|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution: Natural selection vs. Godly guidance | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Stephen Push writes: How do you reconcile the suffering caused by the evolutionary process with your belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God who designed this process? I reconcile it the same way I accept that God could allow children to be mauled by bears for mocking a prophet's beard . Just as being made in God's image does not make us incapable of sin, neither does it make us able to predict every process God uses simply by asking what we mortals might have done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Evolution causes a lot of pain and suffering in humans and other animals. Often far more offspring are generated than can survive to reproduce. Many, especially the youngest and oldest, succumb to starvation, disease, and predation. Many of these deaths appear to be slow and excruciating. This was the case for most of human evolution and is still the case to some extent today, especially in developing countries. But of course that would all be true even if starvation, disease, and predation were not agencies of natural selection. There'd still be the same amount of suffering, it would just be completely pointless. It doesn't offer more of a challenge to a theist to suppose that it results in evolution as well, because that's not the morally problematic aspect of it. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ringo writes: Yes, theoretical physicists are real scientists because even if they don't do hands-on experiments themselves, their work is tested by experimental physicists. Some of their work is so tested, but perhaps not all. Einstein's theory of general relativity was eventually tested, but his work involved little more than thought experiments and math for most of a decade. Was Einstein doing science then? I'd say yes. But he was really in the early stages, i.e. formulating a hypothesis and working out the falsifiable predictions of his hypothesis. Eventually Einstein did make some quantitative, testable predictions regarding the bending of light in a Newtonian gravitational field, but his initial predictions were off by a factor of two. Fortunately Einstein was able to revise his theory and predictions before Eddington was able to verify them experimentally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4860 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
But of course that would all be true even if starvation, disease, and predation were not agencies of natural selection. There'd still be the same amount of suffering, it would just be completely pointless. It doesn't offer more of a challenge to a theist to suppose that it results in evolution as well, because that's not the morally problematic aspect of it. In the Biblical creation story, God's original creation was good and evil was introduced through a human failing. Attributing the design of evolution to God gives God a direct role in the infliction of suffering and situates the start of the suffering before human sin could have played any part in initiating it. Personally, I don't think there is a convincing answer to either challenge. But I would be interested in hearing Shadow 71's response, given his particular beliefs about God and evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That does not change the fact that it is only a controversial opinion - or the fact that it does not directly address the issue. That you should choose to start with such a weak point - and you have produced nothing more - simply demonstrates that you lack a sound basis for your accusation in the OP.
quote: As others have pointed out the scientists are correct. We do not try to work out the processes occurring today by speculating on origins - instead we rely on present-day observations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
In the Biblical creation story, God's original creation was good and evil was introduced through a human failing. Attributing the design of evolution to God gives God a direct role in the infliction of suffering and situates the start of the suffering before human sin could have played any part in initiating it. I don't believe that is correct. However it is also off topic but if you would like to start yet another thread on the subject it might prove to be a somewhat different point of biew. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Okay, I've been busy, so the conversation has progressed some since I last posted, but nonetheless...
shadow71 writes: I have to establish groundrules to determine if design advocates meet the standards of scientists. Firstly; yay! Quote boxes! Thanks shadow! However, I disagree with you here. We already have the ground rules for scientific inquiry. They are well known and easy to find. 1: Observation/Question2: Hypothesis/Prediction 3: Experiment 4: Conclusion (tentative) 5: Publication/Peer Review 6: Repetition and if that repetition continually provides the same conclusion, 7: Consensus (still tentative, but less so as evidence accumulates). Now one could spend a lifetime finessing that definition of the scientific method (and indeed, philosophers of science do just that) but those are, more or less, the ground rules. ID fails to meet just about every one of them. Here is how ID functions; 1: Conclusion; Jesus loves you (not tentative).2: Observation; Gee, lots of stuff is really complex! 3: Conclusion; See 1. 4: Publication; Popular press only. Peer review is such a pest! 5; Conclusion; Still the same as 1. For ID to be taken seriously, it must adhere to the scientific method. It doesn't so it isn't. It really is that simple. Anyone who disagrees should provide details of those ID experiments and peer reviewed publications that directly address design. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Paulk writes,
quote: That is why I have trouble understanding why biological science refuses to entertain the thought that a supernatural being began all that we know of nature and the universe, ie. that it was designed. Scientists presume that natural selection is the prime moving cause of evolution. How can you prove that if you do not prove how life originated. And if you cannot prove a natural cause for life, then what is left is a designed cause by a supernatural being. God. Instead science, according to Eugenia Scott, precludes involving any nonnaturalistic or non material causes to explain the features of the natural world. So science eliminates anything but natural causes, and cannot provide a realistic theory for the origin of life. ID, in my reading, states that when you try to prove the orgin of life, ie. for ex. information in the cell and how it could have evolved by natural slection, you have reached an impasse.Then ID uses probabilities to reach the conclusion that design is the only valid answer. That being a supernatural being. I just read a debate by Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins. I am wondering if any of you hold the opinion that Collins is a Creationist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
granny magda
quote: Thank you for you instruction and help in quoting. I am exhausted now and will try to answer you post later. My post 113 is a start.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I just read a debate by Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins. I am wondering if any of you hold the opinion that Collins is a Creationist? Are you under the impression that Francis Collins supports Intelligent Design?
BBC Interview with Francis Collins Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: THe reason seems obvious - it's a piece of completely unnecessary speculation with no use for biological science at all. BUt let me remind you that the origin f the universe is not the topic - it is your claim that scientists are engaging in a double standard in preferring natural selection to your idea of divine guidance.
quote: Why would we need to know the origin of life ? What we need to know is how life developed over time, and as with any other scientific investigation of history we look at the processes occurring now and compare them with the data we have relating to the past. If we discover no incompatibilities we conclude that the known processes are responsible for past events. Where is the need for us to know the origins to do that ?
quote: And let us note that she does not propose that as specific to biological science but to all science. And it cannot be denied that science has been successful. (And I must also point out that there is nothing that rules out saying that there is no scientific explanation).
quote: I may say that but there is no doubt that a good deal of information ha appeared since the beginning of life and no reason to doubt that naturalistic processes are responsible for much of it. We have yet to discover an insuperable barrier that would force us to accept ID as a default - and so while ID has no valid theory to propose as an alternative (and I mean a theory in the full scientific sense of the word, not a mere hypothesis) ID must still lose, even if the supernatural were admitted into science. That is the nature of science - we do not abandon a working theory for mere unknowns - it will only be abandoned if it becomes hopelessly unworkable or if a better theory is proposed.
quote: No, it does not. ID does not deal with real, relevant probabilities.
quote: No, I think he's some form of theistic evolutionist. Probably even further from creationism than the former creationist Michael Behe's current position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
shadow71 writes:
Even if "divine selection" was the prime moving cause of evolution, that tells us nothing about the origin of life. A tinkerer-god is not necessarily a creator-god. Scientists presume that natural selection is the prime moving cause of evolution. How can you prove that if you do not prove how life originated. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Scientists presume that natural selection is the prime moving cause of evolution. How can you prove that if you do not prove how life originated. And if you cannot prove a natural cause for life, then what is left is a designed cause by a supernatural being. God. Biologists don't presume NS they conclude it; based on evidence. What does not knowing about the start conditions of life have to do with observing the change in allele frequency over time in a population? As has been pointed out many time scientist don't 'prove things'. There could be a supernatural cause for life but there is no more evidence for a supernatural cause than there is for life (and the universe) being a fantastically intricate computer simulation and we are but sentient AIs existing in a virtual reality. If you are going to say that not being able to 'prove' that life is natural means that one must entertain a supernatural origin then you must give equal weight to a technological origin. Edited by Larni, : spellink
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
jar writes,
quote: Here is a quote from the debate, you tell me. ..."Because I do believe in God's creative power in having brought it all into being in the first place, I find that studying the natural world is an opportunity to observe the majesty, the elegance, the intricacy of God's creation." From Dawkins-Collins debate by Time in Nov. 2006 Those are my beliefs, and why I am of the opinion that Id is judged by a different standard.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Then I suggest that you read the link I provided.
From the link I provided:
quote: Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024