Just proves that you either ignored or did not understand the conversation this conclusion came from.
Richard
Since God is everywhere this would mean science should be disputed everywhere, according to you. This would mean the science of weather or disease should be disputed.
No one is insulted when people use non-scientific arguments against the theory of evolution. Rather, most people just don’t find such challenges that compelling.
4 Likes
Only if it was not accepted.
IOW you disregard them.
Brilliant.
Richard
You are saying it shouldn’t be accepted because God could be involved.
Yes. I follow the empirical evidence.
No I am not, and I have been telling you that ever since you brought the subject back up.
(I also told you I didn’t want to discuss it with you)
Precisely
Richard
“What is disputed is that Science therefore is correct in an area where God could be.”-- @RichardG
Since God could be anywhere, this means all of science is disputed.
2 Likes
I am sorry but both your logic and your reasoning fail. You clearly do not understand what I am saying. Suffice it to say, I am not saying what you claim.
(And I have exhausted all attempts at explaining why you are wrong. It really is like banging my head against a brick wall)
Richard
Here’s a philosophical question for you: does God want His children to understand how the universe He created works? I think yes. From the mountain of evidence that ToE is the process that He used to create the diversity of life that we see on earth, many scientists take pleasure in “thinking God’s thoughts after Him”. The scientist can approach the subject with humility, and say to herself: “I don’t know exactly how God used the process of evolution to accomplish His purposes, but I believe that He is big enough to do that, and that He is glorified as I seek to understand more of how He did it”. It would be very confusing if God gave us so much evidence of ToE, but it was really just a ruse.
There are also plenty of God’s thoughts in the study of the physical sciences and the mathematical sciences, a tiny bit of the latter which I have had the privilege of studying.
3 Likes
Clearly you have not identified my position.
I accept the basic processes of evolution and I accept that ToE is the logical “Scientific” conclusion but
Science cannot account for God in its understanding and inserts “random” where God could be. IOW Theistic Evolution suggests that instead of the changes being random they are being guided. The precise mechanisms for that are not really important to me, but might be considered frustrating for a scientist.
Richard
Your position is obvious, and the flaws in it are obvious to everyone except you.
The main flaw is, of course, that you hold evolution as being exceptional when your ‘points’ apply equally well to astronomy, meteorology, geology, and a host of other sciences which involve long chains of events that are effectively random.
1 Like
I do wish people would stop telling me what I believe or what my beliefs apply to.
If you cannot see the difference between ToE and other scientific theories then fair enough. I can, and I am not alone. ToE is as similar to other theories as a cheesecake is to sponge cakes
Richard
I apologize for my misunderstanding.
I would suggest that the word “random” can be loaded with philosophical meaning that can be used for various purposes. You appear to use it to fill God into a gap of understanding. Philosophers such as Dawkins use it to eliminate God.
As noted previously, the scientific definition of “random” is neutral with respect to divine purpose. In many ways that is good, because often when science gets mixed up with divine purpose, it ends up getting off track to something that humans perceive as divine purpose, but really isn’t. Of course, many scientists seek divine guidance in how they pursue their work. But, science, when pursued without getting tied up in philosophy, may help us discover truth about God’s creation, and therefore about God.
2 Likes
It seems that it is the “concept” of random that is the root of disagreement. If linked to chance it makes Eovolution a cosmic fluke. On the other hand if there is any sort of guidance or direction God comes into te frame and Natural Selection takes back step. If the changes are ordained the resut will not rely on comoetition, Things developbecause that is the ordained development. Natural Selection would have no function at all. Howevver, my guess would be thqt it is not so clear cut or managed with uch orecision leaving “chance” to have its way, if under parameters.
Richard
Only if natural selection doesn’t work – which given that it has been observed is not an option.
That would apply to cosmology, stellar physics, geology, and a lot more. For those, the “guidance” is built-in by the nature of materials involved. Yet the same is true of biology, which is ultimately chemistry under special conditions – but natural selection adds a layer of “guidance” on top, so since God would be consistent there is no reason to expect additional guidance.
Though a foray into Aristotle would be helpful, with his conception of four “causes”: material guidance is what we observe, so if that is what you mean your claim is wrong; yet if teleological guidance is what you have in mind, that’s a different matter.
So it seems to me that the argument here is clashing due to two different “causes” of guidance: material or functional on the one hand with teleological or goal-oriented on the other hand. The problem is that statistically there is no evidence for anything goal-oriented in evolution, so scientists see no reason to include it – while on the other hand enough teleological guidance to get from single-cell to human is so minimal that it would be lost in the background, just a bit of “noise” indistinguishable from the randomness of mutations.
That’s why I found the calculation that one university friend did that said that to get from single cell to human would have needed only seven interventions so fascinating: God’s hand, as so often is the case, would be utterly hidden.
The thing here is that if there is some teleological guidance going on, there is no way to actually argue for it since it can’t possibly show up in observations – we could be looking straight at it but have no way of knowing that was what we were seeing. And that is why scientists seem so callous on the topic: if something can’t be detected it must be neglected, which is a way of saying that if it is too small to be measured it is effectively zero.
2 Likes
How can someone so learned and qualified not understand the concept behind Natural Selection?
Natural Selection can only select from the chices presented to it.
It does not control any direcetion or development/ It does not control what options are available.
Natural Selection does not “guide”, it is reactionary not proactive therefore its control is minor.
Richard
1 Like
Richard I like your point to jamyycakes, but can you clarify the above…isn’t your first statement and your last statement there a contradiction?
Perhaps i should ellaborate…
Within the boundaries of these forums, wouldn’t it be that the Christian scientist is the real issue and not the philosopher? I make that claim because a scientist also has a philosophy…even if we just call it personal bias. Isnt that an inescapable observation/part of the human condition?
I simply do not understand how any Christian manages to make this conclusion?
How is it that you are so convinced the creator has no further input into the “bricks and mortar” of the building when he has demonstrated an enormous amount of manipulation and interest in the wellbeing of the individuals inside that building? (ie cloud over the tabernacle at Sinai, The Cross, His direct approach to Saul [later Paul] on the road to Damascus in Acts 9)
I mean honestly, in your own home , do you genuinely apply the same principles that you do here? ie “stuff the house all i care about is the people inside it”.
So what happens when the house ages/weather/succumbs to termite infestation etc, eventually collapsing around said individuals inside it?
If pretty much everything we know appears to “naturally undo”…
Wouldn’t you agree that said house needs ongoing maintenance given that one could fundamentally argue the house evolved as a result of random unguided/undirected processes and yet if left to nautre, it falls into ruin and all the building effort is eventually “undone”?
How do we explain that if we evolved, and science is unbiased and provides insight into the stuff all around us, why does the stuff we make de-evovle?
The bible tells us exactly why, but for those Christians who do not interpret Genesis 3 as it reads via a normal use of language, i think the statement you made above in light of the de-evolution of human designed things, might be a big philosophical problem.
Id suggest that the “undoing” example I’ve given there [de-evolution of human designed things] is a consequence of sin and that the reality of the “house illustration” above suggests that God must keep a steadying hand on all of His creation (the earth itself AND all life residing on it).
I can also add another dilemma and criticism to your statement there St Roymond…the sun is burning out and will eventually “die”. That means “kaput” for us unless God steps in and prevents Kaput from happening…a definite example of the notion that God must regularly guide his own “bricks and mortar”…otherwise i think youre falling into the belief that Mormons propose in the Movie Battlestar Galactica…God has to guide us to another planet.
My issue with guiding us to another planet is this:
if God cant control the bricks and mortar and stop it from self destructing, given we are also made up of the same basic stuff, how could he possibly prevent us from de-evolving back into the dust from which we came? That would mean that salvation and redemption through the second coming of Christ, which are unscientific, are nonsensical fairytales.
It eliminates the deadly and retains the useful. That alone is guidance.
Its control is huge since it is handed lots of mutations to sort.
In computer science, sorting is powerful. Natural selection is powerful because it can sort through “code” that hasn’t been written yet.
It’s analogous to a gyroscope: the gyro doesn’t steer a craft, but it keeps it running even and balanced.
2 Likes
As it is something which cannot be empirically verified, I think it’s a worthwhile issue for scientists to consider. That and the unobservable nature of an uncaused cause.
And yet the world just keeps going. Pretty remarkable when you think about it like that. Will it keep going? I wouldn’t put it past God to form the world in such a comic way.
1 Like
Because there’s a difference between how the universe works and how He deals with His children. Since God works through ordinary mechanisms in everything else, it would be unfaithful of Him to not do the same in biology.
And where did you get the idea of “no further input”? You need to work on reading what people have actually written!
God doesn’t build houses that deteriorate. The only thing that this “house” suffers from
That was the original idea: God’s human family was meant to make the entire world like the Garden. We’re 'way off course, but that mandate was never withdrawn.
Nothing “de-evolves” – that’s not a thing at all. There’s this notion that evolution implies improvement, but “improvement” can mean abandoning capabilities – what would be called “de-evolving” by those who don’t understand evolution.
That’s a pretty wimpy view of God. It pretty much either denies His foreknowledge and/or His competence.
You’re now using science for theology? God can make a new heavens and earth but He can’t rejuvenate a star?
You’re the one saying that. All I said is that God is consistent, and can be counted on to use the same methods in one part of Creation as in the rest.
3 Likes
Science does tell us that organisms fit the patterns expected if they were created following an evolutionary pattern. Although in principle a designer not using evolutionary methods could recreate such a pattern, there is no evident point in doing so. For example, why make whales consistently biochemically similar to hippos rather than sometimes matching manatees or seals or fish?
What science does not tell us is whether that pattern is directed by God (or some other agent(s)), or if it is undirected, as such a question is beyond the ability of science to answer. Richard is using ToE to refer to an atheistic view, but most others explicitly aren’t.
A further complication is that, within theism, there are varying ideas as to how strictly God controls events in general.
3 Likes