Where did the laws of nature come from?

[quatona]

Some people into theistic evolution do believe that God set the ball rolling and then just sits back. I and many others do not buy that. We believe that evolution demands constant intervention by God.

Not that I disagree that these people exist - but I find the terminology "atheistic evolution"/"theistic evolution" unfortunate. It almost makes it sound like our religious convictions have anything to do with scientific theories or even inform them.
After all, we don´t distinguish between "theistic gravity" and "atheistic gravity", either.

 

[Hoghead1]

Not that I disagree that these people exist - but I find the terminology "atheistic evolution"/"theistic evolution" unfortunate. It almost makes it sound like our religious convictions have anything to do with scientific theories or even inform them.
After all, we don´t distinguish between "theistic gravity" and "atheistic gravity", either.

The distinction is there because some feel evolution is purely a random, unguided process; others, such as myself, believe it is guided by God. Theoretically, you could have theistic or atheistic gravity, depending upon whether you felt the cosmos and laws of nature required a designer or not.

 

[lesliedellow]

After all, we don´t distinguish between "theistic gravity" and "atheistic gravity", either.

That's because people like Richard Dawkins don't try to smuggle in philosophical ideas, under the guise of talking about gravity, but they do try to do that with evolution - perhaps because they think it makes more promising material for their purpose.

However, that leaves biologists and laymen, who are religious, to distance themselves from Dawkins & Co by applying the adjective theistic to their acceptance of evolution.

 

[quatona]

The distinction is there because some feel evolution is purely a random, unguided process; others, such as myself, believe it is guided by God. Theoretically, you could have theistic or atheistic gravity, depending upon whether you felt the cosmos and laws of nature required a designer or not.

I do understand that you want to distinguish between atheism and theism (and I agree it´s a meaningful distinction). It´s just that "theistic" or "atheistic" don´t qualify a scientific theory (as this terminology suggests), they add a non-scientific religious belief (or lack thereof) that has absolutely no bearing on the theory itself.
I am an atheist and - in regards to an entirely different question - I accept the ToE.
This terminology comes right out of the mindset of "Creationists" (in the narrow sense) - who are actually the only ones who let their religious beliefs inform their acceptance or non-acceptance of scientific theories.

 

[quatona]

That's because people like Richard Dawkins don't try to smuggle in philosophical ideas, under the guise of talking about gravity, but they do try to do that with evolution - perhaps because they think it makes more promising material for their purpose.

Examples?

However, that leaves biologists and laymen, who are religious, to distance themselves from Dawkins & Co by applying the adjective theistic to their acceptance of evolution.

It seems to me that it´s rather born out of the need to distance themselves from those who let their religious beliefs inform their acceptance or non-acceptance of scientific theories, i.e. "Creationists".

 

[VirOptimus]

What makes you assume that. Creationist believe that the earth is only 5,000 years old and that all life was created as it is. I have not stated this. I am talking about design in life being scientifically supported. Completely different ideas. I think you are stereotyping and assuming that anyone who speaks of design in life must be a creationists. If I was only using creationists sites then how do you explain the scientific papers from non religious sites I have used as evidence. How do you explain the ID papers I have used as evidence. Both are different to creationists views. Why would I even talk about the Cambrian period as actually happening if I was a creationist.

How old is the earth in your opinion?

Do evolution occur at all? If so, are there limits?

Which role do god(s) play in the creation of life in your opinion?

 

[lesliedellow]

Examples?

"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

That sentence appears in a book called, "River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life."

 

[lesliedellow]

It seems to me that it´s rather born out of the need to distance themselves from those who let their religious beliefs inform their acceptance or non-acceptance of scientific theories, i.e. "Creationists".

Creationists and people like Dawkins need one another to justify their own position, as opponents of the other's dangerous views.

 

[quatona]

Creationists and people like Dawkins need one another to justify their own position, as opponents of the other's dangerous views.

(In which I think Dawkins reacted to "Creationism", not vice versa. But that just as an aside.)
That´s why I don´t think it´s a good idea to base our terminology on such misconceptions.
But if you wish we can make a compromise: You call your position "theistic evolution", but you don´t get to call mine "atheistic evolution" - simply because neither does my atheism inform my view on scientific findings nor vice versa, and I am not afraid that - just for accepting the theory of evolution, I am understood as linking it to atheism, at least not by people with half a brain.
Deal?

 

[lesliedellow]

[QUOTE="quatona, post: 69676990, member: 111204]and I am not afraid that - just for accepting the theory of evolution, I am understood as linking it to atheism, at least not by people with half a brain.
Deal?[/QUOTE]

If you are not afraid of that, you ought to be, because in the real world it happens.

 

[quatona]

[QUOTE="quatona, post: 69676990, member: 111204]and I am not afraid that - just for accepting the theory of evolution, I am understood as linking it to atheism, at least not by people with half a brain.
Deal?

If you are not afraid of that, you ought to be, because in the real world it happens.[/QUOTE]
It hasn´t happened to me. But maybe that´s because I don´t live in the USofA. "Creationists" are a very rare species, over here.

 

[lesliedellow]

It hasn´t happened to me. But maybe that´s because I don´t live in the USofA. "Creationists" are a very rare species, over here.

I live over here as well, but nowadays over here is part of a global village - especially with the Internet.

 

[quatona]

I live over here as well, but nowadays over here is part of a global village - especially with the Internet.

Ah, I thought when saying "in the real world" you meant that as a contrast to the internet.
Anyway, if Creationists and Richard Dawkins are such a great authorities for you as a theist that you feel the need to shape your terminology after their misconceptions (and thereby rather confirm them than distance yourself from them), have at it.
(Btw. you still haven´t shown how and where Dawkins "tries to smuggle in philosophical ideas into evolution". I haven´t read Dawkins, so I don´t know).
Personally, I am more concerned that I might be mistaken for being unable to differenciate between science and religion when saying "atheistic evolution".

Ah, there it is:

"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

That sentence appears in a book called, "River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life."

And that´s got to do what with "trying to smuggle in philosophical ideas into evolution"? I see no explicit or implicit reference to evolution in that sentence anymore than to gravity or any other scientific theory.

 

[lesliedellow]

And that´s got to do what with "trying to smuggle in philosophical ideas into evolution"? I see no explicit or implicit reference to evolution in that sentence anymore than to gravity or any other scientific theory.

And the title of the book? What else is Darwin known for, apart from ToE?

 

[quatona]

And the title of the book?

What to it?

What else is Darwin known for, apart from ToE?

I don´t know and I don´t care what he is known for. I was asking you to substantiate your claim that "trying to smuggle in philosophical ideas into evolution". You haven´t, so far. Note also, that drawing philosophical conclusions (however smart or stupid they may be) based on the ToE wouldn´t mean "smuggling philosophical ideas into evolution", it would mean basing your philosophy on scientific findings.

 

[lesliedellow]

What to it?

I don´t know and I don´t care what he is known for. I was asking you to substantiate your claim that "trying to smuggle in philosophical ideas into evolution". You haven´t, so far. Note also, that drawing philosophical conclusions (however smart or stupid they may be) based on the ToE wouldn´t mean "smuggling philosophical ideas into evolution", it would mean basing your philosophy on scientific findings.

"River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life."

That title can hardly be understood to be a reference to anything other than the Theory of Evolution, and in the book bearing that title he sets out a philosophy, incompatible with theism, which he calls, "A Dawrwinian View of Life."

 

[quatona]

"River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life."

That title can hardly be understood to be a reference to anything other than the Theory of Evolution, and in the book bearing that title he sets out a philosophy, incompatible with theism, which he calls, "A Dawrwinian View of Life."

Good, so he sets out a philosophy based on ToE. That´s not "smuggling in philosophical ideas into evolution". It´s the other way round.

 

[lesliedellow]

Good, so he sets out a philosophy based on ToE. That´s not "smuggling in philosophical ideas into evolution". It´s the other way round.

Whichever way round it is, he is trying to link them.

 

[AV1611VET]

... that earthquake in Japan back in 2011...

Hachiman, also known as Hachiman-shin or Yawata no Kami, is the god of war and the divine protector of Japan and its people. Originally an agricultural deity, he later became the guardian of the Minamoto clan. His symbolic animal and messenger is the dove.

Luke 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

Perhaps God is showing them who the real Dove is?

Deuteronomy 6:15 (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

Egypt suffered the same fate with ten plagues aimed at ten of their deities.

Exodus 12:12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, but the fact life has hallmarks of being designed does not negate evolution. it is an argument that the evolutionary process requires divine guidance.

I have stated before that I support evolution to a degree. Its a matter of what that degree is between you or I and anyone else. Some will disagree with you as to God being a guiding source for Darwin's evolution. You and I may disagree as to what extent we support Darwin's theory. I just don't think the evidence supports some of the tenets that have been claimed by evolution. As far as the science goes some of Darwinian evolution tenets have not been scientifically verified and are based on a consensus of assumption which they have come to base of faith themselves. Some will say that most of it is fact when that is not the case. Or they will base the evidence on observational support and then say this is sufficient when other forms of evidence dont agree with this.
I think that just because you believe in God and evolution doesn't mean you have to accept what evolution is saying as well and make it all a comfortable union and fit.

There may be other mechanisms that God used to allow life to change for which the scientific evidence is showing such the non adaptive processes of HGT, symbiosis, cross breeding, epigenetics and other processes that are mentioned in the paper from nature I mentioned such as how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). These things have a big bearing on how life can change besides evolution and may in fact be more of the reason than Darwin's theory. But altogether they add up to a great ability that life has to live as one entity including the environment being an organic and living conduit for sharing genetic info and being able to use that when needed to survive on this planet.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

It is since modern science such as genomics, developmental biology and things like epigentics, HGT and symbiosis have all been better understood that we begin to see that Dawins theory played a smaller role or may not have been responsible for how life may have changed. The more that is being discovered the more it is moving away from the theory. As stated in the paper does evolution need a rethink. Some want to relegate all these new discoveries to the sidelines and say they are just consequences of evolution and play no real part in how life changes. Whereas others are saying their are the very reasons why life changes and are relegating Darwin's theory more to the sidelines.