Rejecting evolution with science...

[porchrat]

Just this quick...



:erm:


:wtf:

Yea but their deity isn't part of evolution as a scientific discipline. Again that doesn't mean that science precludes the existence of a deity (which is what you seem to think), it just can't test for it and so ignores it as an avenue of investigation.

Suspending the need for evidence of the existence of your deity doesn't have to impact on your stance with regards to evolution. You can still hold that inheritable traits are filtered for by natural selection at a population level and that, over time, brings about genetic and morphological change.

 

[Techne]

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

To be fair, I don't think evidence is a problem for classical theists. The standard classical theist view of God is that if God exists then nothing can come into being or continue to happen without God creating it and sustaining it in existence. If classical theism is true it just logically follows that every contingent being that has ever existed and will ever exist is evidence for God. A person may think classical theism is true due the various proofs (e.g. here), so logic and reason is important. The evidence just naturally follows..

 

[Unhappy1]

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.

Not sure what you're actually trying to portray here.

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

Yes but only because we can test for both, we cant test for divine selection thus we cant rule out divine selection being natural selection.

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

How can you tell one from the other and whos talking about choosing two. Natural selection could be divinely guided and there is no way of ruling this out. Quite frankly i find it perplexing that this is all going over the top of your head.

 

[Sherbang]

Yea but their deity isn't part of evolution as a scientific discipline. Again that doesn't mean that science precludes the existence of a deity (which is what you seem to think), it just can't test for it and so ignores it as an avenue of investigation.

Suspending the need for evidence of the existence of your deity doesn't impact on your stance with regards to evolution.

Sorry, but I think the evolution by natural selection precludes evolution by gods selection.
It doesn't preclude the existence of a deity, no, but it does preclude a deity that has created all the creatures on earth according to some divine plan. If you accept evolution by natural selection then you need to suspend belief in evolution by intelligent design (or god). And if you believe in evolution by intelligent design (god) then you needs must suspend belief in evolution by natural selection.

 

[porchrat]

Sorry, but I think the evolution by natural selection precludes evolution by gods selection.

If your deity starts the ball rolling able to predict the outcome but other than that leaves the environment to do its thing the the environment is still filtering for positive traits... that is still natural selection. How is that not natural selection? It isn't guided, it isn't interfered with... I don't get how you can claim that isn't natural selection... on what basis do you make that claim, run me through the logic of how the environment filtering for positive traits doesn't qualify as natural selection.

It doesn't preclude the existence of a deity, no, but it does preclude a deity that has created all the creatures on earth according to some divine plan. If you accept evolution by natural selection then you need to suspend belief in evolution by intelligent design (or god). And if you believe in evolution by intelligent design (god) then you needs must suspend belief in evolution by natural selection.

Nope not as far as I can see.

 

[Unhappy1]

To be fair, I don't think evidence is a problem for classical theists. The standard classical theist view of God is that if God exists then nothing can come into being or continue to happen without God creating it and sustaining it in existence. If classical theism is true it just logically follows that every contingent being that has ever existed and will ever exist is evidence for God. A person may think classical theism is true due the various proofs (e.g. here), so logic and reason is important. The evidence just naturally follows..

No offense Techne but im not all that keen to get into this kind of debate. My definition of evidence is clearly something completely different to yours and i fear things will go nowhere.

 

[Sherbang]

Natural selection could be divinely guided and there is no way of ruling this out. Quite frankly i find it perplexing that this is all going over the top of your head.

By definition Natural selection cannot be divinely guided. Quite frankly i find it perplexing that you do not understand this. I think you and many others here are once again confusing models of reality with reality itself.

 

[Sherbang]

If your deity starts the ball rolling able to predict the outcome but other than that leaves the environment to do its thing the the environment is still filtering for positive traits... that is still natural selection. How is that not natural selection? It isn't guided, it isn't interfered with... I don't get how you can claim that isn't natural selection... on what basis do you make that claim, run me through the logic of how the environment filtering for positive traits doesn't qualify as natural selection.

What you've described is evolution by natural selection, yes. That's because you've made god irrelevant in your model.
In your version, god doesn't actually guide or create anything in evolution, he just predicts the outcome.
Evolution itself is still a mechanistic process and god becomes irrelevant in this model of reality.
In religion god is an intelligent designer of the universe, the creator of all things, including designing and creating every species.
If you know of a deity based religion for which this is not true, I'd like to know about it.

 

[SaiyanZ]

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.

The problem with saying that natural selection could be guided by a God is that you then have to define the God. That God would not fit in with religion as we know it. So this line of thought would be an issue for regular theists and atheists. It would basically be another religion without many followers.

 

[HapticSimian]

This guy knows a fair bit more about evolution than any of us, and he thinks this is a terribly silly conversation.

 

[Unhappy1]

By definition Natural selection cannot be divinely guided. Quite frankly i find it perplexing that you do not understand this. I think you and many others here are once again confusing models of reality with reality itself.

By definition , really? Since we cant test for a divinely guided process we cant give it an accurate definition. To be honest im doing my head in with you , this is something you dont seem to want to register and for what reason im not sure. I say this with as much politeness as possible but i have had enough of you as we seem to be going in circles, so im done.

The problem with saying that natural selection could be guided by a God is that you then have to define the God. That God would not fit in with religion as we know it. So this line of thought would be an issue for regular theists and atheists. It would basically be another religion without many followers.

Again thats also another part that isnt being debated.

 

[Sherbang]

By definition , really? Since we cant test for a divinely guided process we cant give it an accurate definition.

No, but we can give natural selection an accurate definition and that definition doesn't include a supernatural creator and is not compatible with one either

 

[Sherbang]

View attachment 46471

This guy knows a fair bit more about evolution than any of us, and he thinks this is a terribly silly conversation.

So... this guy knows a fair bit more about evolution than any of us, and he claims that religion and science are incompatible, that only rational evaluation of evidence is capable of reliably discovering the world and the way it works, and that scientists who hold religious views are only reflective of the idea "that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time". He has argued that the incompatibility of science and faith is based on irreconcilable differences in methodology, philosophy, and outcomes when they try to discern truths about the universe.

 

[HapticSimian]

/snip

Sorry, I missed the memo informing everyone that Jerry Coyne's opinion has been declared indisputable.

 

[Swa]

Because that is your only piece of driftwood to hold onto. Seeing as evolution is a fact. But then that is not something that you are ever going to wrap your head around is it?

Common descent isn't and that's something you are never going to wrap your head around.

He doesn't even know what the definition of natural selection is... The internet is free. Use it.

Or maybe you don't understand the reason for the question.

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

You have a problem with definitions here. That doesn't make science and religion incompatible. It's simply a matter of inaccuracy. Many people have pointed out the problems with the term "natural" selection. For example how can selection take place without someone to do the selecting and if nature is doing anything how can it as nature is essentially an abstract concept?

There's disagreement over exactly what natural selection is. Some think it's environmental pressures that will select for positive traits while others hold that it's the negative traits that are selected against. There's even the possibility that nothing is really selected and that it's just random picking with natural selection merely an outcome.

Even so let's say the term is as you understand it. That doesn't make the two incompatible. God can still guide mutations with natural selection merely acting on the result. You are being confused as is the rest of the public because of the metaphysics and abuse of terms in science that I'm guarding against.

One problem is how the theory of evolution through natural selection is being used interchangeably with evolution with common descent. The former being fact (it IS actually still theory) does not imply that the latter is also true because the former would be true regardless. It's metaphysics to make claims about the origin and diversification of life as there's no means to scientifically test these claims. A pattern is not support for common ancestry because it can't be claimed to be an evolutionary pattern. It's only an evolutionary pattern if common descent is true. The entire thing rests on that one point that science can't determine. Think of it like a book. The author tells you who did it but doesn't mention the person by name and instead says it was the one in the blue coat. Without reading the first chapter to see who wore the blue coat it's impossible to know who did it but the pages are missing.

TENS is still compatible with it even if life started from one cell or millions or even whole initial organisms.

 

[Sherbang]

Sorry, I missed the memo informing everyone that Jerry Coyne's opinion has been declared indisputable.

it hasn't... has the opinion of Francis Collins been declared indisputable, since you started with his pic :wtf:

 

[Swa]

View attachment 46473

So... this guy knows a fair bit more about evolution than any of us, and he claims that religion and science are incompatible, that only rational evaluation of evidence is capable of reliably discovering the world and the way it works, and that scientists who hold religious views are only reflective of the idea "that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time". He has argued that the incompatibility of science and faith is based on irreconcilable differences in methodology, philosophy, and outcomes when they try to discern truths about the universe.

He's abusing science. Science deals with how the physical world works whether that is by design or accident. Science doesn't care one way or the other as it doesn't make a difference to how it's conducted. Science can't disprove miraculous or divine events as it is confined to what is predictable. The two deal with completely separate sets of knowledge so it's impossible for them to conflict if science is done correctly.

 

[HapticSimian]

it hasn't... has the opinion of Francis Collins been declared indisputable, since you started with his pic :wtf:

No, but you'll have a hard time convincing the man who oversaw the sequencing of the human genome that his faith and evolution through what he'd likely also term 'natural selection' - still all that's under discussion - aren't compatible.

I will grant you this: this must be in the running for the singularly most perplexing discussion I've had on MyBB... I'm not sure how you should take that.

 

[Sherbang]

Common descent isn't and that's something you are never going to wrap your head around.


Or maybe you don't understand the reason for the question.


You have a problem with definitions here. That doesn't make science and religion incompatible. It's simply a matter of inaccuracy. Many people have pointed out the problems with the term "natural" selection. For example how can selection take place without someone to do the selecting and if nature is doing anything how can it as nature is essentially an abstract concept?

There's disagreement over exactly what natural selection is. Some think it's environmental pressures that will select for positive traits while others hold that it's the negative traits that are selected against. There's even the possibility that nothing is really selected and that it's just random picking with natural selection merely an outcome.

You are correct that there is debate over exactly what natural selection is, but there is no definition that includes a supernatural creator in the mix and no debate about including that in any definition of natural selection. There is no problem with my definition there.

Even so let's say the term is as you understand it. That doesn't make the two incompatible. God can still guide mutations with natural selection merely acting on the result. You are being confused as is the rest of the public because of the metaphysics and abuse of terms in science that I'm guarding against.

If god is guiding mutations in order to achieve specific results it is no longer natural evolution - it is divinely guided evolution, divine genetic modification or any other such term you care to choose.

 

[Sherbang]

He's abusing science. Science deals with how the physical world works whether that is by design or accident. Science doesn't care one way or the other as it doesn't make a difference to how it's conducted. Science can't disprove miraculous or divine events as it is confined to what is predictable. The two deal with completely separate sets of knowledge so it's impossible for them to conflict if science is done correctly.

But you can't just stick god into scientific hypothesis and hope no-one notices. Science deals with the physical world and empirical evidence and evolution by natural selection is a scientific explanation of physical evolution based on empirical evidence. There is no space foe god in that. If you believe god created the world and all the creatures in it then don't pretend to also believe a scientific explanation like evolution by natural selection which does not include god in it.