I'd say he failed miserably if the aim was to turn the original sailor into a pig which would have been a miracle. quote: There is no doubt that the earth orbits the sun and that gravity exists and yet science carries on regardless, I have no doubt that a valid theory of the origin of life will be found because science exists. quote: Do you have to be an atheist to believe in evolution through natural selection, can you believe in both evolution and god? Course you can, you just have to change your perception of god and throw away a large portion of your bible. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If it weren't for the Sun and the stars creation/evolution of conditions on earth wouldn't be much if anything. The Sun and the stars are what give us the fire and heat by which we have the temperatures to change into this or that in the first place. Even if evolution could work independant from the sun and stars, who would be able to see it except perhaps God? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: When you find something that "works" in a poem, Grinch, do you use it in every single poem you write after that? Personally, I've found that what works well in one poem is often wholly unsuitable for the next. Perhaps there is no perfect poem to infinitely replicate? quote: Really? Uh, but the Earth doesn't orbit the sun, Grinch. And it's entirely possible (some would say likely) that gravity exists only in the sense that centrifugal force exists; as a perception of something quite different from what it seems. Sorry, but I'm going to agree with Stephen on this one. When a scientists abandons doubt -- about ANYTHING -- he stops being a scientists and becomes a dogmatist. Even when science is absolutely right (Newton comes to mind) it is always incomplete. Leaving lots of room for doubt. quote: Or change your perception of evolution (especially on a macro scale) and throw away a huge portion of Darwin? You might be surprised, Grinch, how well the latter works. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
But isn't that a bit redundant? No man usually has a problem with treating the sun as the "center", since it is so obviously close. It is like arguing that a man isn't bald, just because he has one hair on his head, that almost no one can see. And I don't think gravity cares how we perceive it or not. It still exists |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: I don't think that Chesterton was arguing that God provided a "spark" for life, and then relegated everything to natural selection. That would be insufficient ... kind of like invoking the temperature to explain drying paint, only to notice that many instances of it has produced a striking portrait. The idea of God working through natural processes, providentially, is grander than the idea of his working only prior to that process. You make it sound as if theistic evolution had to involve a kind of abandonment. I would say that it demands a demure, yet continual involvement on God's part, at the very least. Seeing the salient nature of everything we're talking about, over and against a seemingly chance process, I think that, concerning God, "necessary" is a mild word. But regardless, Chesterton's argument is much more basic than your quarrel between deism and Christian Theism ... that regardless of the timeframe, creation (the result) is extraordinary. quote: So the beginning need only be as complex as the end product, such as ourselves? Got it. We are made in his likeness. If you see the need for at least this much intelligence and complexity starting out, I guess your getting closer to my argument than your own. quote: directionless, unpredictable, uncontrollable, to whom? Is this an inference from self to God? Something like this: "I didn't control and oversee the evolutionary process, and can't see how anyone could, therefore God can't"? The thing is, in spite of evolution's so called unpredictablity, and lack of telos, it has produced something (out of nothing) which appears more finely crafted and astrounding than anything we have made out of very gratuitous resources. To the contrary, this sounds like a problem for atheistic evolution, not theistic evolution. quote: Actually many Christians feel, (with good reason) that the texts of the Bible were not written with the assumptions of a Western post-scientific society, and that many of its texts were not meant to be taken literally, even when they are to be taken in a historical sense. The fact that there are two didactic creation accounts in Genesis, with the first one listing the creation of light prior to the creation of stars, tells me that Genesis is no scientific treatise, or strict chronological account of events (in the sense of modern history), but rather a story-teller's form of conveying awe-inspiring truth. Admittedly, I feel that much more historicity is required from Adam and Eve onward ... and so I don't grant as much liberty for allegory as do theistic evolutionists. But I can at least understand that the writer of Genesis was firstly theological, and secondly historical, and often anachronistic ... leaving room for interpretation. I won't concede that that is devastating to other parts of the Bible, as each part of the Bible has to be examined for what it is, and what it was meant to be. The much more historically concerned, and closely narrative stories of the Gospels are quite different in that regard. Does that mean that Genesis is not inspired, or that it is not accurate? No, I think it means that the framework of Genesis is big enough to contain science where it proves to be accurate, because it poses no serious limits on science, not being a scientific text. quote: You're still missing it. Get over the witch. Chesterton only used that to say that creation is a wonder. Whether natural selection did it, or a wizard's cap, the product is prodigious. If you say that NS accomplished this over millions of years, then it is no less a feat, and the strange difficulty is not removed by your naturalistic mechanism. Oh, and Grinch, I meant to say that I've missed sparring with you like this. Where have you been? Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (05-28-2007 11:55 PM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Trust me Ron If I ever write something that works I'll do it to death. What I'm not likely to do is take something that works perfectly and build in obvious flaws for the fun of it. quote: In your scenario Ron a biologist who doesn't doubt his ability to drive is a dogmatist, a physicist who doesn't doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow is a dogmatist and a chemist who doesn't doubt that he's going to die eventually is also a dogmatist. Scientists, like the rest of us, are allowed to abandon doubt about some things, they couldn't function otherwise, for instance they are allowed to doubt that when they jump off the pavement they're going to sail off into space. It's only when they have no doubt about their specific field that they become dogmatic, oddly enough that's also true when it comes to the study of religion. quote: I'm willing to abandon evolution and throw away the whole of Darwinian theory - all I require is sufficient evidence that the alternative is more likely. [This message has been edited by Grinch (05-31-2007 04:49 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch quote: I once told Brad that there's a name for mistakes that function exceedingly well ... non-mistakes. The fact that scientists desperately depended upon the eye, even to come to the conclusion that it is flawed, is noteworthy and more than a tad comedic. Think about it from a design perspective. Are there ever human decisions about design that incorporate less, for a reason? Are there ever calculated limitations, even in our inventions? They could have, I suppose made Lamborghinis to fly, or to have the ability to climb mountains like an SUV or truck. There was a reason they didn't, and it wasn't lack of technology or ability. It was a sovereign and arbitary call of the designer. Such facts may always leave room for second guessing by those who aren't inventors. It's just more amusing when the divide is so sharp as that between human ability, and divine. quote: That's fine. But often in the world of art, that is called monotony. What musician ever said, "That chord works, so I'll play it to death." Oh yeah, Jerry Garcia did that. My bad. Seriously though, I think Ron's point is, from a design and art perspective, differences can be a glory. quote: You needn't throw away the whole, since there is quite true, a proven role for random mutation and natural selection among small-scale change within species. It's the leaping inference that it is also responsible for the origin of complex organ systems, and species themselves, that doesn't have sufficient evidence. Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: But Stephen presupposing creation just begs the question, he's as much as saying "whether god created all animals in a week or several million years doesn't mean that the creation is any less extraordinary" Your stance is that god might have created life and used evolution through natural selection to produce all the animals, with a little intervention here and there, which is virtually the same thing. I maintain that the origin of life is as yet unclear but that whatever the origin was it does not necessarily have to be a creation of god and that evolution through natural selection alone is capable of producing the diversity we see. Evolution through natural selection does not require any intervention from a supernatural being to get from the existence of simple life forms to the diversity we see today and religion has always maintained that god didn't need evolution and millions of years; he did it in a week! Suddenly we have Chesterton's god that created the spark of life and let evolution take over or Stephen's god who created life and tinkered with evolution until he got the right results and the god of the bible that denies evolution and says he created all the flora and fauna we see today with a wave of his hand or a click of his fingers - will the real god please stand up? If it turns out to be either it raises some serious issues, for instance the all powerful god of the bible doesn't look that impressive if he just created a few single celled organisms then put his feet up. quote: I see no need for any intelligence, the single celled organisms that formed the basis of life on earth were very very simple, you maintain they were created by the hand of a supernatural entity and my point was that if they were created at all that entity need not be that super or non-natural. quote: No Stephen it's a statement regarding the unguided nature of natural selection, evolution does not have an aim or goal it starts and the outcome is unpredictable. I used it to show that Chesterton's god that sparked life and let evolution take over is untenable. quote: I'm not missing it Stephen, if Chesterton had said that the diversity of life is an amazing thing I'd agree with him but to say that creation is a wonder is just another way of saying "god did it" and that's something this atheist can't accept without evidence. quote: I've been busy having a heart operation - they confirmed I have one so that's another Atheist fallacy exploded. I'm fixed now though and look forward to our future chats. Craig |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch quote: We're both presupposing things ... it's a question of which presupposition is true. Your "unguided" evolution, has a randomness and lack of guidance accepted by you a priori, does it not? The question is, does the result of evolution and your accepted idea of no telos match? Are they congruent or reasonable? Only when combined with something very much like what you call "faith". quote: And he would be right. quote: I'm not saying that God produced the animals with "a little intervention here and there". That's a straw man for you. I am telling you that God was / is intimately involved at every point. The proof is in the product, not the mechanism (of which we know only a shred). There's nothing in the mechanism that would suggest otherwise, unless of course a lack of guidance and divine involvement is presuppposed. But again, this premise doesn't match what we see. quote: I'm not denying that you (and others) may believe this. What I'm saying is, in doing so, you are attributing divine attributes and abilities to nature. It is a modern form of nature worship ... not the logical conclusion of science. quote: Your statement, like mine, is a restatement of a chosen circle. Which circle is true? quote: You won't find any real pro-evolutionary argument here. I tend to view the earth as very old, and the special creation of humanity as relatively young. However, I will point out that it's a fallacy to say that religion "has always maintained that god didn't need evolution and millions of years". What you are doing is imposing a modernistic theory backward upon ancient texts. The writers of the Bible did not anticipate evolutionary theory. Therefore they couldn't write to oppose it. If you want to say that Biblical writers never used units of time (like days or weeks) didactically or symbolically, then I'll be glad to show you otherwise. If you're arguing that the Genesis accounts of creation amount to modern chronological reportage, then you need to reread them. These pliable (scientifically, but not theologically) texts, describing the indescribable, pose no limits on true science. And by saying what you continue to say, you're showing that you are unfamiliar with Ancient-Near-Eastern polemic forms of writing. You may be able to refute the most rigid fundamentalism in this way, but nothing more. quote: You really need to read Chesterton beyond the quote. He was very skeptical of evolution. Whatever he believed, it is not the deism you describe. More clearly he seemed to believe that if evolution were true, it would have to be anything but an unguided uninvolved process on the part of God. Just like someone with a small and partial view could think that the molecular uniformity of paint drying proves that the Mona Lisa was not a personal and heartfelt work. What you see does not disprove what you cannot (or will not) see. quote: When did I say that? I never posed that (if evolution were true) speciation would be a movement from wrong to right. Rather, all gradients of species along the way have their place in creation. And like Chesterton, I believe that evolution would require the utmost involvement on the part of God, not "tinkering". quote: Bringing hydrogen gas gradually into a being who has the dignity to be as wrong as you are, is certainly impressive to me. Whether that means he put is feet up, is another question entirely. But for most, that could be taken a sign of ease.quote: Single celled organisms that formed the basis of life are not even known. Abiogenesis is still a mystery. But the cells that are even capable of genetic replication (a prerequisite for mutation/ natural selection) are hardly "simple". With the advent of the electron microscope, the cell was revealed as more complex than ever dreamed. It is much like a minature metropolis, with vast and sundry machinery, miliatary organization, and production plants. You should probably read "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. That Darwin thought the cell was a simplistic blob of protoplasm is excusable due to the science of his time. You are without excuse. The mircrocosm of the cell expanded just as illustriously as did the macrocosm of space, before our eyes. quote: Who has made a cell out of nothing? Until you answer that, this claim is empty. quote: You know I've never believed that about atheists. They (like myself) are made in God's image, and can be wonderful people in spite of their flawed ideology. On a lighter note, I'm genuinely glad you are doing better. And our discussions, though intense, are enjoyable to me. Later, Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (05-29-2007 11:15 AM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Stephen, quote: Yes genetic mutation has a randomness and the modification that comes from that randomness isn't guided towards a particular goal but evolution is a theory backed up by evidence and not a supposition. Of course I can't disprove that your god doesn't tinker with the evolutionary process any more than I can disprove that fairies exist, that's not to say that the belief in fairies without evidence is valid or true. Any and every crackpot claim could be put forward as the truth if that were the case but without evidence they remain just, well fairy tales. quote: Is survival and reproduction not an intrinsic finality? quote: Only if god did in fact create all animals, if all animals were created solely by evolution he'd be wrong. quote: Thanks for telling me - now how about proving it to me. quote: I think I understand your logic here - god created the diversity of life so evolution must be attributed divine powers to do the same - I think I see a flaw in your logic. The overwhelming scientific conclusion is that evolution brought about the diversity of life on this planet there is no need to for divine intervention or involvement. quote: The one with the most evidence quote: I thought the bible was the word of god, didn't he know about evolution either? If he did you'd have thought he'd have mentioned it. quote: So how do you sort the symbolic from the actual and if a specific measurement such as time can't be taken as being the literal truth why take any of it as being true? quote: We're back to fairies again - I've already admitted I can't disprove them but that doesn't mean I have to believe in them. quote: Didn't you? The idea of God working through natural processes, providentially, is grander than the idea of his working only prior to that process. You make it sound as if theistic evolution had to involve a kind of abandonment. I would say that it demands a demure, yet continual involvement on God's part, at the very least. quote: I agree 100%, absolutely So how come you still maintain it was created by the hand of a supernatural entity surely if it were created at all that entity need not be that super or non-natural. quote: You've already said that the origin of life is unknown and I agreed with you but my claim that it need not be a supernatural entity is still valid. Craig [This message has been edited by Grinch (05-31-2007 04:53 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: Well normally my argument would be that evolution (as theory to explain all the diversity we see) does not have sufficient evidence (the macro-claims are inferred beyond scientific propriety- being a system whereby all aberrance is relegated into the "will fit one day" category). But, for the purpose of this thread, my argument is that even if it were true, the obvious telos still requires God. For the purpose of this thread, I am not refuting evolution per se. quote: Knowing that dropping scrabble pieces billions and billions of times will never result in a sentence from Shakespeare's Hamlet ... And therefore inferring that the information rich molecule of DNA wasn't produced without intelligence ... isn't in the same category as believing in fairies. Of course it makes you look more intelligent to suggest that. It's called ad hominem. The DNA molecule itself IS evidence for intelligent design. If the inference is too large for you, then I suggest it's not as large as the inference that a light sensitive spot and a seeing eye have a step by step connection through random mutation and natural selection. No hard and fast evidence either way ... only inference. quote: When I say "The result of evolution" I am speaking of living sentient beings which have some objective knowledge of nature, even though they are part of nature ... lives containing pathos and poetry, beauty, love, and dignity. To reduce all that to mere survival is to miss the mark. If you were to seriously do that, you'd have to doubt whether your knowledge were really true, as opposed to a phenomenon merely geared toward better survival. If you insist that truth and survival are relational, you have the problem of larger telos all over again. But I digress... To answer your question: Is survival and reproduction not an intrinsic finality? My answer is that nothing is instrisic and final. But as for you ... How would you know scientifically whether it is intrinsic, or final? My original question, you failed to answer was whether the apparant telos we see (even the staunchest evolutionists have admitted that it is apparant), fits your directionless and random foundation? And why? quote: No, he'd be right either way. If it were soley by evolution, I think Chesterton would be something like a Pantheist, and give some kind of religious reverence to nature ... seeing that to nature alone would be attributed god-like feats of design. Of course, I don't think that it is cogent to believe that impersonal nature could bring about such results. It is interesting to me, however, that atheistic evolutionists do the same thing, albeit in a different way. Saying that their own powers of reason, arose slowly and soley through random mutation and natural-selection, is either to doubt true knowledge altogether, or to laud impersonal nature with the ability of a real qualitative transfiguration ... as is fitting for gods. Often altars aren't destroyed, but only moved. quote: Philosophy forums aren't about final proof, but persuasion. That goes for the both of us. quote: "No divine intervention or involvement" is not a scientifically derived conclusion, and is an addendum to evolutionary theory. Though I don't doubt that atheism (or wished-for-atheism) has often motivated the development of naturalistic explanations for life or the cosmos. It does, however, little harm to a belief in a God who transcends nature, and who is implicitly taught in scripture to work in and through natural processes. The scientific certainty about evolution itself is overstated. However the scientific certainty about how it would even relate (if true) to the question of divine creation is nil. Thankfully all knowledge and validity is not strictly scientific in nature. quote: Who would have "thought he'd have mentioned it"? My whole premise is that Evolution is not intrinsically atheistic, nor is it positively incompatible with the creation literature of the Bible ... Why should he have mentioned it? quote: You are asking a question of exegesis. And it is a matter of recognizing what kind of literature you are reading in each instance. For example one does not expect the book of "1 Kings" to read like the highly figurative book of Daniel, or the apocolyptic book of Revelation. But it's not terribly hard to discern the type of writing it is, nor what the intent of the author was. I am no expert, but I've given a good deal of time in "lay study" to the various books of the Bible, and what they mean. quote: In this last quote of mine, given by you, where do I suggest that God "tinkered with evolution until he got the right results"? You're not misquoting me. But you're either forgetting the original question, or not reading what you've quoted. As I've already clarified, I will try once more. My statement is that if evolution were true, then God would need be involved the whole time to keep it from going awry and leading to nothing, and none of the speciation would be moving from "wrong" to "right". The process of evolution would not in any way rule out God's intentionality for individuals ... whether mollusks or men. quote: I meant that abiogenesis is still a mystery scientifically speaking. It's no mystery that the complexity and wonder of life as we know it, requires intelligence far surpassing our own. We are unable to create a single cell. If I can't get you to "supernatural" just yet, I'll try to convince you that it requires a mind much greater than your own, and that to posit impersonal dumb processes as the source is akin, not to religion, but to religious fanaticism. The interesting thing is that some of the most honest scientists who refuse to think about a supernatural creator, have gone the route of aliens for creation. I have to admit it's more plausible than saying nature up and did it by herself. Of course, you'd have to wonder who created the aliens, and you'd be back to square one. The bottom line, is that the appearance of design is a reality. It is acknowledged by the staunchest of atheistic evolutionists, such as Richard Dawkins who tells us in his book The Blind Watchmaker, that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.". But the assertion that things developed naturalistically without a guide or designer, is an untestable inference. Only it is one which is counter-intuitive ... one that requires us to ignore any "appearance of having been designed". In that sense, it is plainly a religious precommitment, which is apt to stand not in the lack of evidence of the alternative, but in the presence of evidence to the contrary. That's what religions are expected to do ... to stand strong in dogma. But to claim that such a non-religious religious belief is scientific, is misleading. (Macro-evolution is also untestable, taking it out of the realm of bonafide science ... but that's for another thread. For this thread, I'm granting that that might not be the case.) All of this about biological life. And we haven't even gone into cosmology and the sublimity of time and space. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (05-29-2007 08:50 PM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I apologise for the fairy reference Stephen but you have to apologise for the following quote: What you are talking about is single step selection, this is often used as an argument against evolution but usually put forward by people who don't really understand evolution by natural selection. Normally it involves a monkey trying to type a sentence from Shakespeare to highlight the enormous odds against producing even one simple sentence and then likening an aspect of evolution to it. Fortunately evolution doesn't use single step selection it uses cumulative selection, which narrows the odds somewhat. I've dug out part of a reply I posted a while ago on the subject and pasted it below; hopefully it'll explain why the argument is invalid. The monkey\Shakespeare example is an old one, the chances of a monkey typing the complete works of Shakespeare are so small as to be almost 0, you’d need a number far in excess of the number of atoms contained in the universe followed by a “to one”. You can however use the example in a scaled down version to show how the sieving nature of cumulative natural selection can reduce that number, Richard Dawkins first described it but hopefully I can remember enough of the description to explain it. Let’s take a small part of Shakespeare’s work: Methinks it is like a weasel There are 28 characters (including spaces) in the above statement to make it easy we’ll give the monkey a keyboard that only contains the necessary characters, the chances of a monkey typing the first letter ‘m’ at random is 1 in 27 (1/27), the chance of getting the second is also (1/27). The chance of getting the first and second letters is (1/27) X (1/27) which is 1/729. The chance of getting the whole statement correct is (1/27) to the power of 28 - a very big number.. 1 in 10,000 million million million million million million For a single monkey to type even this short statement would probably require a very very very long time. The type of selection it would use is called single step selection of random variation however evolution uses cumulative selection, so how does that compare? In cumulative selection the initial try is relatively random. Lets say it produces this: Ghtshj kolg trde klpp mczqqt Not much like ‘Methinks it is like a weasel’ but instead of attempting the whole thing again as in single step selection cumulative selection uses this selection and keeps the most useful elements. In this case the original is duplicated and the third letter ‘t’ is kept then the other 27 are re-selected. This process of selection for the best or closest fit is repeated until the statement is produced. Using cumulative selection “Methinks it is like a weasel” can be reached in as little as 40 or so generations. Of course in this example “Methinks it is like a weasel” was a predefined target, in evolution the target is undefined the outcome has only to be better, or fitter, than what came before. I'll try to get back to this tomorrow, my wife tells me I'm tired. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: As much as I'd like to apologize, I can't with good conscience. The following is an excerpt from a review of "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth" by Robert Shapiro.The first DNA molecule did not have enough time for 'spontaneous generation' given the overwhelming odds of 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000th power (1 followed by 40,000 zeros). Nobel Prize contender Dr. Fred Hoyle, who coined the term `Big Bang' in the 1940's, came up with this number. In fact, Shapiro says the odds are much greater than that, 1 chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. These odds have been calculated based on the complexity of the 2000 enzymes in the cell, each consisting of 100 to 1000 specific amino acids linked together in a specific sequence. Hoyle assumed already-assembled amino acids in the pre-biotic soup, and Shapiro assumed `reduced' chemicals instead. I'm really not interested in quibbling over various versions of odds either, since it matters little which version you accept. All who are honest and qualified have proposed astromnomical numbers, whose odds require what amounts to religious devotion on the part of those who believe life developed spontaneously. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, Do you believe everything in nature is handled by God? What about sicknesses and tumours, natural disasters, etc? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I'll weave around a bit and answer this question en route. The Jews once had a water-tight theology which said that blessing was a sign of God's favor, and adversity was a sign of his displeasure. They attributed all sickness, misfortune, and general mayhem to sin and God's punishment. Later theology sought to correct this extreme belief. The book of Job is the most notable example of this reformatory theology, but also the book of Ecclesiastes. In addition to these Old Testament examples, we have in the New Testament the episode where Jesus corrects his disciples when they suggested that either a blind man or his parents were responsible for his being born blind, due to personal sin. While I never would want to return to such an unrealistic (and sometimes cruel) extreme of belief, I still recognize that much suffering in this world is due to sin ... if not to directly punish, at least to alert us to the fact that all is not well, and help us to aim at spiritual renewal. C.S. Lewis once wrote that God whispers to us in our pleasures, but shouts to us in our pains. Part of it is living as fallen human beings, in need of redemption, and is part and parcel of this present world. Of course this doesn't mean that sin cannot be the direct cause of pain, or that God doesn't specifically punish. Because I believe there are cases where he does. However there are also experiences of pain and "evil" that seem to defy what we would humanly recognize as justice. This is the problem of Theodicy, so often encountered in the Bible. To me, it is tempered by the fact that we all have sinned, and shouldn't be turned to impiety because life is hard. Though it is hard, it is also concurrently good. It is also tempered by my understanding that there are purposes in hardship that go beyond first glance. And in that sense, God is benevolently "involved" even in what may seem random at best, and cruel at worst. At the very least, hardship is an opportunity to seek his deliverance, help, and answer. So ultimately I would have to answer "yes" to your question. And I guess I would have to say that if God may be involved where it seems he is absent, and where no "design" can be divined by us in a situation, then how much more when telos is obvious, as in the creation of life? Stephen. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: All who are honest and understand probability Stephen would also mention why the figures are misleading. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html quote: The calculation by Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe has been ripped apart so many times I'm surprised you've used it, here's a useful link to check before you quote more. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch, How about Shapiro who is not a Christian, and only claimed that he's tired of myth being passed of as science? Shapiro's calculations were more devastating than Hoyle's. I'm really no math wizard, and can't adequately compare the validity of these calculations with their criticisms (especially such unbiased *ahem* criticisms as "Infidels.org"). But, if there is a consensus to be gained, it is that the odds are frightfully small. And intuitively, that's not hard to understand. It's still plain enough to see that what we are talking about is a devotion to a framework, or paradigm ... a way to look at the world, that was not gained through empiricism. And I'm not saying that it's wrong to do so. I think people need to have a grid of truth by which to look at things (I obviously do that myself). What I am saying, is that it's wrong to label it as "science". Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (05-30-2007 02:42 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Craig, Even given what you say above, a "replicator" is only a small part of the picture. Consider this article on the formation of the first primitive cell ... http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2002/1/4/mullan_primitive_cell.php Again, the probability of life arising from one life (no matter which way you look at it, is damningly small. We could go on, back and forth, about relative concessions in the area of probability. I don't know about you, but admittedly, I'm unqualified to delve into the really detailed mathematical arguments. On a different note, What I would like to do (this being a philosophy forum) is to examine the history of thought as it relates to evolution. There is much surrounding the advent of the theory, that gives someone like me suspicion that it was partially originated and wholly usurped by a precommitment of philosophy or ideology. This will prove that the atheistic naturalism was not a conclusion of Darwinism, but a precondition for its arrival and widespread acceptance. As to whether this theory really supports the atheism, is a question I have answered in the negative. But the love affair between atheism and evolution from the start, is useful for me to show that the atheistic naturalism was in no way a conclusion of the science, but a catalyst for its formulation and popularization. The religious-like fervor of atheistic evolution, cannot only been seen stalwart in the face of small odds, and lack of direct evidence, but in the philosophical dialogue preceding and surrounding the arrival of Darwinism. With my next reply, I'll try to show you in greater detail what I'm talking about. later, Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: They'll be about as accurate too Stephen whether from a Christian, an atheist, or even a Greek witch - which is to say not at all, I'd steer clear of the argument from probability it's a bit of a red herring. If it's a gazillion to one it might still happen on the very first try as the coin-tossing example showed. What they're talking about is single step selection and as pointed out evolution uses cumulative selection and none of them factor this in to their calculations. If you accept their figures you then have to wonder how big a number the probability of a very complex thing like god's going to be. (I wouldn't recommend that any evolutionists use this btw it has the same flaws as any other argument from probability). quote: That should be interesting "a precondition for the arrival of Atheism"; I'd start compiling a list of atheists that pre-date Darwinism if I were you it may be useful. Here's one to start you off - Diagoras (5th century BC) |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
quote: True enough that one step could conceivably happen on the first attempt. To get from a carbon atom to life as we see it today, however, requires an uncountable series of these serendepidous step. If you want to push statistics then the odds against that become much greater than astronomical. I think you're right. Statistics is not a useful tool since it deals with probability. The probability here is essentially zero. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Am I gonna have to get you glasses? I didn't write "a precondition for the arrival of Atheism". I wrote that (increasing) atheism was a precondition of the arrival and widespread acceptance of Darwinism. Surely I've never thought that unbelief is a novel thing, only some of its more creative justifications. You'll see what I mean when I post. quote: Belief in God is religious in nature, not subject to probability. By definition, if God were subject to probability, he would have to rescind his deity. It's just that I openly admit my precommitment to God. My whole goal is to show that naturalistic atheism is a precommitment also, not the conclusion of evolutionary science ... making evolution and the question of God, only related by the insistence of some. However probability might be considered when asking whether an information-rich molecule like DNA was made without intelligence or intention? I'm really not sure. I've never believed that probability was a silver-bullet argument, but only something that might point out the curious fact that naturalistic atheism is a kind of metaphysical pre-commitment (held with the zeal of religion) which has been superimposed upon scientific theory. Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Atheism is actually quite novel -- it's really only been believed by more than a handful of people since the mid-nineteenth century. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Not a Poet, quote: Actually using cumulative selection the odds get smaller as shown in the Shakespeare example I gave earlier. The odds of tossing a coin and getting heads is 2 to 1, tossing eight heads in a row using single step selection makes the odds 256 to 1, that’s because every time you get tails (or a failed mutation) you have to start again. The odds change if you use cumulative selection and are allowed to bank each head (advantages mutation), say you throw a head on the very first try, what are the odds you'll throw another on your second try? Using single step selection the odds will be 4 to 1 using cumulative selection you are only trying to get another head so they're only 2 to 1. As I said earlier though probability is a red herring, it's quite possible to throw 8 heads in a row on the very first try but it's also possible to throw nothing but tails whether you throw 256 times or 256 billion times. However using cumulative selection means that you only need to throw one head to be one eighth of the way to your target. Even if you remove cumulative selection probability isn't a good argument because calculating probability requires a preset goal whether that goal is tossing eight heads in a row or getting a hole in one at golf and Evolution has no preset goal, it's like a golfer randomly hitting the ball. People aren't amazed that a golfer lands his ball on one particular blade of grass when there are a million blades of grass on the fairway even though the probability is a million to one. Stephen, Sorry my mistake, so what you're saying is that the theory of evolution came about because there were atheists; I look forward to your post. Brad, quote: I think you'd need to add openly somewhere in the above, at most points in history being an atheist wasn't really conducive to your health or well-being, a good evolutionary technique for survival would have been to keep your atheism to yourself. Saying that I agree that Darwin and Wallace's theory in 1858 and the publication of "On The Origin of Species" - (Darwin 1859) did legitimise existing atheism and act to increase atheistic belief among the populace. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I wish I had more time to participate in this excellent thread, but I just couldn't let this one continue to pass unchallenged, Grinch. Setting aside the irony that you're trying to use probability to challenge the validity of probability, your interpretation of cumulative selection relies on the improbability of a 100 percent success rate. You only need to throw one head to be one eighth of the way to your target IF that first heads results in a viable, self-replicating life form. Otherwise, you don't get to keep the heads, you have to start all over again from scratch. When you're exploring the possibility of a FIRST self-replicating life form, there is no cumulative selection. It's all random chance. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
quote: Absolutely untrue. If your goal had been to throw 8 heads, regardless of the number of tries then that works. Your stated goal, however, was to throw 8 heads in a row. True enough, you may throw a head the first try then the odds on the second throw are still 1 in 2. If that second throw fails, you can't keep your previous success and ignore the failure. You have to start over or your throws will not be "in a row." So, unless you are proposing that life as we know it today sprang from a few carbon atoms in a single step, your "cumulative statistics" theory simply does not apply. I think even staunch Darwinists would claim that life evolved in an almost uncountable sequence of steps. Each one of those steps would defy the statistical probability of its occurrance. Since each is sequential, the cumulative result becomes the mathematical product of the individual probabilities, the exact opposite of what you have proposed. Keeping in mind the above statement and the accepted definition of in-a-row, what is the probability of throwing a billion heads, in-a-row? Pete |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Ron, I thought I was using an example of probability to explain why, in this case, calculations of probability aren’t much use. quote: Not really, with cumulative selection you get to keep the successes and discard the failures, that's not to say there aren't failures just that they don't carry the "start again" cost of single step selection. quote: You could jump straight in at a self-replicating life form but why start there; it's not necessarily true that the first replicator was a life form at all. In fact given the premise that there was no life before the first life form appeared suggests that the first self-replicator wasn't a life form at all. Dr. Alexander Graham Cairns-Smith for instance suggested that clay crystals could have been the first replicators and an inorganic precursor to organic life. But whatever the first step towards life was you are absolutely correct it would have been in the form of single step selection, every first occurrence has to be, in the case of coin tossing that would be 2 to 1 odds, cumulative selection would then take over. However that puts us straight back into the dual horned dilemma of probability. No matter how great or small the chances of something happening are it doesn't prevent them from happening or guarantee they'll happen at all within the given probability range. quote: Pete, Your absolutely right Pete and at the same time completely wrong. Adding a rule that allows you to keep any heads and ignore any tails factors in cumulative selection into the coin toss, this allows addition to the "in a row" set without regard for the failures. The rule is simply a device to mimic how cumulative selection works in the evolutionary process. You are absolutely correct however that in single step selection 8 attempts are taken and any tails means that you would definitely have to start again. In fairness the misunderstanding is probably due to my ham-fisted explanation of cumulative selection I can see your point and hope I've clarified the matter. Craig [This message has been edited by Grinch (05-31-2007 05:07 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: True. But . . . . . . just as scientists must live their lives as if some things were beyond doubt, we all must live our lives as if the far spectrums of the probability curves were labeled with binary true and false values. The rising of the sun tomorrow is only a probability, too, but I don't waste my time making contingency plans. I mark that a true value and get on with life. The molecules of air in this room are in constant motion, bouncing against each other in ways that can only be described by probability curves, but I don't bother to wear a gas mask everywhere I go just because there's a statistical possibility they might all bounce in the same direction at the same time and end up congregating in the far corner. I label that probability false and get on with life. While it's certainly true that probability offers us no guarantees one way or the other, in today's world of Planck and Heisenberg, probability is nonetheless the ONLY guide we have available. Put another way, you probably shouldn't bet any of those quarters you're flipping against the sun rising tomorrow or me asphyxiating any time soon. Statistical probability is a cornerstone of modern science. Quantum physics, in particular, cannot exist without its reliance on probabilities. To deny its value is to send us back to about 1890, throwing away almost everything we've accomplished in the last hundred years. If you insist on excluding evolution from probability analysis, you essentially exclude evolution from the realm of science and enter it into the realm of mysticism. Statistically, Life seemingly shouldn't have happened. But, of course, it did, and you want to explain that apparent anomaly by pointing out that probabilities, even those at far ends of the spectrum, are still just probabilities and not absolute certainties. And I can't disagree with you. You're absolutely, one hundred percent, dead-on correct. Probably the only difference is, where I come from, we call those miracles. |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Probability handles hypothesis Hypothesis handles uncertainty Uncertainty is human's fear which will be eased by a number between 0, 1 from calculation based on known uncertain facts and to be read with other references again of uncertain factors Look at the evolution of cars and computers Every stage is there. My thought |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Did you forget that they were intelligently designed? Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Can water evolve into ice or ice into water without any intervention by God? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Water turning into ice when the temperature changes is a chemical property of H20, not an example of bilogical evolution. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I know. But elements and temperature are a major part of biological evolution as well. Try evolving into a life form in Mars' or Venus' current temperatures and see how much success you have. |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
biological.....self-reproducing. I'd love to see poems reproducing on PIP. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I was trying to work out why I never got back to this - then my wife reminded me I was ill at the time. It hasn’t affected my thoughts on probability though. quote: I’m glad to hear that Ron, it sort of proves how inane it is to calculate the probability of life emerging, life emerged, the evidence is all around us, we can just label it true and leave it at that. quote: I’m not excluding probability from the analysis of evolution I’m simply saying that it doesn’t add or detract from the argument on way or the other, it is in effect a red herring. quote: I’m saying three things, first that there’s a possibility that life was inevitable, that the probability one way or the other isn’t accurately calculable and so is pointless to use as an argument. Secondly that even if the probability that life emerged without the aid of a supernatural hand is infinitesimally small it is still possible and thirdly that probability is a double edged sword - how improbable is a supernatural being? quote: If by miracle you mean something happening that seems improbable then we don’t disagree at all, if by miracle you mean something that is made possible by intervention by a supernatural entity I do disagree. Improbable things happen all the time to varying degrees, there’s no evidence or necessity to presume supernatural involvement in any of them. I think Ockham would have agreed with that. |
||
|
MOCindy Member
since 2008-07-30
Posts 73 |
Grinch, quote: Would you like to give some examples? And your supernatural means 1. God. or 2. Unknown? or 3. unexplainable? C |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch, I'm glad you winked when you said it, since Ockham himself was a Franciscan Friar and a believer in God. Don't grab that razor too quickly. Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17113222/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=de3_1199549840 http://news.notiemail.com/noticia.asp?nt=10680442&cty=200 These are examples of people surviving falls from great heights against seemingly improbable odds, but that isn’t exactly what I meant when I said: Improbable things happen all the time to varying degrees I was referring to occurrences that show that using probability to calculate possibility isn’t a good idea. My earlier golf ball example is the easiest to explain: If here are a million blades of grass on a green probability suggests that the odds of a golf ball pitched from the edge of the green landing on any particular one of them is roughly a million to one. Common sense however dictates that the ball has to land on one of them which is why this one in a million occurrence isn’t necessarily deemed a miracle. Let’s suppose that life was always going to appear, that it was as inevitable as the golf ball landing on a blade of grass, in that case calculating the probability of life appearing is pointless. It doesn’t matter how high the improbability is, the fact that it happened and the possibility that it was always going to happen makes the calculation useless. quote: God Stephen, The wink was for Ron, I know he likes to use Will's razor and thought the irony wouldn't be lost on him. While I agree that William of Ockham was a Franciscan Friar there’s no evidence however to support your claim that he believed in god, that’s just a presumption. Not one shared by the pope of the time it seems who excommunicated him some time around 1330. Even without that Williams beliefs are impossible to know for certain. For instance if I lived in 1300 Stephen I’d be claiming to believe in god if the alternative was to burned at the stake as a heretic. All we can say is that we don’t know if William believed in god or not but either way that doesn’t have a bearing on my use of his theory of parsimony. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Predicting the ball would land on a blade of grass would, indeed, be no miracle. That's simply an extension of conditional probability (one event leading to another) and set theory (you've included all possibilities in your set). That's not the same thing, however, as consistently predicting which blade of grass would get scrunched. And one has to wonder, Grinch: What are the odds of that golf ball landing on a particular blade of grass if you have no one there to toss it? quote: While we're supposing, Grinch, let's further suppose that intelligence is just as inevitable as life. That makes my pocket watch equally inevitable. Calculating the probability of all those little bits of metal and plastic forming into gears and then falling into a configuration to become a timepiece would also be useless -- unless someone came along and started claiming the watch was not the work of intelligent design. I must say, though, Grinch, your faith in the inevitability of life seems to be remarkably strong. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I never said it was Ron nor would I, that would be single step selection - fortunately as I’ve explained evolution uses cumulative selection. quote: Paley’s watchmaker argument works well for watches Ron but, as has been proved on numerous occasions, there’s no necessity to posit an intelligent designer when it comes to the diversity of animal life. Natural selection is the only process required. quote: There’s no faith required Ron - life appeared, the evidence is all around us - I’d put all my quarters on that bet, whatever the odds. I’ll say it again, probability isn’t much use when it comes to the origin of life, because however improbable it is that life appeared we know that it did. Whether it appeared naturally or as a construction of a supernatural god the probability of either is a moot point that doesn’t add any weight to either argument. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
There is only one position in the solar system where life is most probable, and that is where earth is. Any planet "caught" in this temperature-zone would eventually be able to afford life. If you put Venus exactly where Earth is and Earth where Venus is, or put the temperature zone exactly where Venus is, then the weather on Venus would afford life, but the weather on Earth would no longer be able to afford life. Therefore it is not the planet that foremostly determines life, but this particular temperature-zone in conjunction with a planet being "caught" in it. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Ockham wrote Theological works. The uncertainty you propose (of whether he believed in God) is overstated, since he himself plainly professed so. I'm beginning to doubt whether you believe in Darwin, despite your words. But you're right in saying that your use of his theory is allowed either way. I just wanted to point out the mild irony you have to live with in using it. After all, its author didn't begin to think that it discredited his own belief in God. The razor cuts both ways. An impersonal universe giving rise to amazingly complex life, and multiverse theories explaining exponentially improbable fine tuning, in the economy of Ockham get lopped off in my opinion. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: But it's not all around us, Grinch, at least not according to current evidence. It's not on the moon. There's no life on Mars, nor any found on Venus, our two nearest neighbors in the solar system. If there's life outside our system, it sure hasn't contacted us yet. What's with this "all around us" stuff? Life certainly appeared in this infinitesimal tiny corner of the Universe, Grinch, there's no doubt about that. And, yea, I'll grant you the indomitability of life; once it appeared, it spread to every imaginable corner of the planet. That doesn't make its appearance inevitable. It certainly doesn't seem to have been inevitable any where else in this solar system? You can still keep your quarters, though. quote: Ah, so there IS life on the moon, Essorant? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I didn't mean there were no exceptions, such as the moon, but that the weather-condition is more determining. There needs to be an accomodating temperature and weather first, before anything else may be accomodated. That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions in the accomodating temperature though. Not everything in the temperature zone brings forth or has life, but the temperature-zone is still what accomodates life most and therefore the planet "caught' in that particular temperaturezone, has conditions of its own that may afford life in response. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Stephen, quote: As I pointed out earlier if faced with being burned at the stake as a heretic I’d profess my belief until the cows came home, I‘d even sign my name to anything you like to confirm the fact. We don’t know whether William believed in god any more than we can know whether Darwin believed in god, so why say this when talking about Darwin: quote: And yet confidently assert this with regard to Ockham: quote: Ron, quote: As we were talking about life on earth Ron I thought my “all around us” statement naturally inferred the target as earth. We could discuss life in other parts of the universe, oddly enough that’s when probability becomes very useful indeed. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
When it comes to a larger condition, I will say a life-accomodating weather. But what exactly within the life-accomodating weather was the specific transition of something nonliving to something living? What were the specific conditions on earth that led to that transition? That is something I am not able to answer with much strength. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: Conversion from fear alone may lead to half-hearted compliance, but not to an avid interest in Theology as evidenced by a body of writing. I am not as familiar with Darwin's own works, though I've read some of "On The Origin of Species ...". That quote of mine (in context of what we were talking about) had to do with whether Darwin's motives for his naturalistic paradigm were influenced by religion, NOT whether Darwin believed in God. Did Darwin have an axe to grind with God and/or the Church? That was what I said I was unsure about, though having my suspicions. If you want to say that Darwin's theories were definitely tied to his religious (or anti-religious) views, then be my guest. I was only giving you (who would surely call Darwin's motives more objective and unbiased than I) the benefit of the doubt by stating that it was somewhat speculative either way. My agnosticism about Darwin was to your advantage, not mine. The question of whether Ockham believed in God is not so speculative as that, since we have much more source material dealing with God. Stephen |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Life on Earth is the miracle of the universe and we are the miracle within that miracle. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
William of Ockham's getting a bad rap. He was a believer. He was excommunicated by, I believe, John XXII. William's disagreement with the Pope was because William thought that a Catholic could stand up the Pope in matters of doctrine, as was, apparently, the tradition in the earlier church. He believed that a Pope could be overthrown if He was tyrannical, as could be a King. Some called him "the first Protestant." His belief in God was never in question, however. His views of the Catholic Church were at the time considered conservative, though today they'd be characterized as Liberal. Occam's Razor—the spelling is an alternative one—is often mischaracterized as saying that the simplest explanation is the best explanation. As in, if you hear the sound of thundering hooves, it's more reasonable to think "horses!" than "zebras!" The actual principle is slightly different, and different in what many would understand to be a significant way. The actual principle is an injunction not to multiply causes unnecessarily. This makes much more sense. The first version is frequently quoted by modern rather than traditional skeptics. (The distinction being that a traditional skeptic is wisely trained to be skeptical first and foremost of himself and his own positions and thoughts, and then those of other people with almost as passionate a fervor. The modern skeptic believes in being skeptical of pseudoscience and other people's irrational ideas. Should anybody be skeptical of my characterization, the editors of, I believe, "The Skeptical Inquirer" print it at the beginning of every issue. Perhaps it's "The Skeptic.") Therefore it makes perfect sense for A Franciscan Friar to include a postulate including the belief in God along with whatever other minimum requirements would be required to assume the likelihood of horses as the first choice alternative for a sound of thundering hooves in Europe. For William, though, I suspect God would have always have been one of the causes which could not have been reduced. Whether this is in fact true is a different discussion. But the likelihood that William of Ockham thought it was true is probably pretty darn high. Sincerely, BobK. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Thanks Bob, that was what I meant to say. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
All and sundry: Surprised at the longevity of this thread and the intelligent responses. Maybe I finally asked an interesting question. Having gone through all the responses, and again, I've put up questions, not answers, I come back to this from a relatively early reply by Grinch: "The bottom line, is that the appearance of design is a reality. It is acknowledged by the staunchest of atheistic evolutionists, such as Richard Dawkins who tells us in his book The Blind Watchmaker, that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.". But the assertion that things developed naturalistically without a guide or designer, is an untestable inference. Only it is one which is counter-intuitive ... one that requires us to ignore any "appearance of having been designed". In that sense, it is plainly a religious precommitment, which is apt to stand not in the lack of evidence of the alternative, but in the presence of evidence to the contrary. That's what religions are expected to do ... to stand strong in dogma. But to claim that such a non-religious religious belief is scientific, is misleading." This seems to head toward the heart of the initial questions. I repost it on the assumption that not everyone will wish to read the entire thread. I reamain totally wishy-washy, not as bright, but in tune with Richard Dawkins. I think it is his position that a "creative force" can neither be proved nor disproved. On the other hand, religious dogma of any sect is simply that, stories and rules which help us cope with an uber-notion of inevitable death, and prescrptions for leading a reasonable life in the interim. Now, the PROBLEM with dogma lies in its abuse. Dogma, past at least seven of the J/C ten commandments is nonsense foisted on the weak by the powerful in order to keep the powerful powerful and the weak, weak. Anyone interested in Canonical prouncements, Shi'a/Sunni diversions from the Koran, or the thousands of the pronouncements by the hundreds of Hindu/Bhuddist sects, might wind up asking "What the heck is that all about, and why should we pay any attention to it?" I certainly don't deny that there are "religious" tenets that are functional, if not god given, but I don't see where we need dogma to tell us how we should cut our hair, attend Mass, wear a burka, subject men or women to circumcision, scarify our bodies with knives, get religious tattos, dunked in a tank of water, or all the other nut-ball stuff that goes on pan-religiously here and around the world. Well, this turned into more of comment than intended. I hope it was not ofensive. I don't CARE what anybody needs to believe in. If it works for them, OK. Just don't send in the troops. Or send the troops anyplace else on a mission from God. Thanks for responding, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Jim quote: Jim, wasn't Jesus speaking of this same observation when he said "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former" (Matthew 23:13-23)? External religious forms ranging from Mass to how long you wear your hair, have to do with a basic human need for ritual. Other cultures probably understand that need more than Americans since we are the true "melting pot" where such practices tend to get lost in the swirl. So I would say that these are not necessarily bad things, until they become points of contention, division, or outright warfare. (Then again how many 'good' things are ruined by our inability to possess them?) That's probably why Jesus was more concerned that the Pharisees practiced the former in addition, rather than eliminating these practices. But its no accident that the Jewish ceremonial law became dispensable in the Christian economy of things. But other things remained universally binding, like loving "the Lord your God with all of your heart soul mind and strength, and your neighbor as yourself". It's probably better to think of all of the ritualistic "nutball" things as mostly symbolic in nature, pointing to something beyond them. But I think there is a challenge for you in Jesus' outlook (which has commonality with yours). Whereas you tend to make the "seven or so" (which you feel to be more essential) independent of a transcendent spiritual reality, Jesus could only see them as connected to a transcendent personal God. Your approach might lead someone to ask why dunking in water can be dispensed with, but not the rest? That was Nietzsche's basic question to everyone. Why is Christian "morality" so important if God is dead? If the ethical side is indispensable to anyone, I think it is because they are basking in a secondary radiance. This "goodness" you acknowledge is not independent. Nor is it (I would persuade you) merely an existentially blind grasp for significance in the face of coming oblivion. You're more than an accident. enjoying the thread, your friend, Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Are sure he was a believer Bob? I’m not, I didn’t know him and don’t presume to know the inner workings of his mind, I think he probably believed in god based on what I’ve read of his life but that doesn‘t make it true. That would be like saying something is irrelevant actual making it irrelevant. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch, all along we've been talking likelihood, not God-like knowledge of his mind. Thinking (beyond reasonable doubt based on what we do know about him) that he believed in God. If you yourself think so, then why such protest at my saying so to begin with? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, Grinch is twitting me about a discussion I'm having with Brad in another thread, and rightfully so. I have been taking Brad to task for exactly the point he mentions. Grinch, I'm not as certain as I am that gravity will pull a penny to the floor at the bottom of a gravity well; but, like you, after having done some research, the point seems pretty well established. The level of certainty you're talking about is perhaps achievable, though probably not historically, since we'd have trouble connecting a PET scanner and lie detector set up to somebody already dead. But even if it were—a large if—we would only know that the person believed he was telling the truth, wouldn't we? I think what you'd rather have is something on the order of 100% certainty with money back guarantees, as, truth be told, would I. The best I can offer here is my assertion that the historical evidence, which is open to your examination as well as my own, indicates pretty overwhelmingly that Bill Believed. That doesn't make it so, but it requires a strong and well built case to indicate otherwise with any kind of certainty. Are you willing to offer such a case or information as to where you have clear indication that such a case may exist? That seems fair to me; how about you? And thank you for the twitting. It's a signal for me that I'm sounding especially stuffed-shirtish and I need to say that I am never as certain about what I say as the way I sound when I say it, and I'm all too aware of how often I'm wrong. Which is a lot. Thanks for putting up with me as well as you do. Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That’s what you may have been thinking Stephen but it’s not what you wrote. quote: quote: Because I read what you wrote. Your argument seemed, at least to me, to be that my use of the razor was invalid based on the fact that Bill believed in god. There are two ways to argue against this, the first is to point out that using the razor isn’t dependent on Bill’s beliefs (which I did). The second was to point out that even if it were it was impossible to prove what Bill really believed with sufficient certainty, which I added as an aside. There then ensued the pointless argument about whether Bill believed in god. My position is, and has always been, that he probably did. Bob, See above. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Grinch, No, darn it; I insist the number depends on the size of the freaking pin! I don't care if you do believe they they can expand and contract to fit any size and can cite relevant scripture. You haven't looked at the new translations of Plato by that Arab feller, what's-his-name. And That, my friend, settles That. Definitively yours, Bob "The Human Pin Cushion" K |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Bob, OK, OK, you’ve convinced me. I know when I‘m beat - why didn’t you just mention that Arab feller in the first place it would have saved a lot of time. Craig |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: In your paradigm I thought you believed that ALL definitive statements are subject to this kind of probability ... yet you still say them as if certain. "Will believed in God (beyond all reasonable doubt)". I don't think the parentheticals are necessary in this case, do you? Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob what thread is it you mentioned regarding you and Brad? Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Stephen, You brought about the questionability of Bill’s belief when you tried to use it to counter my reference to Ockham’s razor. If someone puts forward the notion that the reason we don’t fall of the edge of the world is because the earth is a sphere I’m not likely to quibble and raise the fact that the earth isn’t actually a sphere because, to all intents and purposes, it doesn’t affect the plausibility of the argument. If someone put’s forward the notion that the circumference of the earth is the same distance at the equator as it is while circumnavigating pole to pole because the earth is a sphere then I’m likely to question the assertion that the earth is a sphere because it affects the plausibility of the argument Want to guess which category your assertion regarding Bill’s belief fell into? quote: quote: What you were saying, in essence, is that my use of Ockham’s razor is ineligible because he believed in god, at that point the exact nature of Bill’s beliefs becomes important because it affects the plausibility of your argument. For the same reason that the spherical nature of the earth is important in my second example above. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: Actually the totality of my argument does not turn on whether William believed in God or not. Even if he didn't, explanations of an autonomous formation of order and life over time can be shown susceptible to his razor. The fact that the astuteness of Ockham included (beyond all reasonable doubt) a belief in God, was simply an irony you must live with. (don't get me wrong here ... we all live with ironies and tensions, which is why "yea or nay" is always related to faith and loyalty not crystalline knowledge.) It certainly isn't a knock-down-argument on my part. But I would like to point out that you've changed your position somewhat. At first it was plain to you that Ockham was driven by fear to say he believed in someone or something he didn't. Subsequently, I pointed out that pretentious professions of faith (based on threat) do not lead to avid interests and passions (as evidenced by his body of writing). Now you're saying that he "probably believed in God". If nothing else, we've had some clarification. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Guys, Near as I can tell, both of you are in pretty substantial agreement. The points that you're quibbling about, were the wind coming from a different direction and the order of the conversation started slightly differently, could well though not exactly have each been taken by the other because you're both bright and curious folks. Both of you know Bill was a believing Franciscan who in fact put his life on the line for the way he thought people should be treated in the church hierarchy. He was willing to get excommunicated for doing so at a time when the punishment was worse than the death penalty; even if you weren't a believer, the social consequences alone would have been ruinous. Bill actually thought his expansion of Aristotle meant something. It's fairly clear he thought that God was one of the causes that went without saying, as did most of the people of his time. Grinch, you've had some English education, haven't you? In addition to teaching you have to debate, it's also taught you the value of research, so you understand the basics of this are true enough. If you want to get into the fine details, though, each of you will be able to keep going fruitlessly forever. You already have enough information to know that you''re both basically correct and that the areas you're grumbling about will need both of you to gather information about together to make any progress on, should the two of you find the subject interesting enough to follow up. One of you alone probably would be able to do it. So what are the areas that the two of you actually want to get more real information on, and where would you get it? I mean there comes a time when you've got to make a decision between argument and inquiry, guys, if only to find out where you want to take the argument next. If you're really interested, why not do the research together? He suggested very cautiously, Bob K. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I feel like I've been talked to by Dad. In one thing you are correct, Bob ... The argument about William has gone on long enough, which is an aside from my original suggestion: His razor can cut (depending upon the wielder) any complexity of explanation, including atheistic ones. thanks for the input, Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Wasn't trying to be overbearing, but you're right about the razor cutting both ways. One of the problems with Occam's razor is the sharpness of the blade; another is that there is no handle to grasp. Wisdom commends cooperation over blood loss. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Stephen, quote: My position hasn’t changed, Bill may or may not have believed in god. Bob, quote: Actually I’ve had very little formal education due mainly to the fact that I suffer from a bad case of autodidacticism contracted at an early age. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch, If that's only in the same sense we could say: "Grinch may or may not believe what he's saying", then I'll take it, and leave it at that. Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Bad comparison Stephen - I definitely don’t believe a single word I say. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Grinch -- Which is a good thing. Belief is just another mind-trap, and who needs to kill time gnawing at one's brain to get out of it. Jimbeaux |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
