Evilution VS Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Kinda like "cdesign proponentsists"?

No, the ID left themselves open for that by their dishonesty and it was their own term. "Evilutionist" is a term invented by rather dishonest creationists.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

The complexity in our "design" doesn't always show intelligence.

How are you defining intelligence in this context?

Countless people including children die every year from simply choking on food because a supposed intelligent designer gave us the same orifice to both eat and breath from. Where is the intelligence in that?

It's easy to knock others for doing what we can't do. If there's no intelligence in our ability to eat and breathe from the same orifice, then what does that say about your intelligence?

Another issue is using an intelligent designer as a scapegoat because we cannot yet explain the origin of life. It doesn't give us any real answers, only more questions.

This is where interpretation becomes so important. You refer to an intelligent designer as a scapegoat, but isn't it really just an alternative explanation? And evolution is an alternative to ID. And why should you feel bothered by more questions? Isn't that how all learning happens? We ask questions and seek answers?

If the human body is that complex it requires a designer, then the logic follows that the designer if he is at least as complex as humans also requires a designer. A designer of a designer, and so on.

It is a rabbit hole with no satisfactory ending.

Not really. The designer designed time, space, and matter which means he's also able to exist outside these concepts. Can you explain how you suppose a supreme being would be designed outside of time, space, matter? You wouldn't even know where to start, yet you boldly declare it a rabbit hole with no satisfactory ending.

In essence, what your argument suggests is that if we can't understand who designed the designer then a designer makes no sense, but that argument depends on the arrogance that reality can only be defined based on our ability (or willingness, in some cases) to understand it. Is that how science, curiosity, and truth work? We dismiss what we don't understand?

 

[Jimmy D]

Hi JimmyD. Do you see a difference between the categories of intelligent design and Creationists (or are they they same in your understanding)?

Hi ES, on the face of it I don't see much difference, to me ID is attempting to put a sciencey face on creationism to make it appear more of a credible rival to mainstream science. From what I've seen they mostly spend their time like creationists do - trying to disprove the TOE which is a futile activity for many reasons.

These terms aren't always clearly defined though, if you were to say to me that your concept of ID or Creationism was something like a God sitting back and letting his Creation unfold through naturalistic means I wouldn't argue against it.

The idea of God at his drawing board in his heavenly workshop designing every plant, animal, sun, galaxy, etc seems crazy to me though. (I realize this is may be a strawman description but it's the image that comes to my mind when people talk of ID).

 

[Endtime Survivors]

I think probably one of my favorite examples of this kind of interpretation is the watchmaker analogy and the solar system. We have watches which are based on the movements of the solar system. We see intelligence in the watches but we do not see intelligence behind the solar system, and the only difference appears to be that humans have experience with watch-making while we do not have experience with solar system-making. In other words, if humans didn't make it, then it is not intelligently designed, but if you compare the complexity of a wrist watch to the complexity of Newtonian/quantum physics behind the solar system's existence and movements, there is no contest as to which is more complex and yet, still, it is not intelligently designed like the wrist watch.

Waaay back on page 4 I posted this, but then there was that thing where the thread was interrupted for a few days and I think it may have slipped between the cracks (or maybe it's just not that interesting) but I'm keen to hear what others think of this assessment.

 

[DogmaHunter]

To be quite frank, when people use worlds like "any" and "always" to describe their opinions, it really does sound like dogma. Have you finally found yourself, hunter?

It's not an opinion.

Look at the world today and at civilisations throughout history.
Extremism never turns out well.

Nazism, communism, facism, brutal theocracies,...
That's what you get when you take a dogmatic ideology/doctrine and go all radical in it.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

It's not an opinion.

Look at the world today and at civilisations throughout history.
Extremism never turns out well.

Nazism, communism, facism, brutal theocracies,...
That's what you get when you take a dogmatic ideology/doctrine and go all radical in it.

Isn't it extreme to only view "extremism" as negative? What about mountain dew?

Isn't it extreme to say that extreme behavior can never turn out for the good?

 

[Endtime Survivors]

These terms aren't always clearly defined though, if you were to say to me that your concept of ID or Creationism was something like a God sitting back and letting his Creation unfold through naturalistic means I wouldn't argue against it.

The idea of God at his drawing board in his heavenly workshop designing every plant, animal, sun, galaxy, etc seems crazy to me though. (I realize this is may be a strawman description but it's the image that comes to my mind when people talk of ID).

I understand that images like the guy with a long white beard in the clouds, or angels playing harps while sitting on clouds, or, as you suggest, God in his work shop come across as sounding a little ridiculous, but that's only because we choose to use such simplified imagery.

But aside from the imagery we use, why would you be ok with a God who "sits back" as opposed to a God who is hands-on?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hmm, I wonder. I'm a firm believer in intelligent design,

Your choice of words ("firm believer") speaks volumes.

To illustrate, I wouldn't state for example that I'm a "firm believer" of plate tectonics or germ theory.

but I'm not so sure about creationism, if by creationism you mean a literal 7 day, 24 hours per day creation.

That's "young earth creationism".

I believe God could do so, but I'm not convinced that he did do so. I am convinced that we didn't all come from a single cell. That just doesn't make sense to me.

The universe and reality doesn't owe you any "sense".
There was a time when it didn't make "sense" to people that the earth orbits the sun.
There was a time when it didn't make "sense" to people that time is relative to the observer.

Another thing I'ld note here, is that your "common sense" is only good for reasoning about things that you already know. Your "common sense" can't keep into account stuff that you are ignorant of or don't understand.

For example, your "common sense" will only inform you that it's a bad idea to stick your hand in the fire, if you actually know what fire is and does...

There's just too much complexity in our design for such a simple explanation to possibly be reasonable, though I understand the appeal.

That's an argument from ignorance.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Kinda like "cdesign proponentsists"?

No, that's not a derogatory term.
That's rather a term present in an "ID" book where ID proponents have been caught with their pants down.

It's a copy/paste error that show the true nature of this movement.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's easy to knock others for doing what we can't do. If there's no intelligence in our ability to eat and breathe from the same orifice, then what does that say about your intelligence?

That his intelligence realises that it would be better to keep them seperate, so that we couldn't choke to death on our food.

This is where interpretation becomes so important. You refer to an intelligent designer as a scapegoat, but isn't it really just an alternative explanation?

No, because it has exactly zero explanatory power. It makes no predictions, we learn nothing, it informs us of nothing. And, it has zero supporting evidence.

It's like saying that gravity is the result of pink graviton fairies. Good luck building an anti-gravity device using that "explanation".

And evolution is an alternative to ID.

No. Evolution is an actual model with explanatory power and predictive capability. It is actually useful and it actually explains things.

And why should you feel bothered by more questions? Isn't that how all learning happens? We ask questions and seek answers?

Questions are good, if they are honest.

Not really. The designer designed time, space, and matter which means he's also able to exist outside these concepts.

That's quite a claim. Do you have any evidence for this?
Off course you don't, because it's just religion and nothing more or less.

Can you explain how you suppose a supreme being would be designed outside of time, space, matter?

I will, as soon as you demonstrate that such a being actually exists.

You wouldn't even know where to start, yet you boldly declare it a rabbit hole with no satisfactory ending.

No, that's because of the special pleading you engage in.
If X requires a designer because it is 'too complex', then surely things even more complex, like the designer, require a designer for the exact same reason.
And then you turn around and make up all kinds of excuses as to why this designer is exempt from the very rule you used to claim such a designer.

That's a fallacy.

In essence, what your argument suggests is that if we can't understand who designed the designer then a designer makes no sense, but that argument depends on the arrogance that reality can only be defined based on our ability (or willingness, in some cases) to understand it.

False. The argument is just about pointing out a logical fallacy in the argument that YOU are bringing forward.

You make up a rule "complex things must be designed", just so you can introduce your designer of choice, to then immediatly turn around and break your own rule.
Special pleading. Fallacy.

Is that how science, curiosity, and truth work? We dismiss what we don't understand?

No. Science works through testable evidence and falsifiability. You know, the kind of evidence you don't have for this "being" you keep talking about.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Isn't it extreme to only view "extremism" as negative?

What's with this "only" stuff?

I'm just talking about extremism in general.
I have yet to see a civilisation or society that I would want to live in, which is based on radicalism of a certain ideology.

Do you disagree with this?

Isn't it extreme to say that extreme behavior can never turn out for the good?

No. Extremism is objectively dangerous. Again: just look at all the fundamentalist societies both past and present. From theocracies to north korea.

 

[Jimmy D]

I understand that images like the guy with a long white beard in the clouds, or angels playing harps while sitting on clouds, or, as you suggest, God in his work shop come across as sounding a little ridiculous, but that's only because we choose to use such simplified imagery.

True

But aside from the imagery we use, why would you be ok with a God who "sits back" as opposed to a God who is hands-on?

Because of all the evidence that demonstrates the evolution and common descent is a fact and that the stories laid down in genesis cannot be taken literally.

Maybe sitting back was the wrong phrase. If God's been around for eternity then 14 billion years would surely be less than a blink of an eye. I obviously don't believe that anyway, I'm just saying it seems like a more sensible approach to creation than having to deny all the evidence from observations of the world about us.

 

[lesliedellow]

"Evilutionist" is a term invented by rather dishonest creationists.

I am not trying to defend creationists, but Darwin himself used that term, as has Richard Dawkins.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Your choice of words ("firm believer") speaks volumes.

Does it suggest confidence? That would be nice. ^.^

I'm just talking about extremism in general.
I have yet to see a civilisation or society that I would want to live in, which is based on radicalism of a certain ideology.

Do you disagree with this?

Depends. The Kingdom of heaven is based on the principles of loving one another. In comparison to other systems (like the worldly system we have now) the KoH is very radical, but to those who practice it's values and principles, it's normal. So much depends on how you choose to interpret what is or is not radical and then you'd still need to interpret the motives for why those behaviors are radical.

No. Extremism is objectively dangerous. Again: just look at all the fundamentalist societies both past and present. From theocracies to north korea.

Sure, there's plenty of bad examples of people behaving in extreme or radical ways. But aren't there any good examples, too? Not at all? If it's just a difference of interpretation, how would you describe good examples of extreme behavior? What words would you substitute for extreme in those examples?

 

[Chris B]

You refer to an intelligent designer as a scapegoat, but isn't it really just an alternative explanation?

One problem with the Intelligent Design design proposal is simply this: if there is an intelligent designer, with the intelligence and power that would imply, why are there so many bits of *unintelligent* design?
Things that could be better thought-out even by a human level of intelligence.

This is so clear from looking around the world that the Christian perspective, declaring that a good God created everything (and it was good), then needs the account of The Fall to give an explanation for all the things that so clearly aren't good.

This is a whole extra proposition which functions to make the initial declaration of creation square, match up to, the world as we see it.
And it's wonderfully flexible, as it can be made to fit "anything".
If it's good God did it, if it isn't, then it's humanity's fault for sinning in a perfect Eden.
This isn't a refutation of the story or the theology, of course, but it's difficult to avoid noting how wonderfully, wonderfully convenient it is.
I don't think the idea would have been arrived at by observation alone. Something more of a mixed tale, with a philosophy to match, I suggest.

(But then I do need a chunk of Anglo-Saxon (or Norse) fatalism to get me through my day.)

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Maybe sitting back was the wrong phrase. If God's been around for eternity then 14 billion years would surely be less than a blink of an eye. I obviously don't believe that anyway, I'm just saying it seems like a more sensible approach to creation than having to deny all the evidence from observations of the world about us.

Something from nothing doesn't seem sensible to me at all. The key component of evolution is random mutation. The mutations are not guided by anything at all and yet we end up with highly complex, inter-dependent systems which would require several different mutations to occur simultaneously in order to survive.

But aside from that, what happens in the DNA to cause the mutation? That they happen randomly does not answer why they happen. Nothing can happen without some kind of information for why it should happen. The information which causes DNA to mutate; where does that come from? And after the DNA mutates, does that mean new information is created as a result?

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Things that could be better thought-out even by a human level of intelligence.

What are the unintelligent parts and what are your alternatives? Also, just because something is not designed the way you personally would prefer it to be designed does not mean the design lacks intelligence. It seems to be a rather arrogant point of view; if it's not designed the way I think it should be then it's not intelligent.

There are probably ways that this forum could be better designed, but would you suggest what it is now is not based on intelligence as a result of that conclusion? To me it comes across as irrational, but I'm open to having misunderstood you.

If it's good God did it, if it isn't, then it's humanity's fault for sinning in a perfect Eden.

Hmm. I meet a lot of people who think judgment is a bad thing, but I don't see it that way. Judgement is a good thing. Even when it proves me wrong, when it exposes my greed, fear, pride, hypocrisy and I feel terrible as a result, I still think judgment is a good thing because judgement also distinguishes what is good.

When it comes to good and bad, people often get all twisted up over their personal opinions vs God's perspective. As for the fault of humanity, why should it bother you that people make mistakes and that God would expect people to take responsibility for those mistakes? Have you ever had anyone apologize to you and experienced a sense of relief at them recognizing their problem? Have you ever experienced remorse or regret in a situation where doing so actually helped you to grow as a person?

I think I'm still not understanding your position because I believe in situations outside of religious context you could appreciate those principles.

This isn't a refutation of the story or the theology, of course, but it's difficult to avoid noting how wonderfully, wonderfully convenient it is.

Believing that something comes from nothing is also convenient. But as for Christianity, I don't think it is convenient at all. A close examination of Jesus' teachings will reveal a good deal of discipline and self sacrifice as part of learning to become both emotionally and spiritually mature. Jesus talked about forsaking all; materialism, friends, family, respectability and even our own lives. It all gets stripped away and then we start all over again, like little children learning how to live by a completely new set of values. Instead of being served, we serve. Instead of taking we give. Instead of hitting back we turn the other cheek. Instead of saving our lives we choose to lay them down.

Jesus likened this process to falling on a rock and being broken. It's not convenient at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Does it suggest confidence? That would be nice. ^.^

No. It suggests faith-based beliefs , aka religion, instead of evidence-based conclusions.

Depends. The Kingdom of heaven is based on the principles of loving one another. In comparison to other systems (like the worldly system we have now) the KoH is very radical

myeah... I'm actually refering to actual real civilisations and societies in actual reality.
Not some utopian "kingdom" that only exists on paper.

, but to those who practice it's values and principles, it's normal

Right. Abdelhamid Abaaoud also thought it was quite normal to drive around with an SUV in Syria while dragging corpses of "infidels".

So much depends on how you choose to interpret what is or is not radical and then you'd still need to interpret the motives for why those behaviors are radical.

Again, no. It's quite easy to spot extremists in any ideology. All it takes is an attempt at reasoning with them or trying to have a sensible discussion about their ideology.

Sure, there's plenty of bad examples of people behaving in extreme or radical ways.

I know of no other examples.
You are welcome to try and point me to a society (in reality), that is ruled by a fundamentalist ideology, that would actually be a nice and tolerant place to live in.

But aren't there any good examples, too? Not at all?

I know of none.

If it's just a difference of interpretation, how would you describe good examples of extreme behavior? What words would you substitute for extreme in those examples?

I know of no such examples. Do you?

 

[AV1611VET]

... and it was their own term.

No, it wasn't.

It was a typo that antagonists won't let go.

And while I do think it was dishonest of them, antagonists blow it out of proportion and run it into the ground.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Something from nothing doesn't seem sensible to me at all.

Why do you believe that your god created everything from "nothing", then?

The key component of evolution is random mutation.

No, it's just one of the components. It's not more or less important then other components, like natural selection for example.

The mutations are not guided by anything at all and yet we end up with highly complex, inter-dependent systems which would require several different mutations to occur simultaneously in order to survive.

Natural Selection.
And no, it doesn't require several mutations "simultaneously" at all.
You've been reading to much Behe. Try getting your info from a biology professor that is actually honest and doesn't have a secret religious agenda.

But aside from that, what happens in the DNA to cause the mutation? That they happen randomly does not answer why they happen.

I'm sure a geneticist could give you a technical bio-chemical answer to that question.

Nothing can happen without some kind of information for why it should happen.

That's a weird sentence.

The information which causes DNA to mutate;

"information"? What "information"?
It's just chemistry.....

where does that come from?

It's just the way atoms and molecules work. Physical things have properties and interact one another in certain ways, under the influence of the forces of nature.

And after the DNA mutates, does that mean new information is created as a result?

I'ld advice you to be carefull with the word "information". Because in genetics, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

A lot of people, especially creationists, tend to understand that word "information" in the sense of "information" as found in a book. As in letters forming a sentence and the sentence carrying some kind of message.

That's not the kind of "information" we find in DNA.

Always remember that DNA is actually just a molecule. A very big, very complex molecule, but just a molecule nonetheless.

The things it does, is in essence just a chemical process. A gigantic chain reaction. It is a sequence of events, not unlike we find in any other chemical chain reaction.

As deGrass Tyson once famously said: "life is just the extreme expression of complex chemistry".