HapticSimian
Honorary Master
That does not preclude the possibility of natural selection being incorrectly labelled as such, regardless such a situation's apparent improbability. Improbabilities don't equate to incompatibilities.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Have you ever been to an airshow?
Rejecting evolution with science...
- Thread starter DJ...
- Start date
That does not preclude the possibility of natural selection being incorrectly labelled as such, regardless such a situation's apparent improbability. Improbabilities don't equate to incompatibilities.
Creation and change/evolution are two fundamentally different processes.
There are a few criteria that have to be met in order for something to undergo a process of change. These include:
I) A starting state when the change begins.
II) An end state when the change is done.
III) A transition state between the beginning and the end.
IV) Something that persists through the change.
Note that these are generic criteria and can be applied to any kind of change, including biological change (e.g. biological evolution), chemical change, astrophysical change etc.
When something begins to exist from nothingness then it is an example of creation.
So when someone says that something can be created through change then it appears (to me anyway) that the person is confusing two fundamentally different processes.
So it turns out you are a creationist after all... Quick question though, since empirical science does not deal with creation or creationism i.e it can neither establish nor refute it, how do you reconcile that with your claim that science explains creation... very well nogal. You seem confused... or just joking again as usualI believe in a creation story. Science explains it very well. I simply don't know the beginning of the story...yet...
.It really is hard to spot when you are being serious.
Last edited:
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here? Actually I am sure I don't understand what you mean.
Are you saying it's possible that natural selection is actually creation by design which has been incorrectly labelled?
That makes no sense - even if that's the case, the 2 ideas are still incompatible with each other??
So it turns out you are a creationist after all... Quick question though, since empirical science does not deal with creation or creationism i.e it can neither establish nor refute it, how do you reconcile that with your claim that science explains creation... very well nogal. You seem confused... or just joking again as usual
It really is hard to spot when you are being serious.
That was said incredibly facetiously...
HapticSimian
Honorary Master
I'm still saying what I have been throughout; you cannot negate the possibility of it being a guided process with 100% certainty, and even if you could that would do nothing to invalidate the possibility of a more distant creator.
There are a multitude of reasons to just about write off the likelihood of any gods' existence, but the certainty of life's diversification through evolution isn't a particularly good one.
porchrat
Honorary Master
What if the deity simply started it all off knowing every single variable that was to come from where it kicked off and then let evolution run its course, the course we observe today?
Seems that is perfectly compatible with evolution to me.
OrbitalDawn
Ulysses Everett McGill
How can you determine if we're specially made or not, or the process this creator used to do so? Seems you're claiming a dichotomy where there isn't one. We don't know enough (that is, we don't know anything) about how any of the multitude of religions' creators' go about doing their creation. Automatically precluding natural selection seems presumptious.
Why is creation only for something to begin to exist from nothingness? That would be creation ex nihilo. People create things every day. That is, they cause things that did not exist previously, to exist. It's always from existing material, though. Actually, come to think of it. Creation, as we can observe it, is only possible through change. Change of previously disassembled materials into something different, for example.
In contrast, creation ex nihilo remains but a faith-claim.
Why must creation take place through evolution?
Define "natural" "selection"
Incompatible with evolution. Not incompatible with science.
I explained this before. Seeing only creation ex nihilo as creation is an incredibly narrow definition while labeling everything else as evolution. I don't get how you can make these statements and then claim that we are misunderstanding science.
Here is an analogy. Suppose there is a piece of wood that slowly transforms into a chair. That is an example of evolution. Now take the same piece of wood cut it to pieces and hammer it together into a chair. That is no longer evolution for God sake it is creation. There is nothing in the definition of creation that implies it must be from nothing instead of from existing materials.
I really think you should end all the confusion here and explain your version of evolution since under your definition it could be literally anything under the sun.
SoulTax
Executive Member
But then that is not something that you are ever going to wrap your head around is it?
SaiyanZ
Executive Member
He doesn't even know what the definition of natural selection is... The internet is free. Use it.
Again, I think we're arguing at cross purposes here. You are both claiming that I cannot know if a creator was involved or not, and I agree with that. I don't know, I already stated I'm agnostic, I don't know.
The question here though is not what's true or not, but whether the two models of reality are compatible with each other, irrespective of which one is true. Evolution by natural selection offers a model of reality - a model which is evidence based and is seen by science to be an accurate model of reality. According to this model of reality, evolution is an unguided, non-intelligent process - there is no non-physical intelligent designer guiding the process but rather genetic mutations which survive or do not, resulting, over time, in increasingly complex loving organisms, which is where humans came from.
Religion offers different models of reality (depending on the religion) but what all deity based religions have in common, is that in their model of reality, creation and evolution is divinely inspired, intelligently and creatively guided by a deity and human beings were specifically created for a specific purpose.
I'm saying the two models of reality are incompatible - irrespective of which is or isn't true, a person cannot simultaneously believe or accept both models without experiencing cognitive dissonance - which will ultimately lead to them compromising one or the other viewpoint. Although people are actually capable of holding contradictory ideas, we all do, that doesn't make the ideas actually compatible. One must ultimately accept one or the other.
This is an example of compromising both models of reality in order to relieve cognitive dissonance - but it's not one I think religious people or scientists would be comfortable accepting. Religious people would have to accept that although the creator 'pressed the button' so to speak, it had no part in actually designing or guiding creation and humans are not divinely inspired or made in gods image but merely the result of random mutations and luck leading to advantageous traits. Aside from pressing the button you've taken god out of the picture all together and I don't think that would sit comfortably with anyone religious.
On the other side you've inserted a supernatural creator into a scientific explanation where none is needed and for which there is no empirical evidence - I don't think science would be comfortable with that either. I still maintain that the religious model of reality is incompatible with evolution, as a model of reality. One must ultimately accept one or the other.
Last edited:
porchrat
Honorary Master
If you believe that deity to be truly omniscient then it doesn't have to directly guide the process. It knows already that starting it off in a particular manner will result in a specific outcome that doesn't require any further intervention on its part. The deity still intended to have humans arise in that scenario so it doesn't mean humans weren't designed by their deity. Just that their deity was so fscking awesome that it didn't need to coddle the process all the way through but was able to set it all up in one move.
That way scientists can have their evolution is unguided and religious people can have their "evolution is the way my deity created us" and neither of them clash in any way that I can see.
Also I don't know where you get the idea that science needs to be comfortable with it. Science has no opinion either way on the supernatural. From what I can see those that are commenting are not talking about including the supernatural in science, they are saying there are ways to reconcile the supernatural and the science of evolution without contradiction. I have just demonstrated one. Asking for empirical evidence of the supernatural is just kookoo and I don't recall anybody suggesting that that was what was being discussed. You are shifting the goalposts now.
Last edited:
HapticSimian
Honorary Master
joelus, you are proposing a false dichotomy. I frankly can't find the energy to go into a terribly verbose response; suffice it to say that there exist nuanced renderings of both religion and acceptance of evolution which do not, in principle, conflict. We keep circling the same issue, and I can't quite fathom why.
:erm: because we disagree and can't find common ground :wtf:
HapticSimian
Honorary Master
Nooooo... Because I'm right and you refuse to admit it.
I'll (likely) bow out of this particular arc of discussion with this: there's a difference between accepting the diversification of life through evolution as a concept, and accepting purely natural processes as evolution's only viable explanation. The former doesn't necessitate the latter, and leaves ample room for universe-creating invisible pixies.
Doesn't make sense. Evolution by natural selection is by definition not designed, whether before or during the process.
Anyway, Why would an omniscient creator create so my creatures that went extinct and such imperfectly designed creatures.
I don't have the idea that science needs to be comfortable with it and I'm not asking for empirical evidence of the supernatural either.
I thought we were discussing the incompatibility (or not) between religion and science, in general, and religion and evolution, in particular. If a scientist wants to be religious then he either needs to suspend science - the need for empirical evidence - when it comes to god (which is OK) or he needs to give up the idea of a supernatural creator (which is also ok). Either way he needs to compromise one of his models of reality is all I'm saying. Since evolution is based on empirical evidence, it cannot attribute any part of evolution to god - for a religious person who says he believes in evolution by natural selection, that is a problem, unless his god is not a creator god and didn't, in his model of reality, create the beasts and plants and the people on earth. For an evolutionary scientist to say he believes god designed and created life and people, well then it wasn't natural selection, it can't be both, surely this is a problem?
I realise we're going around in circles but I can't see how this is a false dichotomy as HapticSimian says. I honestly can't see any way to resolve the two standpoints - evolution is an unguided, unintelligent process of natural selection or it is a guided, intelligent, creative process of god. How can it be both? Seriously?
Ok, bow out, I understand we're going around in circles here. We're talking about the incompatibility of science and religion, not just accepting the diversification of life through evolution as a concept.Nooooo... Because I'm right and you refuse to admit it.
I'll (likely) bow out of this particular arc of discussion with this: there's a difference between accepting the diversification of life through evolution as a concept, and accepting purely natural processes as evolution's only viable explanation. The former doesn't necessitate the latter, and leaves ample room for universe-creating invisible pixies.
Both science and religion can accept the diversification of life through evolution as a concept, there is no incompatibility there.
But neither science, nor religion, leave it at that point - they both offer differing and incompatible accounts of how evolution occurs and that's where they cannot be reconciled. Can you accept both that purely natural processes is evolution's only viable explanation (as proposed by natural selection) and also accept that god designed and guided evolution (as proposed by religion)?
Let’s take the example of a positron colliding with an electron to form a Z boson. Standard physics.
Now take into consideration the above described criteria needed for this to be an example of change.
1) A starting point. In this case, it begins is just before the positron collides with an electron
2) An end state. In this case it is the beginning of the existence of the Z boson.
3) A transition state between the starting point and end state.
4) Something persists through the change.
Points 3 and 4 need a little bit of explaining. Let’s, for arguments sake, assume that both the electron and the positron really lapse into nothingness. In other words they are both annihilated and not one single aspect of both of them persists. Nothing. Now, for arguments sake, assume that the Z boson really appeared out of nothingness. In other words, no part of it existed before the moment it began to exist. This, to my mind, would be an example of a process whereby annihilation and creation occur.
Let’s now for arguments sake assume that both the electron and the positron do not lapse into nothingness, but some part of it persists when it ceases to exist. One can perhaps argue that some part of it (whatever that is) persists in the quantum vacuum. Also, some of their parts persist to form a part (again, whatever it may be) the Z boson that began to exist due to their collision. Now we can begin to answer points 3 and 4. For point 3, the transition state may the state of an unstable quantum vacuum when no positron, election or Z boson exist during this process. For point 4, we see that some part of both the positron and electron persisted and formed part of the Z boson (again, whatever it may be).
Now, from this we can see that the process may very well be described as either an example of creation or an example of change. The interesting question now is, why can't this process be an example of both change and creation? I think it can and that is why I see no problem with creation and change (or evolution in general).
It appears you have some sort of definition of natural selection and that would imply that you have an understanding of the concept of fitness. Do you mind sharing your view here please?
