Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,421 Year: 6,678/9,624 Month: 18/238 Week: 18/22 Day: 0/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Evolution a Radical Idea?
GDR
Member
Posts: 6223
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 121 of 195 (351346)
09-22-2006 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by robinrohan
09-22-2006 1:51 PM


Re: OT: Something instead of nothing
robinrohan writes:
That evolutionism explains reality so well that it is devastating to religion.
I guess your use of the term evolutionism, (I hadn't realized that you had coined it), is confusing things.
If evolutionism is just evolution by natural selection then I have no problem, but if you see evolutionism as providing a "first cause" the I do have a problem.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by robinrohan, posted 09-22-2006 1:51 PM robinrohan has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6223
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 122 of 195 (351348)
09-22-2006 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by robinrohan
09-22-2006 1:48 PM


robinrohan writes:
During the first stage of life, simple one-celled organisms evolved into complex multi-celled organisms, and so forth.
We can see the similarities in these processes all of which are inevitable, maybe, and at any rate natural changes through the eons.
No room for God.
Where did that first cell come from? Where did anything come from? What is the first cause?
Lotsa room for God.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by robinrohan, posted 09-22-2006 1:48 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by robinrohan, posted 09-22-2006 2:12 PM GDR has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17907
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 123 of 195 (351350)
09-22-2006 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by GDR
09-22-2006 1:58 PM


Re: OT: Something instead of nothing
Even if your characterisation is correct (and I don't think that it is - I would say that all the cosmologies currently proposed by scientists are compatible with evolutionism) that doesn't establish that theism is better.
quote:
The reason that there is something rather than nothing can be one of two things. Either the Atheistic approach which uses random chance as an explanation or Theism using an external designer(s) as an explanation
Well you're definitely wrong about the "atheistic approach", but your "theistic approach" is still worse. Your "external designer" is still "something" and thus you haven't actually offered an explanation. Of course you could extend your approach and assert that the best explanation for the "external designer"" was yet another "external designer" - and by your criteria you actually should. Any proposed designer would have to be more exquisitely ordered than our universe.
So you don't offer an answer, and if you were you ought to be proposing an infinite regress of "external designers". So I have to say that on this basis theism is even less rational than the strawman you try to contrast it with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by GDR, posted 09-22-2006 1:58 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by GDR, posted 09-22-2006 2:43 PM PaulK has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 195 (351353)
09-22-2006 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by GDR
09-22-2006 2:08 PM


What is the first cause?
There was no first cause. The universe appeared without a cause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by GDR, posted 09-22-2006 2:08 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by GDR, posted 09-22-2006 2:44 PM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 195 (351358)
09-22-2006 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by dwise1
09-22-2006 10:12 AM


Re: evolution and the Fall
So did "social Darwinism."
That's an interesting comparison, but evolutionism is not about survival of the fittest, only about gradual change. And of course it has nothing to do with human culture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by dwise1, posted 09-22-2006 10:12 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by dwise1, posted 09-22-2006 3:27 PM robinrohan has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6223
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 126 of 195 (351363)
09-22-2006 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by PaulK
09-22-2006 2:10 PM


Re: OT: Something instead of nothing
PaulK writes:
Of course you could extend your approach and assert that the best explanation for the "external designer"" was yet another "external designer" - and by your criteria you actually should. Any proposed designer would have to be more exquisitely ordered than our universe.
So you don't offer an answer, and if you were you ought to be proposing an infinite regress of "external designers". So I have to say that on this basis theism is even less rational than the strawman you try to contrast it with.
Pretty much everything that I read about space and time is that they are inextricably linked. Time is just another part of what there is. The question then of what came before an intelligent designer is meaningless because there is no before.
I still maintain that gives a more rational explanation for why anything exists than anything else, but that's just my opinion and obviously not yours.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by PaulK, posted 09-22-2006 2:10 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by PaulK, posted 09-22-2006 3:48 PM GDR has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6223
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 127 of 195 (351364)
09-22-2006 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by robinrohan
09-22-2006 2:12 PM


robinrohan writes:
There was no first cause. The universe appeared without a cause.
Doesn't that mean then that it came about by random chance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by robinrohan, posted 09-22-2006 2:12 PM robinrohan has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 6076
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 128 of 195 (351372)
09-22-2006 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by robinrohan
09-22-2006 2:17 PM


Re: evolution and the Fall
quote:
So did "social Darwinism."
That's an interesting comparison, but evolutionism is not about survival of the fittest, only about gradual change. And of course it has nothing to do with human culture.
No, "evolutionism" is a "creation science" strawman. What it's about is deceiving the creationists' audience into believing that the scientific idea of evolution is not scientific, but religious. I've seen creationists do that repeatedly ever since my first encounter with "creation science" circa 1980 and I'm sure that they had been doing it for at least another decade before (the creation of "creation science" having occurred shortly after Epperson vs Arkansas, 1968, even though the anti-evolution movement goes back to around WWI). Which means that, no, you did not coin the term.
As I had said, "And both cases [, both "social Darwinism" and "evolutionism", ] are misapplications of the scientific ideas that they were purportedly based on." "Social Darwinism" was a bastardization of the scientific ideas of Darwinism for the industrialists to justify their actions. "Evolutionism" is a gross caricature of evolution, but instead of actually being based on evolution, it is based instead on a morass of misconceptions about evolution with a huge dollop of "God of the Gaps" thrown into the pot, thus painting "evolutionism" as an attempt to disprove the existence of God.
Now you have taken "evolutionism" as your own and are apparently trying to use it for the same purpose that creationists claim that it is being used, to disprove God. Science cannot do that. Philosophy can disprove God logically, but only if it can get you to accept the right premises. But all that could do would be to show that such proof that God doesn't exist is valid. A valid proof can only be known to be true if the premises from which it proceeds are true. Sorry, but the premise, that natural processes being involved in proximate origins (eg, origin of man, origin of life on earth, origin of our solar system) or even in near-ultimate origins (eg, the Big Bang) disproves God, is simply not true. That premise comes from "God of the Gaps" reasoning.
Now, if you want to use your "evolutionism" to prove that Christian theology is false, then relax, you don't need to. We already know that it is ... or at least that it is not completely correct. Theologies are man-made and are fallible human attempts to describe in excruciating detail things about the supernatural, things which no human could possibly know. And even if such things ever did become fully known to a human, that information could not get transmitted uncorrupted over milennia and through countless translations (each of which is an exercise in fallible human interpretation -- ich wei ja wovon ich schreibe) and through the long chain of teachers teaching their misunderstanding to students who misunderstanding their teachers. You don't have to prove what we already know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by robinrohan, posted 09-22-2006 2:17 PM robinrohan has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17907
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 129 of 195 (351379)
09-22-2006 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by GDR
09-22-2006 2:43 PM


Re: OT: Something instead of nothing
I didn't ask what came "before" your "designer". Any more than you asked what came "before" our universe - and by your own reasoning there is no "before" that either. So if that is relevant - and you don't offer any reason to think it is - it applies equally to our universe.
And you still fail to understand that you are not answering the question. Your designer is "something". So you can't answer the question without saying why your designer exists - and without proposing another unexplained something.
You really need to understand that what you have isn't rationality - it's rationalisations. And not very good ones at that. You're just looking for excuses to say you're right without really thinking about it. Which is why you miss all the obvious problems in what you're saying - because you aren't being rational.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by GDR, posted 09-22-2006 2:43 PM GDR has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 130 of 195 (351380)
09-22-2006 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by iano
09-21-2006 4:50 PM


Re: evolution and Christianity
{AbE} In other words, Christianity doesn't require that you don't bellieve in evolution. All a Christian is is a person who recognises need of a saviour and admits to God as such. I know Christians who believe in evolution, some who can't decide either way and some (like Faith) who do not. Its a woods and trees issue
Yes, there are some Christians who believe in evolution or can't decide, but it is also true that evolution has claimed many casualties among Christians, at least to the extent of causing them to compromise their trust in the Bible -- which is no small thing. There may be some, or many, who have avoided this, as you have, but the fact is that it has wreaked quite a bit of damage among believers -- and I do mean believers, true believers. It has also caused many to lose their faith altogether, and I guess we could argue at some length about whether they had true faith or not to begin with, but I think some may yet come back to the fold.
I think it's just plain obvious that the ToE is false from a number of angles, which I've tried to argue, and I think it's important to continue to try to refine the arguments because of the damage this false worldview has done to the people of God. But I understand that not everybody is going to be attracted to this pursuit.
Robin's arguments usually strike me as remarkably perceptive. He understands that evolution and true Christianity are logically incompatible, and he's right. He understands the implications of the Fall versus the world defined by evolution, nature red in tooth and claw and all that. What's even more remarkable to my mind is how hard it is for others to get what he's saying.
I don't know if anyone will ever be saved through creationist arguments, but I do know that the ToE is a serious work of the Adversary against God and the effort seems well worth it to me.
2Cr 10:4-5 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God...
Speaking of noncarnal methods, I've started praying for the collapse of this stronghold. Prayer is worth a million arguments.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by iano, posted 09-21-2006 4:50 PM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Quetzal, posted 09-22-2006 4:44 PM Faith has replied
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 09-22-2006 4:45 PM Faith has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2419 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 131 of 195 (351394)
09-22-2006 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by iano
09-22-2006 10:48 AM


Re: evolution and the Fall
quote:
Seeing hows its all going to be junked in the end renders a prime interest in that somewhat silly (from my perspective).
By that logic, we shouldn't ever bother trying to cure disease since people are just going to die eventually anyway.
I often think that some Christians focus so much upon the next life they gamble on having that they completely squander the one they know for sure they are living right now.
quote:
Much more fun to find out the workings of something that goes on forever. The workings of the gospel and that which it talks of in the future is rivetting stuff to investigate in comparison
Meh.
Philosophies and old myths are not that interesting to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by iano, posted 09-22-2006 10:48 AM iano has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2419 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 132 of 195 (351396)
09-22-2006 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by GDR
09-22-2006 1:40 PM


quote:
I have no problem with evolution. It is when people go beyond evolution and use random chance as a first cause. That is not scientific.
You are both right and wrong here.
If you are calling Abiogenesis "using random chance as a first cause of life", then you are right to say that it isn't evolution and wrong to say that it isn't scientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by GDR, posted 09-22-2006 1:40 PM GDR has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2419 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 133 of 195 (351397)
09-22-2006 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by robinrohan
09-22-2006 1:51 PM


Re: OT: Something instead of nothing
quote:
That evolutionism explains reality so well that it is devastating to religion.
It's not devastating to Buddhism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by robinrohan, posted 09-22-2006 1:51 PM robinrohan has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 6121 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 134 of 195 (351403)
09-22-2006 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Faith
09-22-2006 3:51 PM


Re: evolution and Christianity
Yes, there are some Christians who believe in evolution or can't decide, but it is also true that evolution has claimed many casualties among Christians, at least to the extent of causing them to compromise their trust in the Bible -- which is no small thing. There may be some, or many, who have avoided this, as you have, but the fact is that it has wreaked quite a bit of damage among believers -- and I do mean believers, true believers. It has also caused many to lose their faith altogether, and I guess we could argue at some length about whether they had true faith or not to begin with, but I think some may yet come back to the fold.
This is a valid observation. To what do you attribute the "loss of faith" you note?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 09-22-2006 3:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 09-22-2006 4:48 PM Quetzal has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 135 of 195 (351404)
09-22-2006 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Faith
09-22-2006 3:51 PM


the appeal of evolution
has mostly to do with all the science that is done in its name. Real science is done despite the faulty assumptions it rests on. Also, proving the theory false is very hard since it rests on so much elaborate interwoven speculative scaffolding by now with so much embedded scientific data it appears to be inextricable (though much of it really fits creationism better). In the early days the ToE would have seemed a lot more reasonable than some of the ideas about the flood they had then, which were pretty nutty, and that no doubt attracted many.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 09-22-2006 3:51 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by subbie, posted 09-22-2006 5:34 PM Faith has replied
 Message 169 by nator, posted 09-23-2006 4:40 PM Faith has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024