Why a Designer?

Faith & Science Conversation
, , ,
800

In this, the AI managed to write a pretty good text. Not perfect but understandable. My pedantic colleaques (I have such) would comment on at least two minor details.

First, there is no such branch of science as ‘evolution’. Evolution is the natural process, the study of evolution could be called ‘evolution research’ or something similar - the term used may vary a bit.

Second, the text describes the connection between ecology and evolution well but when describing the importance of ecology, it looks only to a narrow field within ecology, something that is called ‘evolutionary ecology’. A relevant description if we focus at the connection of evolution research and evolutionary ecology but misses much of why ecology is important, even if one would have YEC beliefs.

These comments are just trifling matters but show that the AI writes selective texts that may lead to misunderstandings, like leading those with YEC beliefs undervalue ecology because of the connection with the evolution research.

1 Like
801

RED HERRING!

We are talking about TOE. Nothing else.

Richard

802

Anything that brings clarity is fine - so I may add my trifle; how would evolution be a natural process? The term can be used, for example, on gases given off, or any gradual development, or unfolding. I can go as far as a theory for biologists that deals with variation and those that do not make it die. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

I am a big fan of ecology, and I view this as systems within systems eventually encompassing the entire planet. Thus, we can speak of the carbon cycle, the greenhouse (so much in the news), down to specific systems in forests and oceans - yet all dynamically linked to give us marvelous planet earth (and we may add the sun, moon, and so on).

On belief by sects and/or denominations, I am having enough of a struggle grappling with TE, ID, old earth (or something similar), so I will only comment on the TE and offshoots from time to time. :upside_down_face:

803

    WHY?

It is science, and you said:

I want to know how whomever the scientist and whatever the science can do that and do that whenever there is a scientific topic to be discussed.

Okay, have it your way, make it a Christian genetics researcher being interviewed on TV about molecular biology and how mutations occur. That is part of evolution. That Christian has to talk about God all the time.” Your words. How does that person talk about DNA and God on TV?

I think you have fooled yourself with terrible logic. You have fooled yourself into thinking that somehow a Christian can do science and talk about God all the time. Or else Christians cannot be scientists, and especially, for some weird reason of yours, they cannot be scientists studying evolution.

2 Likes
804

I picked some definitions of process that can be applied in a biological context:

  • a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result
  • a continuing natural or biological activity or function
  • a series of changes that happen naturally

If we use this kind of definitions, evolution is a process. As it happens in nature by natural mechanisms, it is a natural process.

Maybe I should add the note that I usually use the term ‘evolution’ in the sense that it denotes heritable changes in the gene pool of a population through time. In other words, there happens heritable changes that make future generations somewhat different than the ancestors.

How different, depends on the strength of the mechanism causing these changes and the time available for the changes. Some changes may happen in a short time, like changes in the size of the beak of the Galapagos finches under severe drought. Others take more time, like the gradual changes in the phenotype of large gulls from one end of the global continuum to the the other end. Major changes in the phenotype may take millions of years, although the changes may happen in steps rather than as a continuous gradual change.

I assume that both gradual and stepwise changes have happened. Some think that in large populations living in fairly stable conditions, selection works against major changes in the phenotype. Changes could happen in small subpopulations living in deviating conditions and then spread rapidly across the range. Some think that major changes need a more or less catastrophic crash in population size and the abundance of competitors. In such conditions, even suboptimal individuals can survive and be steps that lead to a substantial change in the phenotype. Whatever the pattern of change is, there have been a continuing series of changes that make evolution a natural process.

1 Like
805

Because 99.9% of Christians don’t believe what you do about how this world works in relation to God let alone what everyone else might believe.

Your whole argument relies on science being under God’s control. I do not believe that. I believe that science is just man’s understanding of how the world works. And most of the working is done with elements of chance that you do not believe exists.

Chance precludes the tight control you assign to God.

And

The tight control you assign to God strangles free will and choice. I do not believe in any sort of predestination whether it is weather patterns or specific paths people must take. My life is my own. Even if I have given it to God He does not control the minutia of my life any more than someone who does not believe in Him. He does, “Interfere” and has even temporarily controlled me, but that is an exception (miracle?) not the rule. Most of the time He leaves me be until He needs (wants) me again.

Richard

806

Why did you still not answer the question about how a scientist who is a Christian talks about their work? And to make you happy, make it a Christian talking about evolution. (Your cries of RED HERRING were red herrings to let you avoid answering the question. :grin:)

807

If you know how a mammal evolved form a fish, what was the first mutation in that process and how was it favoured by selection? Do you know how the ball even got rolling?

Can you describe any of the mutations and how they were favoured by selection in that process?

Speaking of “ungracious”, I noticed your unfortunate predilection for ad hominem attacks directed at anyone who questions your evolution religion. It’s not a good look. :frowning:

You don’t have enough dots to know how evolution occurred - ie, what process produced the history of life on earth.

Your scientific religion lacks only one thing - knowledge, aka facts.

808

Ok, let us start with this - you as the biologist have made observations and now you wish to provide a causal basis that can be expressed mathematically, since you are confident that you have discovered a process in nature. How would you do this? If ‘a’ were the phenotype and x were the cause, would you commence with:

da/dt = nx + b +c

where n denotes the extent (or observable) force acting on the phenotype with time, and you identify other factors in your process as b, c, (and so on).

Note, we are discussing trifles, and I am not attacking any part of biology, nor proposing a serious exercise; I am simply providing a talking point to get our discussion on the same page.

1 Like
809

Trivia, relatively speaking. No lab has ever observed the DNA of a fish giving rise to the DNA of a mammal.

810

Who was the first speaker of French? Does adapting fins for greater dexterity on the sea bottom count?

How a 380-Million-Year-Old Fish Gave Us Fingers

Ancient fish fossil reveals evolutionary origin of the human hand

That fossil was uncovered just a couple of years ago, so we are filling in more all the time. It would be nice if every creature that ever lived registered its DNA with 23andMe, but we have to do the best with what we have. I believe St. Paul was real, but I have no idea what he had for dinner on Nov 8, 47 AD, what was the thorn in his flesh, or even if he was ever married. It is possible to know things ( meaning I am personally satisfied that there is sufficient empirical evidence ), without every minute detail nailed down.

2 Likes
811

Right, let’s put this to bed once and for all .

Itis not a matter of whether God is involved, it is a matter of how God is involved

It does not matter whether the weather is controlled by a specific predestined program or a system that reacts in a specified way to variables, the result is the same. The weather forcast would be the same. You are neither confirming or denying God’s involvement. You are just charting the outcome.

With evolution it does matter whether God is involved or not. It changes the result

TOE is based upon the assumption that the changes are random. (That is not controlled) Natural selection (survival) is then needed to weed out the changes that cannot work.

If God is controlling the changes (They are not random) then Natural Selection is either in opposition (Cancelling out changes) or redundant because God has already factored survival into the changes. In fact it would be almost incompetent for God to make something that He already knows cannot survive. Survival is inevitable and not the subject of competition or any other factor that natural Selection claims.

TOE cannot work if God is controlling the changes. DNA comparison is pointless if God is controlling the changes, because God can use or not use anything He wants. Heredity is pointless if God is controlling the changes because they all come from God and not from the previous creature… God can just create a new creature from scratch at any time He does not have to use the parts of the previous creature. And some would claim that DNA matching disproves God’s development for that precise reason. If there is no progression other than God’s development. then it is completely controlled and all the arguments against Evolutionary change go out the window, God did it.

Why can’t you see this?

When you are arguing in favour of Natural selection or any other of the scientific models you are denying that God is in control. When you argue in favour of DNA comparisons you are ignoring the fact thar God does not need to keep or reuse any DNA for the next stage in His development. (He can, and apparently did but) DNA heredity is claiming that Nature developed not God. And even if you think Nature is controlled by God, the arguments deny it.

Richard

PS to clarify
@Dale seems to beleive that

The weather is predestined, and therefore completely controlled by God

Evolution is predestined and completely controlled by God

And therefore the science of the weather is comparable to the science of evolution because they are both predestined and controlled by God.

812

If someone claims to know how mammals evolved from a fish, one must at the very least be able to describe all the steps involved in that process - ie, the mutations involved and how selection favoured each mutation. Without knowledge of those individual steps, no one can claim to know how it happened.

But a mere description of the process is not enough - the described steps must be verified as correct, and the only way to do that is to actually evolve a mammal from a fish, which is obviously impossible. Therefore it’s impossible for anyone to know how mammals evolved from a fish.

A similar argument applies to abiogenesis: If someone claimed to know how to produce life from inanimate matter, their claim would be valid only if that knowledge was applied to actually produce life from inanimate matter.

813

GJDS, thankyou again for doing research to clarify the science available. The main problem I have with your statement is that organisms that live in different environments WILL evolve different adaptions, not MAY.

“Natural selection is the process through which species adapt to their environments. It is the engine that drives evolution.” The National Geographic Society says that ecology identified as natural selection guides evolution.

This was not always the case. Richard Dawkins in his blockbuster book, the Selfish Gene said that genes govern evolution, and used this error to construct his false ideology. I would like to correct this false science.

814

Why can’t you answer the question about how a Christian who is scientist talks about ‘atheistic science’? The meteorologist, the vulcanologist, the geneticist, whomever? According to you, they’re supposed to ‘talk about God all the time’ like you claim to when ‘talking about science’? What does that have to do with predestination?

1 Like
815

I have… You have just not comprehended the answer.

I cannot do any more

If you cannot understand what I mean by results then there is no way to explain it further.

No

Richard

816

You claim that evolution is ‘different’ than other sciences. Because there is ‘randomness’ involved? Do you really think there is no randomness involved in other sciences?

1 Like
817

Your PM, per your desire:

Evolution denies God no more than meteorology denies God, no red herrings involved.

Of course they are.

818

You have not understood anything I have said.

Perhaps my explanation has failed.

I guess it would be nice if someone else could either explain it better or show where I am mistaken

Richard

819

Of course they are.

“Why did this storm arise when and where it did? What will it do next and why?”

“Why did this volcano arise when and where it did? What will it do next and why?”

There is randomness involved, history and predictions.