Rejecting evolution with science...

[Techne]

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.

Doesn't make sense. Evolution by natural selection is by definition not designed, whether before or during the process.

I think this is the problem. Evolutionary theory do not make these non-empirical metaphysical claims. In other words, you have attached certain metaphysical principles that are not part of the empirical theory of evolution.

Anyway, Why would an omniscient creator create so my creatures that went extinct and such imperfectly designed creatures.

What is the problem? To my mind, a perfect thing is something that is unable to undergo a process of change whereby it can change towards something less perfect or more perfect. Anything that undergoes change appears to be not perfect.

 

[Sherbang]

I think this is the problem. Evolutionary theory do not make these non-empirical metaphysical claims. In other words, you have attached certain metaphysical principles that are not part of the empirical theory of evolution.

Evolution by natural selection describes a mechanism of evolution which is an unguided, non-intelligent process. That is not a metaphysical claim in any way?

 

[HapticSimian]

goddammit

...

We're talking about the incompatibility of science and religion...

I don't believe we are; you might be.

Both science and religion can accept the diversification of life through evolution as a concept, there is no incompatibility there.

This is all I've been saying.

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.

That may or may not be the case, but it is outside of the scope of this thread & the boundaries many of us tried to impose on the discussion.

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)?

No, because that'd be inherently contradictory, but the religious mind is capable of very subtle nuances

 

[Sherbang]

goddammit


I don't believe we are; you might be.


This is all I've been saying.


That may or may not be the case, but it is outside of the scope of this thread & the boundaries many of us tried to impose on the discussion.


No, because that'd be inherently contradictory, but the religious mind is capable of very subtle nuances

Ok fair enough, I came into the discussion late but WE were discussing it.

Techne started it:

I think part of the problem is the dishonest claims by a small group of people (often in a position of some sort of authority) that evolution is incompatible with creation, the Bible, the soul, original sin etc. I.e. they abuse science. Some people take these erroneous claims to heart and then kick against the idea of evolution as if it somehow negates their particular world view. They then abuse science (e.g. ID, YEC) in a similar fashion as those whom made these dishonest claims. Then you sadly end up in this situation:

let's just be clear about the fact that those 'abusing science' in order to make evolution and theism incompatible are for the most part literal creationists of some sort...

Yeah i only see this happening on the side of the creationists, its the religious people (often in a position of some sort of authority) making the claims that religion and evolution cant go hand in hand.

You jumped in here - before me:

I haven't agreed with you in a while...

There are, in my opinion, two further facets to this illustrated by your comic but not mentioned above:

1. Those who view the bible as wholly inerrant and as an accurate depiction of a world with a history spanning 10,000 years or less are necessarily and rightfully - and inescapably - threatened by contemporary knowledge. I'll grant they do make a disproportionate amount of noise, but I do think it is high time that they are shown the intolerance they so richly deserve. Not before a reasonable attempt to educate has been made, of course.
2. I also see others who act directly opposite to what you state above, wanting to turn every. single. thing. into some sign or fingerprint of a creator when they very well aren't. I say this not in reference to the metaphysical [-]depths you've plumbed[/-] heights you've reached of course, but in reference to those who want to turn every pattern and every constant into a sign of creation.

Just as evolutionary study does not provide, in and of itself, any evidence against souls, the bible, creation and whatever else religiously inclined, it doesn't provide any evidence for such phenomena either. I'm not convinced that is necessarily true of all empirical study, but that's a different discussion...

*edit*

Rereading, I see you do touch on point 2...

We are talking specifically about evolution and religion being compatible/incompatible here, right?

Again, the vast bulk of opposition to this stems directly from religious people, for religious reasons...

 

[Techne]

Evolution by natural selection describes a mechanism of evolution which is an unguided, non-intelligent process. That is not a metaphysical claim in any way?

Of course it is. The correct way of putting it is:
Evolution by natural selection describes a mechanism of evolution.

It is not an empirical statement to say that the process is unguided or non-intelligent or purposeless etc. Btw, what exactly is your understanding of natural selection and evolutionary fitness?

 

[Unhappy1]

Oh ok, I agree, not all christians take genesis literally, many may see it as metaphorical - but they still believe god created the universe and all the creatures in it, created humans above all other creatures, etc which is incompatible with belief in evolution by natural selection which shows that any specific outcome of the human species, or any species, came about by chance and natural selection - not divine purpose.

How do you know natural selection isnt a divinely designed process, there isnt exactly a way to test this so its not like you could rule it out. If evolution rules out a creator in your opinion then why are you agnostic , why you not a strong or positive atheist?

 

[Unhappy1]

Ok fair enough, I came into the discussion late but WE were discussing it.

No we were talking about evolution falsifying religion , not the compatibility between science and religion. Ive already told you this once and asked you to go back and read, now im asking you to do that for the second time. Just read the parts that you quoted ffs.

 

[HapticSimian]

Ok fair enough, I came into the discussion late but WE were discussing it.

Techne started it:






You jumped in here - before me:

Techne always starts it. I did try, numerous times, to express the limitations of what I was attempting to convey.

In a broad sense I'd likely agree with you, as I think an honest look at what various religions profess, measured against what we know empirically, leaves precious little room for gods. But that's a discussion for PD, and that itself carries some implications...

 

[Sherbang]

How do you know natural selection isnt a divinely designed process, there isnt exactly a way to test this so its not like you could rule it out. If evolution rules out a creator in your opinion then why are you agnostic , why you not a strong or positive atheist?

Because, if natural selection were a divinely designed process it wouldn't be natural selection it would be divine selection. Evolution doesn't rule out a creator, in my opinion, but evolution by natural selection does. Evolution by divine selection may be accurate (despite the lack of empirical evidence) but then don't pretend to believe evolution is both 'natural' selection AND 'divine' selection - the two ideas are not compatible

 

[Unhappy1]

Because, if natural selection were a divinely designed process it wouldn't be natural selection it would be divine selection. Evolution doesn't rule out a creator, in my opinion, but evolution by natural selection does. Evolution by divine selection may be accurate (despite the lack of empirical evidence) but then don't pretend to believe evolution is both 'natural' selection AND 'divine' selection - the two ideas are not compatible

All you are doing is arguing definitions , you cant rule out that natural selection isnt divine selection. You or anyone else doesnt even know what divine selection might be.

 

[porchrat]

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.

You aren't making sense. There is no "before" the process. Evolution is the process and only the process. Anything that came before has nothing to do with evolution. I don't care if some deity actually created the first reproducible unit of life and evolution progressed from there, that doesn't at all impact on the theory of evolution.

Evolution also doesn't say we aren't specially created. It can't, that is a metaphysical concept and hence science has no opinion on that.

As to why an omniscient creator would create so many animals to go extinct along the way, who knows. Maybe he found it entertaining. It certainly doesn't stand as any concrete evidence against a creator mate.

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.

You do have ideas on what science would and wouldn't be comfortable with and you do seem to think this is about empirical evidence:
"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 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).

Most religious people I encounter suspend the need for evidence when it comes to their deity. A scientist is not required to apply science in every aspect of his/her existence. They can if they choose to but not doing so doesn't suddenly make evolution and religion incompatible. Evolution makes no definitive statements about the existence of a deity or the position of human beings as specially created by that deity. It can't. Those are metaphysical claims, not physical ones and hence science cannot measure that.

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?

Nope not a problem. As I have pointed out you can believe the deity kicked the whole thing off with the express purpose of having Man at some point be an outcome. That still means environmental pressures filter for favourable traits, that evolution occurs through natural selection.

Even if you want to believe your deity guides the process with some tiny imperceptible nudges here and there science can't rule that out. The scientific community doesn't have the ability to monitor all aspects of our environment to determine whether or not any interference is occurring. Until that can be achieved I don't see how believing that there are some tiny interferences here and there is incompatible with science as it stands. That doesn't mean the environment isn't still separating out favoured traits, just that there is also this deity helping things along that we so far don't have the ability to detect, and possibly never will. I don't see how that view could impede scientific research in the field of evolution at all.

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?

I don't understand why you battle to understand what people are saying here. It is quite apparent to me and apparently everyone else but you.

 

[SaiyanZ]

I agree with Joelus to an extent. Evolution by natural selection is a process. It may be guided by God, who knows. It is not the common God that people believe in though, which is the point. The whole Adam and Eve molded from clay story plus the wiping out of the entire earth species by flood is not compatible with evolution. Repopulating the earth a few thousand years ago with two of each species on a boat to reach the current levels of diversity is not possible. The boat would have to be the size of a continent, the animals would have to not feed on each other, the birth rates afterwards would have to be crazily high to achieve to reach current population levels. What about microorganisms,insects, plants etc... Then afterwards there is the problem of spreading the animals all over the world and the food chain issue. The population of herbivores needs to be much larger than the predators such as lions or extinction would follow. So you'd also have to assume that nothing had to feed for a few centuries after the flood. This is just some of the issues that arise.

 

[Sherbang]

All you are doing is arguing definitions , you cant rule out that natural selection isnt divine selection. You or anyone else doesnt even know what divine selection might be.

You can't just change definitions to suit yourself. Natural selection is a scientific term with a very specific meaning, and part of that meaning is that natural selection is not artificial selection. You wouldn't call the plants or animals that have been specifically bred by people to have specific characteristics 'natural' selection, you would call it artificial selection or selective breeding. Likewise, you wouldn't call plants or animals that have been specifically bred by gods to have specific characteristics 'natural' selection, you would call it divine or artificial selection.

 

[Sherbang]

You aren't making sense. There is no "before" the process. Evolution is the process and only the process. Anything that came before has nothing to do with evolution. I don't care if some deity actually created the first reproducible unit of life and evolution progressed from there, that doesn't at all impact on the theory of evolution.

Lol that's why the first thing I said was in my post you quoted was... "Doesn't make sense."
With god there could be before. If he designed everything, put together a blueprint and then set evolution on it's merry way all going according to his plan then that would be design before the process. Which is why I said "Evolution by natural selection is by definition not designed, whether before or during the process."

Evolution also doesn't say we aren't specially created. It can't, that is a metaphysical concept and hence science has no opinion on that.

Actually, it can. To say we were specially created is to say we were designed to be this way. See point above: "Evolution by natural selection is by definition not designed, whether before or during the process."

Most religious people I encounter suspend the need for evidence when it comes to their deity. A scientist is not required to apply science in every aspect of his/her existence. They can if they choose to but not doing so doesn't suddenly make evolution and religion incompatible.

That's it in a nutshell. If religion and science (or the concept of evolution by natural selection) were compatible there would be NO NEED to suspend one belief for the other!

I don't understand why you battle to understand what people are saying here. It is quite apparent to me and apparently everyone else but you.

And I don't understand why you battle to understand what I'm saying here. You've just admitted the two models of reality are not compatible and one has to suspend one when looking at the world from one or the other.
I guess if apparently everyone else but me agrees with you then you must be right

 

[porchrat]

Lol that's why the first thing I said was in my post you quoted was... "Doesn't make sense."
With god there could be before. If he designed everything, put together a blueprint and then set evolution on it's merry way all going according to his plan then that would be design before the process. Which is why I said "Evolution by natural selection is by definition not designed, whether before or during the process."

The role of the deity is metaphysical. It isn't part of evolution and nobody is saying it has to be in order for evolution and religion to coexist and be compatible. A deity magicking up the first reproducible unit of life and starting the whole shebang off isn't covered in evolution and doesn't concern evolution in the least. Those 2 ideas are perfectly compatible.

Actually, it can. To say we were specially created is to say we were designed to be this way. See point above: "Evolution by natural selection is by definition not designed, whether before or during the process."

You are actually going to have to demonstrate how something being shaped by the environment as it evolves moving forward from the first position of inheritable traits has any influence on what happened leading up to that first moment from which inheritable traits could be passed on.

Evolution concerns only life as it moves forward, not what happened before life began, or the formation of life. How life was formed and whether or not it was formed in such a manner by some omniscient (or at least very very intelligent so as to accurately predict the outcome given all the variables) creator doesn't concern evolution. Life can still move forward being selected for through natural selection. The natural environment is still doing the filtering with no deity involved in that process at all (not that that is the only possibility mind you).

That's it in a nutshell. If religion and science (or the concept of evolution by natural selection) were compatible there would be NO NEED to suspend one belief for the other!

Where did I say anybody would need to suspend any belief they held with regards to evolution or their religion in that paragraph?

You can believe that your deity kicked life off and got the ball rolling in a manner that it predicted would result in Man and at the same time hold to the view that the environment filters favourable traits of all life on this planet... hold to evolution. If you think that the theory of evolution says that no deity could have created life to start the whole thing off then I don't know what you are reading but it isn't anything to do with the theory of evolution as I know it.

I think you have put words in my mouth.

 

[Unhappy1]

You can't just change definitions to suit yourself. Natural selection is a scientific term with a very specific meaning, and part of that meaning is that natural selection is not artificial selection.

Artificial selection is a human process, its something we can test for and understand unlike divine selection. So far a bad start.

You wouldn't call the plants or animals that have been specifically bred by people to have specific characteristics 'natural' selection, you would call it artificial selection.

Yes in natural selection i could rule out artificial selection and vice versa , thus effectively giving it the proper definition.

Likewise, you wouldn't call plants or animals that have been specifically bred by gods to have specific characteristics 'natural' selection, you would call it divine or artificial selection.

How would you know if they have been "bred by gods" , what methods are you using to test for this "divine selection"? What separates natural selection and divine selection, or can you admit they could both be the same thing?

I agree with Joelus to an extent. Evolution by natural selection is a process. It may be guided by God, who knows. It is not the common God that people believe in though, which is the point. The whole Adam and Eve molded from clay story plus the wiping out of the entire earth species by flood is not compatible with evolution. Repopulating the earth a few thousand years ago with two of each species on a boat to reach the current levels of diversity is not possible. The boat would have to be the size of a continent, the animals would have to not feed on each other, the birth rates afterwards would have to be crazily high to achieve to reach current population levels. What about microorganisms,insects, plants etc... Then afterwards there is the problem of spreading the animals all over the world and the food chain issue. The population of herbivores needs to be much larger than the predators such as lions or extinction would follow. So you'd also have to assume that nothing had to feed for a few centuries after the flood. This is just some of the issues that arise.

I dont think you have been reading the discussion properly , we are not arguing a literal interpretation of the bible. But in fact natural selection being guided by god.

 

[Techne]

Which is why I said "Evolution by natural selection is by definition not designed, whether before or during the process."

This is a non-empirical statement. Again, it is not an empirical statement to say that the process is unguided or non-intelligent or purposeless etc. You are trying to mix empirical science with metaphysics and that is the problem.

Could you please elaborate on your understanding of the concept of natural selection and evolutionary fitness?

 

[Sherbang]

Just this quick...

Where did I say anybody would need to suspend any belief they held with regards to evolution or their religion in that paragraph?
I think you have put words in my mouth.

:erm:

Most religious people I encounter suspend the need for evidence when it comes to their deity.

:wtf:

 

[Sherbang]

Artificial selection is a human process, its something we can test for and understand unlike divine selection. So far a bad start.

Irrelevant, I'm talking about incompatible models of reality. If you believe god is selectively breeding species you don't believe natural selection is breeding species. They concepts are incompatible.

Yes in natural selection i could rule out artificial selection and vice versa , thus effectively giving it the proper definition.

Thank you, that's what I was saying. natural selection rules out artificial selection

How would you know if they have been "bred by gods" , what methods are you using to test for this "divine selection"? What separates natural selection and divine selection, or can you admit they could both be the same thing?

There is no way to know. I'm talking about peoples beliefs and incompatible models of reality. natural selection and divine selection cannot be the same thing no but you may not be able to tell one from the other - so you choose which one makes more sense to you. To choose both means you're confused

 

[Unhappy1]

Just this quick...



:erm:


:wtf:

Im pretty sure suspending the need for evidence does not equal suspending the belief itself.