Evolution

[klutedavid]

You seem to have a faulty understanding of the term "myth". The Bible contains many different types of myth, from the completely ahistorical (a global flood, a literal 6-day-creation 6000 years ago, hundreds of thousands of Israelites leaving Egypt and drowning a Pharaoh in a magically parted sea, etc.) over mythological explanations for place names or odd natural formations (salt pillars near the dead sea, abandoned bronze age cities like Jericho) to real history written through the lens of religious beliefs (most of the later books of the Bible).


Your grasp of religious studies and archaeology does not seem to be much better than your grasp of biology. Unsurprisingly.

Hello Jane.

This is my first post, so I have not prior information on the members on this forum.

May I ask whether you believe in the ideology of evolutionary theory?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Hello Jane.

This is my first post, so I have not prior information on the members on this forum.

May I ask whether you believe in the ideology of evolutionary theory?

That is like asking me whether I believe in the "ideology of the theory of gravity".

It's not really a question of faith. It's a question of looking at data and establishing which model serves as the best explanation for the same.

Of course, you could argue that there is no gravity, and that we are simply held in place by the unfathomable, supernatural power of God. But that model does not allow us to make accurate predictions. It gives us no understanding of the natural world around us, but instead masks ignorance as knowledge by using an unfathomable, untestable, unattainable power as the "explanation".

Basically, it's EXACTLY the same with the ToE vs. Creationism/"Intelligent Design". Even if it's very well possible that some more accurate model might replace or at least partially revise current evolutionary models, every single one of them (including Darwin's first attempts at a time when DNA wasn't even discovered) is a LOT closer to an accurate explanation and allows for infinitely more predictions than faith-based pseudo-science.

 

[Occam's Razor]

There are those that instead of intelligent design for how we came to be believe that all living things came from chemicals that accidentally came together and formed the basic structure for life. I cannot wrap my mind around it. How could something so that is in such chaos turn into something so complex?

1. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that systems that are isolated or closed can only become more chaotic. Earth is not a closed system, therefore that law does not apply to it.
2. We evolutionists do not believe an accident conceived us. It was a system of natural processes.

 

[Anguspure]

1. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that systems that are isolated or closed can only become more chaotic. Earth is not a closed system, therefore that law does not apply to it.

Life did not originate on earth, it originated in the universe. All of the conditions necessary for life on earth are contingent upon conditions that existed at the beginning of the universe.
The universe (the world within which life has been created) is a closed system and the second law of thermodynamics within the system of the universe.
Even so the probabilistic resources available (for abiogenesis in the face of entropy) are totally inadequate.

We evolutionists do not believe an accident conceived us. It was a system of natural processes.

It is not an accident (you agree), neither is it by necessity (it is not necessary that a universe conceives life), therefore it must be by design, and if by design there must be a designer.
Natural processes are dictated by the Creator, by definition, and the system of natural processes you refer to are spoken by God.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Quick rule of thumb:

If you are a creationist and think you can prove your hypothesis (or at least puncture well-established and substantiated models) by applying your understanding of science, stop right now. The only thing you are proving that way is your cultivated ignorance, needlessly embarrassing yourself.

Also, projecting human (or human-like agency) upon the universe and thinking of reality in terms of "creation" (i.e. the kind of matter rearrangement our species engages in) is an epistemological dead-end built around question-begging.
"This snow flake is a perfect piece of art! A creative mind must have designed it!"

 

[smaneck]

Quick rule of thumb:

If you are a creationist and think you can prove your hypothesis (or at least puncture well-established and substantiated models) by applying your understanding of science, stop right now. The only thing you are proving that way is your cultivated ignorance, needlessly embarrassing yourself.

Also, projecting human (or human-like agency) upon the universe and thinking of reality in terms of "creation" (i.e. the kind of matter rearrangement our species engages in) is an epistemological dead-end built around question-begging.
"This snow flake is a perfect piece of art! A creative mind must have designed it!"

It seems to me that what Anguspure is making is more of a philosophical rather than a scientific argument. It can't be considered a scientific argument because science cannot address anything beyond the phenomenal world. As a philosophical argument it might hold some merit, but it would certainly not disprove evolution, indeed it could be just as easily be used to support a theistic concept of evolution. I would not have so much of a problem with ID if it was acknowledged as a philosophy and not a science and if they weren't not ultimately trying to use it to support their own peculiar notions of creation which are not scientifically possible or philosophically sound. If all they wanted to say is that there is a purpose behind the universe and behind evolution, I would be okay with that. But they are trying to use ID to disprove evolution, which makes no sense to me at all.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Life did not originate on earth, it originated in the universe. All of the conditions necessary for life on earth are contingent upon conditions that existed at the beginning of the universe.
The universe (the world within which life has been created) is a closed system and the second law of thermodynamics within the system of the universe.
Even so the probabilistic resources available (for abiogenesis in the face of entropy) are totally inadequate.

It applies to a closed system such as the universe. The only world with known life--Earth--is not a closed system and as far as we know life on earth originated on earth, but even if panspermia were the case, it still happened somewhere. And that somewhere was not a closed system either.

It is not an accident (you agree), neither is it by necessity (it is not necessary that a universe conceives life), therefore it must be by design, and if by design there must be a designer.
Natural processes are dictated by the Creator, by definition, and the system of natural processes you refer to are spoken by God.

That isn't a scientific argument, that's a theological argument. I agree that God is the One behind the natural processes of the cosmos, but one does not reach that conclusion via the scientific method, one reaches that conclusion via divine revelation. As such it is a theological, not a scientific, position.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dlamberth]

It is not an accident (you agree), neither is it by necessity (it is not necessary that a universe conceives life), therefore it must be by design, and if by design there must be a designer.

The designer, from my perspective, is the ongoing evolutionary process within Creation itself.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It applies to a closed system such as the universe. . . . . .

Well the universe is a rather special "closed system". It is, after all, expanding and the expansion is increasing. This means that the amount of entropy in a given randomly chosen cubic light year out there is going down. Not because entropy is decreasing . . entropy is increasing as always. But the space that the entropy fits into is getting bigger so fast as to outpace the entropy increase.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Well the universe is a rather special "closed system". It is, after all, expanding and the expansion is increasing. This means that the amount of entropy in a given randomly chosen cubic light year out there is going down. Not because entropy is decreasing . . entropy is increasing as always. But the space that the entropy fits into is getting bigger so fast as to outpace the entropy increase.

Though as I understand it--and I'm certainly no physicist--entropy will eventually "win" if given enough time, to the tune of tens of trillions of years. The so-called heat death of the universe or "big freeze".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Though as I understand it--and I'm certainly no physicist--entropy will eventually "win" if given enough time, to the tune of tens of trillions of years. The so-called heat death of the universe or "big freeze".

-CryptoLutheran

As far as we know at this time. Eventually after incomprehensively long times, the stars will all cool off and die, the black holes will all evaporate into radiation, the background radiation of the universe will be so stretched as to be undetectable, and there will be nothing left trying to detect it anyway.

It will begin to look like the universe is . . . nothing.

But is nothing . . . . stable?

 

[Arthra]

It's interesting to speculate... for myself I think the universe has always been there and will continue.... and that the process of "creation" is continuous. It didn't start and end...there's always something "before" and "after".

 

[fatboys]

It's interesting to speculate... for myself I think the universe has always been there and will continue.... and that the process of "creation" is continuous. It didn't start and end...there's always something "before" and "after".

I'm with ya

 

[klutedavid]

1. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that systems that are isolated or closed can only become more chaotic. Earth is not a closed system, therefore that law does not apply to it.
2. We evolutionists do not believe an accident conceived us. It was a system of natural processes.

Hello Occam's Razor.

The earth may be a partially closed system, on the other hand, is the universe a closed system?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Hello Occam's Razor.

The earth may be a partially closed system, on the other hand, is the universe a closed system?

The earth isn't a closed system at all. As just one example, at any given time half of the planet is radiated by the sun, so the earth is continuously warmed by the sun.

The universe is, as best as we can tell, a closed system.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[klutedavid]

The earth isn't a closed system at all. As just one example, at any given time half of the planet is radiated by the sun, so the earth is continuously warmed by the sun.

The universe is, as best as we can tell, a closed system.

-CryptoLutheran

Hello VC.

The earth is not entirely an open system, some radiation wavelengths penetrate
the ionosphere, everything else that penetrates the atmosphere is mostly vaporized.

 

[Anguspure]

It applies to a closed system such as the universe. The only world with known life--Earth--is not a closed system and as far as we know life on earth originated on earth, but even if panspermia were the case, it still happened somewhere. And that somewhere was not a closed system either.

The conditions necessary for life to exist anywhere at all within the system of the universe whether that be on Earth or "somewhere", came about before the Earth or "somewhere" even began to exist. Therefore the universe within which life originates (which is a closed system) is the system that sets the conditions for the existence of life. This is why the low initial entropic state of the universe is remarkable and demands an explanation.

That isn't a scientific argument, that's a theological argument.

No. It is a philosophical argument. A theological argument would argue something about the nature of the Creator once the existence of the Creator had been established. This argument presupposes agnosticism and then proceeds towards establishing that the best explanation for the observed phenomena (in this case life on Earth) is a Designer.

I agree that God is the One behind the natural processes of the cosmos, but one does not reach that conclusion via the scientific method, one reaches that conclusion via divine revelation. As such it is a theological, not a scientific, position.

-CryptoLutheran

I agree; but the job of the one who sees the Creator (by revelation) is to reveal the vision to others, and in order to justify our vision as reasonable and rational it might be helpful to show how this relates to good solid philosophy and science.
After all science itself cannot be ultimately, consistently or logically undertaken without the revelation of the Creator and all science that is undertaken without Him is doomed to failure and embarrassment.

 

[Anguspure]

The designer, from my perspective, is the ongoing evolutionary process within Creation itself.

Whatever. If there is a designer behind some "evolutionary process within Creation itself" then that is the one that is called God.

 

[Anguspure]

It seems to me that what Anguspure is making is more of a philosophical rather than a scientific argument. It can't be considered a scientific argument because science cannot address anything beyond the phenomenal world.

There is no hard and fast rule that states that "science cannot address anything beyond the phenomenal world." This is a arbitrary limitation set by the of devotees of methodological naturalism.
Acknowledged science in the realms of physics and cosmology, at least, regularly advances beyond the realms of the phenomenal world.

As a philosophical argument it might hold some merit, but it would certainly not disprove evolution, indeed it could be just as easily be used to support a theistic concept of evolution.

What is meant by "evolution"? Do you regard the development of the motor car as a form of "evolution? I am regularly bombarded with statements about the "evolution" of the motor car and yet I know full well that a multitude of designers and thinkers accumulated knowledge and tweaked the design over a period of time to creat whatever machine that I see before me today.

I would not have so much of a problem with ID if it was acknowledged as a philosophy and not a science

Certainly there is a philosophy underlying it (as for all science), but ID is testable, falsifiable and makes valid predictions. It is therefore is a legitimate avenue of science even if some are afraid of it.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Hello Occam's Razor.

The earth may be a partially closed system, on the other hand, is the universe a closed system?

You cannot say the whole universe is open or closed in itself. The universe itself is just celestial bodies in a vaccum, so we must account for those individual bodies. The earth is not "partially" closed, there is no such thing.