2 proofs that nature was designed

[Gene2memE]

? information processing capacity. So I take it your signed up to the Gayer Hypothesis by James Lovelock which gives the earth a personality. This fixes the problems which arise from the "blind and undirected chance" premise of evolution/naturalism.

The Gaia hypothesis doesn't postulate that earth has a personality, or a consciousness. Rather, it postulates that all of the systems on earth (organic and inorganic) for a self regulating system that always creates conditions that are favourable to life and work to maintain it.

It's also not incompatible with the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. One of the founders of the hypothesis described it as building further on the basis of Darwin's work.

 

[Frank Robert]

I'd define ID as the study of complex systems and without taking forward anything unproven. Its not religious per-sey, if it is perceived to lead to that conclusion its merely the result of Occam's razor.

The problem with ID is not Occam's razor. ID is simply unfalsifiable.

 

[May the facts be with you]

Exactly. I've never seen any version of ID that doesn't ultimately posit a deity as the intelligent designer.

Sure, that is the ultimate position.

In the same way, all of the many flavours of evolution are Atheism in disguise. I have to qualify this by saying there are some who imagine God as the conductor of an orchestra and orchestrates evolution, which of course violates evolution's fundamental principle of fully undirected, randomized change and a filtering mechanism AKA natural selection to filter out the naff ideas.

Respecting each others base camps (and I can fully respect someone even if I disagree), I'd be interested in how you view those who posit a botched TOE that relies on a God to make it work as in, if there wasn't a God, evolution couldn't have happened, so somehow evolution must have proceeded with a "director-in-chief" calling the shots.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In the same way, all of the many flavours of evolution are Atheism in disguise.

The fact that you make this claim really shows that you aren't doing anything to be respectful. There are Christians on this forum, on this thread, who accept evolution as being scientific fact.

 

[Astrid]

Sure, that is the ultimate position.

In the same way, all of the many flavours of evolution are Atheism in disguise. I have to qualify this by saying there are some who imagine God as the conductor of an orchestra and orchestrates evolution, which of course violates evolution's fundamental principle of fully undirected, randomized change and a filtering mechanism AKA natural selection to filter out the naff ideas.

Respecting each others base camps (and I can fully respect someone even if I disagree), I'd be interested in how you view those who posit a botched TOE that relies on a God to make it work as in, if there wasn't a God, evolution couldn't have happened, so somehow evolution must have proceeded with a "director-in-chief" calling the shots.

Given the (negative) things you just make
up about others' understanding its a bit off for
you to call it respect.
Might be best to ask or otherwise investigate.

 

[Speedwell]

Respecting each others base camps (and I can fully respect someone even if I disagree), I'd be interested in how you view those who posit a botched TOE that relies on a God to make it work as in, if there wasn't a God, evolution couldn't have happened, so somehow evolution must have proceeded with a "director-in-chief" calling the shots.

As a Christian, I think they lack imagination, are poorly schooled in theology--particularly the metaphysics of causality--and are probably Protestants.

 

[May the facts be with you]

I know there are, and I have such friends and family elsewhere as well who posit that. What I have never had is the opportunity to discuss this with someone who is an Atheist.

 

[Speedwell]

I know there are, and I have such friends and family elsewhere as well who posit that. What I have never had is the opportunity to discuss this with someone who is an Atheist.

There I can't help you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I know there are, and I have such friends and family elsewhere as well who posit that. What I have never had is the opportunity to discuss this with someone who is an Atheist.

Are you replying to me? Because if so, it would be better if you use the quote or reply function in the thread.

But, as I said, it is highly disrespectful to just say that evolution is for atheists, and I also think that it might be against forum rules. I think.

 

[May the facts be with you]

Given the (negative) things you just make
up about others' understanding its a bit off for
you to call it respect.
Might be best to ask or otherwise investigate.

I was meaning this to be asking, not putting down by the way.

 

[VirOptimus]

I know there are, and I have such friends and family elsewhere as well who posit that. What I have never had is the opportunity to discuss this with someone who is an Atheist.

The ToE has nothing to do with religion.

Mixing religion with science is an autoloss in a scientific debate.

 

[Astrid]

I know there are, and I have such friends and family elsewhere as well who posit that. What I have never had is the opportunity to discuss this with someone who is an Atheist.

Here's your atheist, here's your opportunity

 

[Astrid]

I was meaning this to be asking, not putting down by the way.

Thats better. Phrased as statements of fact,
I didn't realize it was a q.

 

[May the facts be with you]

Are you replying to me? Because if so, it would be better if you use the quote or reply function in the thread.

But, as I said, it is highly disrespectful to just say that evolution is for atheists, and I also think that it might be against forum rules. I think.

Hi, no this was not asked of anyone specifically, but in any case, I saw that you listed your self as a deist and not as an Atheist. But I would still be interested in your view, not is TOE true, but how does the TOE interact with a God. How does(did) God direct the TOE and is this still the classical evolution theory or is it a 3rd theory of origins.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Hi, no this was not asked of anyone specifically, but in any case, I saw that you listed your self as a deist and not as an Atheist. But I would still be interested in your view, not is TOE true, but how does the TOE interact with a God. How does(did) God direct the TOE and is this still the classical evolution theory or is it a 3rd theory of origins.

Considering the evidence that we have from science (aka the study of God's creation), than anything that I see as scientific has to be God's process. There is no conflict with accepting the Theory of Evolution as scientifically factual and believing in God. It's only when people put the Bible before the world, then it gets messed up.
Don't ask why I think He did it, because I won't be able to answer. God's way are a mystery to all except Him.

 

[May the facts be with you]

Here's your atheist, here's your opportunity

Thankyou. I have met very few true atheists, most are agnostic: ie have no opinion.

 

[Astrid]

Thankyou. I have met very few true atheists, most are agnostic: ie have no opinion.

So here is your chance to learn something.

 

[Speedwell]

Hi, no this was not asked of anyone specifically, but in any case, I saw that you listed your self as a deist and not as an Atheist. But I would still be interested in your view, not is TOE true, but how does the TOE interact with a God. How does(did) God direct the TOE and is this still the classical evolution theory or is it a 3rd theory of origins.

What you're talking about is "theistic evolution" and comprises many difference schools of thought. Many of them propose unfalsifiable divine guidance or intervention of some sort. They all accept the scientific findings of evolutionary biology, so it's still the classical theory as far as the science of it goes.

 

[Astrid]

What you're talking about is "theistic evolution" and comprises many difference schools of thought. Many of them propose unfalsifiable divine guidance or intervention of some sort. They all accept the scientific findings of evolutionary biology, so it's still the classical theory as far as the science of it goes.

I could see there being a god, unlikely as I think it is.
If there is, assigning to it the role of steering evolution
seems as unressonsble as to have him put snowflakes
into their nice shapes or designing waterfalls.
Very second rate Omni who has to constantly meddle
and tinker to get evolution to work.

 

[Kylie]

Sure, that is the ultimate position.

In the same way, all of the many flavours of evolution are Atheism in disguise. I have to qualify this by saying there are some who imagine God as the conductor of an orchestra and orchestrates evolution, which of course violates evolution's fundamental principle of fully undirected, randomized change and a filtering mechanism AKA natural selection to filter out the naff ideas.

Respecting each others base camps (and I can fully respect someone even if I disagree), I'd be interested in how you view those who posit a botched TOE that relies on a God to make it work as in, if there wasn't a God, evolution couldn't have happened, so somehow evolution must have proceeded with a "director-in-chief" calling the shots.

Evolution is atheism in disguise?

How do you figure this? My husband is a Christian and he thinks evolution is the correct explanation.

Or do you think that anything other than a literal interpretation of the Bible is atheism?