Melding Evolution and Creationism

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Why’d this thread get bumped?

I was bored and remembered that there actually used to be interesting discussions in this forum.

I can bump more if you like.

2003 or 2004?[/quote]

Good idea! And here’s a deal for you, sir: If you post in it, I won’t. I promise to keep my ‘wake of destruction’ out of your way. Please enjoy!

Lest you think I lie, I am in Alpha but don’t post. This is out of respect for you and the other members wanting to have a private discussion.

So, please, carry on!!

302

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Why’d this thread get bumped?

I was bored and remembered that there actually used to be interesting discussions in this forum.

I can bump more if you like.

2003 or 2004?

Good idea! And here’s a deal for you, sir: If you post in it, I won’t. I promise to keep my ‘wake of destruction’ out of your way. Please enjoy!

Lest you think I lie, I am in Alpha but don’t post. This is out of respect for you and the other members wanting to have a private discussion.

So, please, carry on!!

[/quote]

How did you get back in? Would you like me to tribunal you? I am always tempted to see what happens if I click on that.

303

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
That makes Prof. Colling see red. “When Christians insert God into the gaps that science cannot explain – in this case how wondrous structures and forms of life came to be – they set themselves up for failure and even ridicule,” he told me. “Soon – and it’s already happening with the flagellum – science is going to come along and explain” how a seemingly miraculous bit of biological engineering in fact could have evolved by Darwinian mechanisms. And that will leave intelligent design backed into an ever-shrinking corner.

Alright. BB Warfield made this point 100 years ago.

I disagree with this point. I am pretty much an agnostic but if God exists he set up the rules of the universe and thereby the mechanism for evolution. Just because we discover how a certain animal evolved it does not minimize God or intelligent design. It just means we learned something. [/quote]

I don’t think evolution says one way or the other whether or not God exists. If evolution happened, fine, God had control over it. That was Warfield’s point and I don’t think it’s that big of a deal.

304

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
That makes Prof. Colling see red. “When Christians insert God into the gaps that science cannot explain – in this case how wondrous structures and forms of life came to be – they set themselves up for failure and even ridicule,” he told me. “Soon – and it’s already happening with the flagellum – science is going to come along and explain” how a seemingly miraculous bit of biological engineering in fact could have evolved by Darwinian mechanisms. And that will leave intelligent design backed into an ever-shrinking corner.

Alright. BB Warfield made this point 100 years ago.

I disagree with this point. I am pretty much an agnostic but if God exists he set up the rules of the universe and thereby the mechanism for evolution. Just because we discover how a certain animal evolved it does not minimize God or intelligent design. It just means we learned something.

I don’t think evolution says one way or the other whether or not God exists. If evolution happened, fine, God had control over it. That was Warfield’s point and I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. [/quote]

Agreed.

305

http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/evolution.htm

306

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Why’d this thread get bumped?

I was bored and remembered that there actually used to be interesting discussions in this forum.

I can bump more if you like.

2003 or 2004?

Good idea! And here’s a deal for you, sir: If you post in it, I won’t. I promise to keep my ‘wake of destruction’ out of your way. Please enjoy!

Lest you think I lie, I am in Alpha but don’t post. This is out of respect for you and the other members wanting to have a private discussion.

So, please, carry on!!

How did you get back in? Would you like me to tribunal you? I am always tempted to see what happens if I click on that.
[/quote]

The Prof hasn’t responded so I feel free to answer, before leaving his thread: Without my request, the kind owners of the site realized that barring someone before they ever posted was unfair, that such was akin to racial profiling (though of course not nearly so drastic).

I now don’t post there because (1) everyone there knows more than I about bodybuilding (2) I respect others’ right to discuss things w/o ‘drama’ (3) I like to argue, which is much better suited to this forum.

If you want to tribunal me, fine. But realize that you then have to give a reason. Since I don’t post there, you then have to tribunal everyone who is a member but doesn’t post, since that would be the only discernable reason for such an unjust act. Happy searching!

307

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Why’d this thread get bumped?

I was bored and remembered that there actually used to be interesting discussions in this forum.

I can bump more if you like.

2003 or 2004?

Good idea! And here’s a deal for you, sir: If you post in it, I won’t. I promise to keep my ‘wake of destruction’ out of your way. Please enjoy!

Lest you think I lie, I am in Alpha but don’t post. This is out of respect for you and the other members wanting to have a private discussion.

So, please, carry on!!

How did you get back in? Would you like me to tribunal you? I am always tempted to see what happens if I click on that.

The Prof hasn’t responded so I feel free to answer, before leaving his thread: Without my request, the kind owners of the site realized that barring someone before they ever posted was unfair, that such was akin to racial profiling (though of course not nearly so drastic).

I now don’t post there because (1) everyone there knows more than I about bodybuilding (2) I respect others’ right to discuss things w/o ‘drama’ (3) I like to argue, which is much better suited to this forum.

If you want to tribunal me, fine. But realize that you then have to give a reason. Since I don’t post there, you then have to tribunal everyone who is a member but doesn’t post, since that would be the only discernable reason for such an unjust act. Happy searching!
[/quote]

I would only tribunal you if you asked me to. Last time you said you didn’t want to be in so I didn’t stand up for you.

308

Great thread

309

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I happen to agree with the professor. I do believe in God, however, the clues to a natural evolution process are all around as well.

It doesn’t make much sense for people to believe that evolution is evil when we even see it in our current biology (ie. the mandibles of most humans are getting progressivly smaller with many asian females being currently born completely without their wisdom teeth). Should we act as if it isn’t happening?

I ackowledge that the complexity of the design is ridiculously intricate. I remember dissecting a human body in gross anatomy and being astonished at how such small detail all flowed together that well. It, in my opinion, is too complex and intelligent to have happened by the chaos theory.

That much couldn’t have gone wrong to create something that right…and then to do it over and over in every organism on the planet. Evolution seems to be as much of the design as the creation.[/quote]

It is perfectly plausible that complex and intricate structures (eg human eyes) could develop through evolution, driven by the survival of the fittest. The theory of intelligent design is very flawed.

This in no way disproves the presence of god though.

310

[quote]Professor X wrote:
seanc wrote:

Exactly. The probability arguement also asssumes a serial execution until an event happens. It does not allow for millions and billions of simultaneous reactions occuring over 100’s of millions of years.

It also assumes that the first life looked like something we would call life, ie…the first life was of very high order complexity.

Well, one thing is for sure…for the instantaneous life theory to be likely, life, however simple, would have to have a WILL to survive and a drive to perfect itself for the theory to even be plausible. What would give instant life its drive to continue living and “evolving”?
[/quote]

The will to survive is present in all life because the alternative is not to exist. Any life form that developed without this will to live did not survive, whereas life forms that developed with this will to live being present had a chance of survival. It’s really just a case of natural selection.

[quote]
It is a HUGE assumption that life appeared, wanted to survive, and wanted to get better. In fact, that increases its chance of mprobability and brings into question why life itself confined itself to only this planet. If life was that simple, it could adapt to nearly any environment through sheer will. Why not Saturn?[/quote]

Life did not form on Saturn because the specific conditions on that planet are not conductive to the formation of life.

You mention the improbability of the formation of life, but improbability is very different to impossibility. Depending on the perspective from which you are looking, any series of events can be viewed as ridiculously improbable.

I will use the results of a hypothetical lotto game as an example to demonstrate this. In this game, 7 numbers will be randomly taken from a bucket containing the numbers 1 through to 50. Say for example you look at the lotto numbers from the past 5 weeks. We are looking these numbers after they have already occurred and they are as follows:

Week 1 - 10,32,29,11,13,27,41
Week 2 - 5,3,22,43,23,21,10
Week 3 - 3,41,22,32,21,7,9
Week 4 - 19,23,26,7,9,11,29
Week 5 - 23,24,48,2,11,15,8,

The probability of any of those specific sets of numbers occurring on any of the 5 weeks is approximately 1 in 99884400. The probability of all of those sequences occurring over the 5 week period is mind bogglingly low at approximately 1^-40.

In the example above, despite the sheer improbability of what happened, no rational person would claim that this must be due to divine intervention. We simply accept that a certain sequence had to happen, and regardless of what the sequence of numbers was that occurred over those five weeks the probability would be the same at 1^-40.

This demonstrates that the reason why we are so perplexed by the improbable nature of certain past events that have occurred relates as much to the way we feel about the specific outcome rather than the actual probability of the event occurring.

We feel no connection with the fact that some random sequence of numbers occurred in a lotto competition, whereas we feel an extremely strong connection to the events that led to our own existence.

In the case of the formation of life, although the specific series of events that would allow the formation of life to occur are very improbable, this improbability is offset by the extreme vastness and age of the universe. We know that the universe is at least 90 billion light years across (possibly much bigger) and believed to be around 13 billion years old.

Although at any point in the universe at any specific point in time the probability of the right conditions occurring for the formation of life is very low, the probability of these conditions occurring in one or multiple places in the incomprehensible vastness of the entire universe is not necessarily low at all.

It is faulty reasoning to say that the chance of life forming in the specific part of the universe that we are located is very small, therefore we must have been created by god. That would be like saying that the specific set of numbers that occurred in the lotto example is so improbable that it must be the work of god.

It makes no logical sense to look at a specific series of events AFTER they have already occurred and then say that those specific events are highly improbable so therefore they must be the work of god.

311

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Professor X wrote:
seanc wrote:

Exactly. The probability arguement also asssumes a serial execution until an event happens. It does not allow for millions and billions of simultaneous reactions occuring over 100’s of millions of years.

It also assumes that the first life looked like something we would call life, ie…the first life was of very high order complexity.

Well, one thing is for sure…for the instantaneous life theory to be likely, life, however simple, would have to have a WILL to survive and a drive to perfect itself for the theory to even be plausible. What would give instant life its drive to continue living and “evolving”?

The will to survive is present in all life because the alternative is not to exist. Any life form that developed without this will to live did not survive, whereas life forms that developed with this will to live being present had a chance of survival. It’s really just a case of natural selection.

It is a HUGE assumption that life appeared, wanted to survive, and wanted to get better. In fact, that increases its chance of mprobability and brings into question why life itself confined itself to only this planet. If life was that simple, it could adapt to nearly any environment through sheer will. Why not Saturn?

Life did not form on Saturn because the specific conditions on that planet are not conductive to the formation of life.

You mention the improbability of the formation of life, but improbability is very different to impossibility. Depending on the perspective from which you are looking, any series of events can be viewed as ridiculously improbable.

I will use the results of a hypothetical lotto game as an example to demonstrate this. In this game, 7 numbers will be randomly taken from a bucket containing the numbers 1 through to 50. Say for example you look at the lotto numbers from the past 5 weeks. We are looking these numbers after they have already occurred and they are as follows:

Week 1 - 10,32,29,11,13,27,41
Week 2 - 5,3,22,43,23,21,10
Week 3 - 3,41,22,32,21,7,9
Week 4 - 19,23,26,7,9,11,29
Week 5 - 23,24,48,2,11,15,8,

The probability of any of those specific sets of numbers occurring on any of the 5 weeks is approximately 1 in 99884400. The probability of all of those sequences occurring over the 5 week period is mind bogglingly low at approximately 1^-40.

In the example above, despite the sheer improbability of what happened, no rational person would claim that this must be due to divine intervention. We simply accept that a certain sequence had to happen, and regardless of what the sequence of numbers was that occurred over those five weeks the probability would be the same at 1^-40.

This demonstrates that the reason why we are so perplexed by the improbable nature of certain past events that have occurred relates as much to the way we feel about the specific outcome rather than the actual probability of the event occurring.

We feel no connection with the fact that some random sequence of numbers occurred in a lotto competition, whereas we feel an extremely strong connection to the events that led to our own existence.

In the case of the formation of life, although the specific series of events that would allow the formation of life to occur are very improbable, this improbability is offset by the extreme vastness and age of the universe. We know that the universe is at least 90 billion light years across (possibly much bigger) and believed to be around 13 billion years old.

Although at any point in the universe at any specific point in time the probability of the right conditions occurring for the formation of life is very low, the probability of these conditions occurring in one or multiple places in the incomprehensible vastness of the entire universe is not necessarily low at all.

It is faulty reasoning to say that the chance of life forming in the specific part of the universe that we are located is very small, therefore we must have been created by god. That would be like saying that the specific set of numbers that occurred in the lotto example is so improbable that it must be the work of god.

It makes no logical sense to look at a specific series of events AFTER they have already occurred and then say that those specific events are highly improbable so therefore they must be the work of god.

[/quote]

But it gives people the warm fuzzies…

312

Disclaimer: I didn’t bother to read the whole thread, because I generally don’t like getting sucked into debates like this or the “is religion brain washing” thread. But I’d like to give my 2 cents in a very general way…

I am not taking sides here…

I have noticed a lot of the vitriol that gets thrown in the direction of intellligent design/creationism proponents that basically amounts to a “you can’t be a good scientist if you believe in creationism” opinion. These people tend to castigate others who believe in intelligent design as being stupid and irrational. A prime example, I think, would be Richard Dawkins.

I don’t agree with this and I think those who espouse this view are full of hubris. Many of the greatest scientists the world has ever seen believed in creation (Francis Bacon, da Vinci, etc, etc, etc. The list is long).

In the modern world there are still many very respected scientists (indeed, even those in biochemistry and biology) that hold intelligent design views. We have a couple at our school (a big state school, with excellent and widely respected biology department).

These people are living embodiments that contradict those who say creationists can’t hold rational thought or can’t contribute in any significant way to biology, biochemistry, pharmacology, or related fields.

Belief in intelligent design/creationism does NOT preclude being a good scientist, biological or otherwise, or being rational.

I feel it is beyond false to ostracize ALL people or to belittle people who believe in creation as being irrational, or at the very least harmlessly stupid. To be sure, there are many idiots. And there is a lot of vitriol on the side of many creationists as well. But that does not excuse the hubris that many evolutionists hold towards those who believe intelligent design.

On a similar but semi-unrelated note, I have noticed the same thing happens with many many atheists when talking about those who believe in God. I have the same opinion of them as well.

Can’t we all just get along? :stuck_out_tongue:

313

If someone believes in fairies, why not consider them irrational? And hey, why not consider those who do not believe in fairies to be intellectually superiour to those who do?

The preponderance of evidence is overwhelmingly against Creationism, and there is zero evidence for god(s) acting in this world. What am I to think of those who seriously believe in these things? Am I supposed to respect those beliefs? What would you think of someone who actually thought the Greek gods were real? Would you respect that particular belief?

314

[quote]ZedThou wrote:
If someone believes in fairies, why not consider them irrational? And hey, why not consider those who do not believe in fairies to be intellectually superiour to those who do?

The preponderance of evidence is overwhelmingly against Creationism, and there is zero evidence for god(s) acting in this world. What am I to think of those who seriously believe in these things? Am I supposed to respect those beliefs? What would you think of someone who actually thought the Greek gods were real? Would you respect that particular belief?[/quote]

Why should anyone care what you personally respect? The previous poster’s point is that some of the most accomplished human beings in history also believed in a higher power (just like some also chose to avoid this belief). Unless you are also as well accomplished, it makes you alone look ridiculous to assume those people were beneath you because of their beliefs.

Some of you even refuse to accept the possibility which simply makes you look arrogant. When this arrogance comes from people who are less educated than the ones they look down upon, one can only wonder why they believe this way.

Bottom line, you are not better than me because I believe differently than you do. You are not smarter than me based on these beliefs alone and you are by no means “superior” to me.

315

Oh, I see, everyone’s superstition is possible and no judgment should ever be passed on a person’s unwillingness to seriously question irrational - and in most cases indoctrinated - beliefs.

Again, if someone believes in fairies, why not consider them irrational? Do you consider it possible? What would your opinion be of such a person’s ability to reason?

316

I’m going to get this book when I get back home next month:

Should be quite interesting.

Here’s the Product Description:

[i]Product Description
Militant atheism is on the rise. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens have dominated bestseller lists with books denigrating religious belief as dangerous foolishness. And these authors are merely the leading edge of a far larger movement - one that now includes much of the scientific community.

“The attack on traditional religious thought,” writes David Berlinski in The Devil’s Delusion, “marks the consolidation in our time of science as the single system of belief in which rational men and women might place their faith, and if not their faith, then certainly their devotion.”

A secular Jew, Berlinski nonetheless delivers a biting defense of religious thought. An acclaimed author who has spent his career writing about mathematics and the sciences, he turns the scientific community’s cherished skepticism back on itself, daring to ask and answer some rather embarrassing questions:

Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence?
Not even close.

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even ballpark.

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on.

Berlinski does not dismiss the achievements of western science. The great physical theories, he observes, are among the treasures of the human race. But they do nothing to answer the questions that religion asks, and they fail to offer a coherent description of the cosmos or the methods by which it might be investigated.

This brilliant, incisive, and funny book explores the limits of science and the pretensions of those who insist it can be - indeed must be - the ultimate touchstone for understanding our world and ourselves.[/i]

317

[quote]ZedThou wrote:
Oh, I see, everyone’s superstition is possible and no judgment should ever be passed on a person’s unwillingness to seriously question irrational - and in most cases indoctrinated - beliefs.[/quote]

Stating you are superior to me because of my beliefs makes you an arrogant and extremely ignorant person. You are not superior to me. I doubt you are smarter than me either but I only have these posts from you to go by. Therefore, in what way are you superior to me? What proof do you have that there exists no being in all of the universe that could instigate life in any way?

[quote]

Again, if someone believes in fairies, why not consider them irrational? Do you consider it possible? What would your opinion be of such a person’s ability to reason?[/quote]

Who here is talking about fairies? Do you even understand my beliefs in detail?

Of course you don’t. You simply assume that any belief in a higher power equals “fairy tales”.

318

[quote]ZedThou wrote:
Oh, I see, everyone’s superstition is possible and no judgment should ever be passed on a person’s unwillingness to seriously question irrational - and in most cases indoctrinated - beliefs.

Again, if someone believes in fairies, why not consider them irrational? Do you consider it possible? What would your opinion be of such a person’s ability to reason?[/quote]

Theism and Atheism are presuppositions (philosophical jumping-off points), not superstitions. The very fact that you can reason and that there are universal abstract laws of logic that make knowledge possible should cause you to reconsider your own.

319

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m going to get this book when I get back home next month:

.
.
.

This brilliant, incisive, and funny book explores the limits of science and the pretensions of those who insist it can be - indeed must be - the ultimate touchstone for understanding our world and ourselves.[/i][/quote]

This is good too:

320

[quote]ZedThou wrote:
Oh, I see, everyone’s superstition is possible and no judgment should ever be passed on a person’s unwillingness to seriously question irrational - and in most cases indoctrinated - beliefs.

[/quote]

The key phrase you use here is “unwillingness to seriously question irrational…beliefs”

This is tangentially off topic, but that’s because I’m not touching the evolution/creation thing directly with a ten foot pole.

The mistake you make is well pointed out by both Professory X and others. You ASSUME that religious belief is irrational. This is incorrect and arrogant in the extreme. Instead, the PRIMARY QUESTION you should be asking yourself in fact is “is belief in God rational?” Note that I am not specifically talking about the Judeo-Christian religion here, or even whether God actually does exist. I am talking about the rationality of belief. There are a significant number of highly (very highly) respected philosophers who argue that it is in fact rational.

This is an ongoing debate, and one that is by no means one-sided in terms of proponents. Your presumption that this debate has been decided is arrogant. An honest intellectual would admit that although he believes strongly in one way, ongoing debate forces him to admit the possibility, however minute, that he might be WRONG. I certainly admit this, and it is one reason I try to avoid most debate on the subject–I’d prefer to learn and think rather than argue ad nauseum.

Again, I am not taking sides here.

The thing I find the most annoying is the fact that many people who believe as you do fail to even acknowledge the fact that there are other kinds of rational thought and valid knowledge BESIDES biology/biochemistry/empirical sciences. In particular, the discounting of logical philosophical argument and thought. Philosophical thought is just as rational a form of thought as the empirical sciences. In a way, even more so because it gave birth to the established form of empirical sciences. However, it deals mostly with questions that empirical science is unable to directly, finally and/or confidently answer in the final analysis.