Rejecting evolution with science...

[Sherbang]

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.

He just demonstrates that a single human being can live with contradictory ideas and models of reality. That doesn't make the ideas less contradictory. (see my sig)

I'll take it as ... um... perplexing

 

[SaiyanZ]

Again thats also another part that isnt being debated.

Then I'm not sure what you guys are debating about. Sure an all-knowing God could be driving natural selection. I think you guys are using the words God and religion too broadly though, which is why the debate has gone on so long. A God driving natural selection would be compatible with a religion but incompatible with existing religions. So instead of just saying God or religion, one should say a new God and mention the specific religions that the God that drives natural selection is compatible or incompatible with. You can't just cover everything with one blanket.

 

[Techne]

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.

Jerry is actually a very good example of a person that tries his best to argue that science (including evolutionary theory) is incompatible with religion, creation, and a whole host of other ideas including free will. Problem is, he does not appear to be able to distinguish between empirical science and metaphysics (much like you it seems). So he then carries on abusing empirical science to try and argue against many non-empirical issues. On top of that, he said this about natural selection:
In his article "The Improbability Pump" (www.thenation.com) he defends the concept of natural selection from the criticisms of Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini by stating that:

But first, since selection is so uncontroversial to Dawkins yet so maligned by F&P, it behooves us to understand what it is. In principle, natural selection is simple. It is neither a "law" nor a "mechanism." It is, instead, a "process"–a process that is inevitable if two common conditions are met

From this I understand that he is saying natural selection is NOT a mechanism and that it IS a process.

In his book, Why Evolution Is True page 3, he says:

In essence, the modern theory of evolution is easy to grasp. It can be summarized in a single (albeit slightly long) sentence: Life on Earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.

From this I understand Jerry is saying natural selection IS a mechanism.

I am not really sure what he thinks natural selection is, much like you and others who claim it is incompatible with various religious views. I suspect the major issue is, as usual, related to people's differing views/definitions of concepts.

So what gives? Can you please state your view of natural selection?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

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.

It happens often with joelus. Had a similar thread about why he's an atheist that went on forever. He still denies it, by the way, even though he admits that he doesn't believe in any deities.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

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

I think this is the crux of the matter. Natural selection merely indicates pressures exerted on living organisms through their interaction with the natural world. Nothing about this precludes a supernatural agent being behind it, either influencing their origin or their behaviour. Evolutionary theory says nothing about this supernatural agent, because it's a metaphysical claim, not an empirical one.

Remember, religion holds that this supernatural agent created the natural world. Nature doesn't cease to exist because a divine agent is involved. The natural world still exists, and will still continue to exert certain pressures on living organisms.

 

[porchrat]

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.

No god does create in that scenario. He starts the ball rolling in a particular manner knowing the end result (the formation of Man and all the other species he wanted scurrying about this blue marble we call home) as he is truly omniscient. However he doesn't interfere in the process once it has begun (because he doesn't need to, he knows how all the variables are going to play out and thus is happy with the results before it all even begins). That is still creation and natural selection at the same time. The natural selection process isn't guided, it proceeds naturally given a set of starting parameters. None of this is incompatible with the scientific view as far as I can see and it most certainly doesn't make the deity irrelevant.

 

[Swa]

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.

There is no definition that excludes it either.

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.

Not natural but still evolution. Look if we break down evolution to its most basic there is only the claim that mutations happen and some of those survive while others don't. The latter was termed natural selection by Darwin but Darwin had his own ideas on it that it was somehow a driving force that caused required changes to occur. Today there are two main views on it. One mainly promoted by the naturalists is that beneficial mutations are selected for. The other is that harmful mutations are selected against. On the surface they sound almost the same but they are not. The former can increase fitness by keeping beneficial traits. The latter only prevents a decrease in fitness but beneficial traits are subject to randomness. That's why naturalists are trying to prove that evolution can result in a net increase in fitness.

Now mutations are simply when copied DNA codons are different than the original. Science can't make a determination that this happens by natural means or divine guidance. That would be metaphysical assumptions not contained within the theory. If God creates the beneficial mutations there is still room for natural selection to act. They need to be preserved while harmful mutations have to be eliminated. Sure it's no longer natural evolution but science has never made such determination that it is purely natural.

I know what you're saying here. Some models of evolution as a natural process are incompatible with religion. But those versions are not pure science in any case. A religious scientist doesn't have to compromise on science because real science doesn't include metaphysics. Also as I said there's no reason a person can't believe God created life in its various forms and natural evolution just picked up from there. That's why I say you're being confused by the terms here. Evolution isn't common descent. That's not something science can determine to be true, it's a metaphysical assumption.

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.

I don't see how you can say that. It stems from a misunderstanding of what science is. Who says there's no space for God? There's no space in science to investigate God's actions because science deals with predictable phenomenon. That doesn't mean science can discount God and say everything happens because of natural laws. I can believe in natural laws as instantiated by God to govern our existence but also that Jesus defied those laws because He has power over them.

It happens often with joelus. Had a similar thread about why he's an atheist that went on forever. He still denies it, by the way, even though he admits that he doesn't believe in any deities.

Because he isn't. He's agnostic. We've been through this before, agnostic implies a lack of believe in deities while atheist is the positive belief no deities exist. Some people here seem to be unable to understand that just as much as Joelus is understanding what you're saying.

 

[GazWrack]

*snip*
As to why an omniscient creator would create so many animals to go extinct along the way, who knows.
*snip*

To make an omlet you gotta break some eggs.
Your dog watching you making an omlet will be thking "What a moron, , he be breaking perfectly good eggs"
meanwhile...

 

[GazWrack]

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.

(This is not a Bible bashing post - and is completely off topic)
I'd just like to point something out here. The Christian God is believed to be perfect and eternal. The creator that exists outside of the natural universe and is not subject to any of it's laws. The creator made those laws.

The people who wrote stories in the bible, like The Genesis, were trying to make sense of how things came about.
Just like we are today.

They did not have the knowledge concerning biology we have today. And for them, perhaps a few thousand years was an vastly huge span of time and they couldn't comprehend millions or billions of years, and explainaing things in terms of thousands of years seemed more plausible. (Can you actually comprehend what a million years is like? It's difficult) We refer to a civilisation 2, 000 years old as ancient. But comapred to the life of the earth, 2, 000 years is nothing.

In a few thousand years time they may look back at our scientific explainations and say that we were profoundly ignorant...

 

[Unhappy1]

Then I'm not sure what you guys are debating about. Sure an all-knowing God could be driving natural selection. I think you guys are using the words God and religion too broadly though, which is why the debate has gone on so long. A God driving natural selection would be compatible with a religion but incompatible with existing religions. So instead of just saying God or religion, one should say a new God and mention the specific religions that the God that drives natural selection is compatible or incompatible with. You can't just cover everything with one blanket.

Definitions were an issue yes , i think i pointed that out in one of my posts and i think a few others did also. Anyways as i said before im done with that debate, it was going nowhere.

The people who wrote stories in the bible, like The Genesis, were trying to make sense of how things came about.
Just like we are today.

They did not have the knowledge concerning biology we have today. And for them, perhaps a few thousand years was an vastly huge span of time and they couldn't comprehend millions or billions of years, and explainaing things in terms of thousands of years seemed more plausible. (Can you actually comprehend what a million years is like? It's difficult) We refer to a civilisation 2, 000 years old as ancient. But comapred to the life of the earth, 2, 000 years is nothing.

In a few thousand years time they may look back at our scientific explainations and say that we were profoundly ignorant...

Sure i agree and that is one of the many reasons why i dont take the bible seriously, for facts, morals or whatever else. As you said its basically written by a bunch of sheep herders dwelling in caves trying to explain the world around them. The entire book just reeks of ignorance.

 

[RiaX]

so evolution disproven yet ? no ? ok as you were

 

[Swa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

[Swa]

Thought I'd just put this out there.

Scientific Consensus on Evolution Not Shared by Public
Humans and other
living things have... Public Scientists
Evolved over time... 61% 97%
Due to natural processes 32% 87%
Guided by supreme being 22% 8%
Existed in their present form
since the beginning of time 31% 2%

One has to wonder what happened to the other 3%. Fence sitters or maybe rounding errors? Or perhaps some other form of ID? In any case only 87% of scientists believe in natural evolution. Far from the claimed "consensus" and about 11% (1 out of 9) seem to believe in ID.

 

[Ekstasis]

Thought I'd just put this out there.

Scientific Consensus on Evolution Not Shared by Public
Humans and other
living things have... Public Scientists
Evolved over time... 61% 97%
Due to natural processes 32% 87%
Guided by supreme being 22% 8%
Existed in their present form
since the beginning of time 31% 2%

One has to wonder what happened to the other 3%. Fence sitters or maybe rounding errors? Or perhaps some other form of ID? In any case only 87% of scientists believe in natural evolution. Far from the claimed "consensus" and about 11% (1 out of 9) seem to believe in ID.

The other 13% scientists will be the relidiots according to some. I have a firm belief still that many scientists are going with this c@rp to save their behinds, their jobs and to still get government funding for projects.
On social grounds (off the record) they'll give their real opinion about evolution and common decent, but in public (media) the words need to be carefully selected.

 

[Ekstasis]

To be more precise, evolution is not just a scientific theory anymore, it's a ("religious")movement

 

[HapticSimian]

The other 13% scientists will be the relidiots according to some. I have a firm belief still that many scientists are going with this c@rp to save their behinds, their jobs and to still get government funding for projects.
On social grounds (off the record) they'll give their real opinion about evolution and common decent, but in public (media) the words need to be carefully selected.

Oh, you little conspiracy theorist you... Here's what clown shoes' post should have prompted you to say:

1. What the public thinks is largely irrelevant.
2. What percentage of said scientists are in fields relevant to life's history?
3. What's your source?

Have you found the courage to have a bit of a rummage through TalkOrigins? It's all neatly referenced and everything.

 

[porchrat]

Oh, you little conspiracy theorist you... Here's what clown shoes' post should have prompted you to say:

1. What the public thinks is largely irrelevant.

Yup

2. What percentage of said scientists are in fields relevant to life's history?

This is often a problem with those ridiculous declarations you see floating around that boast having been signed by X number of thousand scientists. The scientists are invariably computer scientists or radiation chemists or some other discipline that has nothing to do with evolution.

According to some of those declaration qualification requires I am classified as an expert in evolutionary theories. Most of MyBB is actually.

3. What's your source?

Dude sources don't matter to the average YEC. Unless that source is the bible of course.

Have you found the courage to have a bit of a rummage through TalkOrigins? It's all neatly referenced and everything.

I'm guessing Eks regards this as biased propaganda.

 

[HapticSimian]

This is often a problem with those ridiculous declarations you see floating around that boast having been signed by X number of thousand scientists. The scientists are invariably computer scientists or radiation chemists or some other discipline that has nothing to do with evolution.

According to some of those declaration qualification requires I am classified as an expert in evolutionary theories. Most of MyBB is actually.

Of course what I should've added is that sample size is also rather important. Project Steve is still relevant.

Dude sources don't matter to the average YEC. Unless that source is the bible of course.

Swak's not worth the time, but a teeny bit of me still wants to give Ekstasis a fair shake at edumacating himself. Maybe it's because we both don't like cats.

I'm guessing Eks regards this as biased propaganda.

He is free to regard it as anything he chooses, of course; doesn't mean I can't hope that he'll actually have a squizz.

 

[Swa]

The other 13% scientists will be the relidiots according to some. I have a firm belief still that many scientists are going with this c@rp to save their behinds, their jobs and to still get government funding for projects.
On social grounds (off the record) they'll give their real opinion about evolution and common decent, but in public (media) the words need to be carefully selected.

What is interesting here is that evolution is the scientific default so most of those that believe it are those that haven't looked at the evidence. The real consideration is how many have actually looked at the evidence and even more are required to look at it. If you take that into account the actual support for evolution is rather dismal.

HS can keep coming with this conspiracy crap. The fact is that science as a field can't keep things contained. The real problem is with the scientific press and conventional media and we all know conspiracies are not needed for propaganda to flourish. I guess he also thinks there's a conspiracy among all those creation and ID societies to try and pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Swak's not worth the time, but a teeny bit of me still wants to give Ekstasis a fair shake at edumacating himself. Maybe it's because we both don't like cats.

I can't even recall the amount of threads where he's been active on this topic, and yet he still gets basic things wrong, continues with his wholly unsubstantiated conspiracy theory nonsense, and thinks Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is accurate, because it validates aforementioned conspiracy theory, and just-so-happens to support his previously held beliefs.