[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[Fyron]

Another way to get fossils is for the animal to get trapped in a tar pit. But, that is even less likely to happen than mud.

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by Chronon:
I'm getting the feeling that what we are arguing about is not really evolution. No one seems to be arguing for a set creation date and no change thereafter (as was argued in the Medieval period). It seems we'd all agree that species have changed over time. I think what we're really arguing about is natural selection (by random variation) versus guided selection (by God or some other Designer - alien or god-like).

The difficulty of this debate is that how you view the evidence is based upon your world view. Either you believe that a supernatural power exists or not. As I have stated before, it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God (or any other concept of a supernatural power) by natural means. That leaves us at an impass.

Since my world view includes God, I cannot accept an account of how things came to be as they are that doesn't include His involvement. This could mean instantaneous creation, guided evolution or something of both, but cannot in my view be entirely a result of random chance.

For the person whose world view does not allow for the supernatural, the only possible explanation is some variant of random chance. There may be a variety of possibilities there, as well, but in the end, it had to be random chance.

Thus both sides of the debate are locked by their world view. Neither can be convinced unless they are convinced to change their position on the unprovable fundamental assumption -- the existence or non-existence of a supernatural power.

[Chronon]

Well said, Alpha Kodiak, that does seem to sum it all up.

Personally, I cannot accept a Christian god, but I recognize that there is more to the universe than we perceive. I think that perhaps there is some room in the middle if one's spiritual leanings are more Eastern. I think it is possible to conceive of a universe that is directed by the Tao (or some such path, way, energy, or universal harmony) that does not necessarily involve the Supernatural with a capital S. Perhaps nature itself is directing the process?

But I digress. In our American culture, dominated by Christianity and secular science, the debate is just as you've described it.

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by Chronon:
Well said, Alpha Kodiak, that does seem to sum it all up.

Personally, I cannot accept a Christian god, but I recognize that there is more to the universe than we perceive. I think that perhaps there is some room in the middle if one's spiritual leanings are more Eastern. I think it is possible to conceive of a universe that is directed by the Tao (or some such path, way, energy, or universal harmony) that does not necessarily involve the Supernatural with a capital S. Perhaps nature itself is directing the process?

But I digress. In our American culture, dominated by Christianity and secular science, the debate is just as you've described it.

Thanks. I would say that other cultures/ideas may introduce other possible interpretations, but in all cases a persons view of spirituality leads them toward a particular set of conclusions.

[Fyron]

But I digress. In our American culture, dominated by Christianity and secular science, the debate is just as you've described it.

It is quite unfortunate that that happens.

[Andr�s]

The creation of the universe, the formation of our galaxy, our sun and our planet, the geological age of earth, the origin of life are all theories that are no part, and not necessary for the theory of evolution. As a matter of fact many of those were already accepted theories in the times of Darwin, not made to afterwards to support his theory.
The only reason they are all put in the same bag, is that creation explains all of them at once.

Anyway I agree that no one here seems to be defending pure creationism.
We all seem to agree that there were species that disappeared to be replaced by more "evolved" species.

So as Alpha Kodiak suggested, let's discuss the mechanic of that "evolution".

Saying evolution is based on "random chance" is a simplification that might be misinterpreted.
Yes, evolution requires random variation, genetic drift, some modern theories even include an eventual hopeful mutation.
But the base of evolution is not that randomness, its the natural selection that happens next, a cruel method that separates good changes from bad changes, by their chances of surviving and if applicable their chances when contending for a mate.

If you're a believer I see no problem why you cannot accept that God is pulling the strings behind random variation + natural selection.
Then perhaps you want to call them God's variation + God's selection, but you'd be basically talking of the same concept. Just the same way that human conception is considered a miracle of God, even if it's been explained in detail from a biological/medical point of view.

[QuarianRex]

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
For the person whose world view does not allow for the supernatural, the only possible explanation is some variant of random chance. There may be a variety of possibilities there, as well, but in the end, it had to be random chance.

Not necessarily. It's not necessarily a matter of chaos vs. the Hand of God (or what have you). I read a book called Non-Zero by Robert Wright that looks at evolution (all evolution, biological, mental, cultural, etc.) from the perspective of game theory.

For those who don't know, game theory can be broken down into two parts, zero sum and non-zero sum. Zero sum games (or anything else) occur when the success of one side equals the failure of the other (eg. sports, wars, etc.). Non-zero sum is when the victory for one side is a victory for all (eg. the astronauts on Apollo 13 were playing a very non-zero sum game when they were trying to figure out how to get back to earth alive). His premise is that all things tend toward greater and greater complexity and that those complex systems that operate in a non-zero sum capacity are the ones that survive and prosper (in the long term).

He applies this concept to evolution, cultural development, etc., showing a fascinating trend in all complex systems. He does a very good job of showing that life itself has a direction though not necessarily a divine one.

Its a suprisingly good read. Wright has a conversational writing style that conveys what might otherwise be dry material.

[Krsqk]

I would agree that all of us seem to accept some degree of change--i.e., the flora and fauna we see today are not necessarily identical to their predecessors. Such an idea isn't contrary to Biblical creationism, either; the Bible only says things would bring forth after their "kind." As taxonomy isn't a natural science, but a man-made classification, it's rather hard to say exactly where the line would be drawn. I would say that "kind" demands similarity. *bum bum bum* "Which one of these things doesn't belong..." Out of a dog, a wolf, a coyote, and a cat, I think the cat would be a different kind. Except maybe in some sort of metaphysical way, the same way we all are manifestations of Puke.

Following the same line of thought, then, the usual "cheap" reply to the intelligent design argument doesn't hold water--the "there's all sorts of systems that any freshman engineering student could design better" line of thinking. If things are quite possibly different from how they were originally, we don't know what the originals were. It also makes sense to design something which can continue to work even after some loss of functionality.

Along the same lines, the apparent old age of the earth may either be actual, or the result of conditions at the creation. For one, Biblical creation requires a mature creation--trees and plants bearing fruit and seed; man fully grown and able to marry, walk, talk, learn, and work from day one (actually Day 6, if you're picky )... God wouldn't create baby Adam and baby Eve and toss them a sack of seed and some garden tools and say, "Get to work, dinner's in an hour." For another, climatic and atmospheric conditions at creation could have been majorly different from how they are now, including "constants" way out of line from today's numbers.

From the creationist perspective, macroevolutionists aren't bad scientists--they just are misinterpreting the evidence from their own worldview. No falsehood is accepted without some amount of truth--no thinking person accepts something without rationale. Intra-species change, and to some extent, speciation does occur. From my view, evolution takes that truth and extrapolates it far beyond where it holds true--that all life came from a common ancestor (or two or three, etc.).

I also agree that the terms of the debate do come down to one's worldview--either natural force or supernatural force. You may quibble over which natural forces or supernatural forces do the causing, but there isn't an in-between. Put differently, it's a battle between materialism and "spiritualism," for lack of a better word. If you only accept what can be scientifically measured, you will interpret many things differently from one who accepts things out of the realm of science.

I cannot accept, based on my worldview, that God would use natural selection as a mechanism to accomplish His creation. 1)There are more efficient means to create, such as creating things the way you want them right off the bat; 2)No God who cares about His creation would use death as a means to accomplish it. That is not the God of the Bible; and if such a God is responsible for creating the world in such a manner, He may as well be a natural force. He is not interested in the plight of the puny inhabitants on the earth; we are no more than pawns to fulfill the designs of creation (and let's not be arrogant and assume we're the culmination of all life).

Now for some quotes:

He does a very good job of showing that life itself has a direction though not necessarily a divine one.

Ahh, but then it's still a question of material or immaterial--the same old worldview debate.

Just the same way that human conception is considered a miracle of God, even if it's been explained in detail from a biological/medical point of view.

While accepting the biological/medical point of view, the "miracle" is not seen as merely conception; rather, it is the joining of a new soul with a newly-created body. Of course, one cannot be a materialist from that viewpoint. A strict materialist would only refer to it as a "miracle" in a colloquial, metaphorical sense of the word.

The bottom line is, worldview is the determining factor in how related evidence will be interpreted.

[dogscoff]

2)No God who cares about His creation would use death as a means to accomplish it.

Well... except for that bit where he remodelled the world by killing practically everyone and everything on it in the great flood.

Except for fish. Fish did ok...

[Fyron]

Originally posted by dogscoff:

quote:

---

2)No God who cares about His creation would use death as a means to accomplish it.

Well... except for that bit where he remodelled the world by killing practically everyone and everything on it in the great flood.

Except for fish. Fish did ok...

---

The Christian God is a very violent one and according to the Bible has killed many, many people to get His points across.