If you routinely removed all written theory - about 'Evolution' - from culture, it would reappear?

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
Exactly.

Evolution is just the word in English that we apply to the concept, there's nothing special about the term.

It's a Latin word for unrolling that became an English word for changing that was later applied to a biological process and a scientific theory about that process.

A separate civilisation with no knowledge of our history would have a different word, but the concept would be based on the same evidence.

Ah.

So you are saying, "based on the mutations between the first and last discovery of 'Evolution', the word for it would change".

But subsequent changes in the same process, would not necessarily arrive at 'Evolution' again.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
The ToE like all science is provisional. It is not a religious dogma which is held by the believer to be true.

You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Religion enables me to hold certain words to be "true", which in addition to Evolution is a potential: either for change or greater change.

Suggesting that what is true can only come from within science, without holding certain words to be true in the process, leaves you at square one: with respect to that which is more than true, being discovered.

You can cut yourself short if you want, but whatever your object might be, you're only making it harder to reach (unless you are somehow forcing a greater hand from God, despite your objections to Him!).
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,821
45
✟917,556.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Ah.

So you are saying, "based on the mutations between the first and last discovery of 'Evolution', the word for it would change".

But subsequent changes in the same process, would not necessarily arrive at 'Evolution' again.
No, I'm not stating that at all.

The scenario you were describing was after all knowledge of evolution being lost to humanity, a new culture rediscovering it. There isn't a process analogous to mutation, it's a new discovery not a variation on the older one.

I also need to be clear, the new word for the concept of evolution would have nothing to do with the old one. It would be a results of the future scientists, their language, culture and how they assigned names for things.

As an example, this new civilisation is likely to discover electricity too and would probably have a word for electrical potential energy. But they wouldn't call it "voltage" as it would not have been studied by some guy called Alessandro Volta in their civilisation.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
But they wouldn't call it "voltage" as it would not have been studied by some guy called Alessandro Volta in their civilisation.

The point is that they wouldn't come even close to 'Voltage', no matter how many times they discovered it, because as you say "it wouldn't be traceable to Volta".

And the fact is that we shouldn't care.

Jesus said "hypocrites strain out a gnat (something very small) and swallow a camel (something very hard to get on top of)" (gospels)
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,821
45
✟917,556.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
The point is that they wouldn't come even close to 'Voltage', no matter how many times they discovered it, because as you say "it wouldn't be traceable to Volta".

They would get the concept of electrical potential energy, which is the important factor, not what some dead civilisation named it.

And the fact is that we shouldn't care.

I agree.

Jesus said "hypocrites strain out a gnat (something very small) and swallow a camel (something very hard to get on top of)" (gospels)
I don't understand your point.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
They would get the concept of electrical potential energy, which is the important factor, not what some dead civilisation named it.

They would name it, though, it is important not to forget that. Even if you become as competent as possible when dealing with selection pressure, there will be systemic discoveries that hinge on design: such as naming things that you have discovered.

I agree.
I don't understand your point.

What Jesus said was "Hypocrites! You strain out a gnat (in this context: alternative names for 'Evolution') but you swallow a camel (in this context: mixing selection pressure with mutation)". In common parlance this is similar to "not seeing the forest for the trees". The point is, that the temptation is to attribute everything that changes to "Evolution" when what you should be looking for, is the means to strengthen survival.
 
Upvote 0

Mr Laurier

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2021
1,141
366
57
Georgian Bay/Bruce Peninsula
✟31,584.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Ok, but this is the point: would it be rediscovered in a way that justifies "Evolution"?

Like would people wait to see the human race develop into something else? Or would the old colloquialism "men improved on apes" reappear? Or would it become "men grew out of a fear of octopi"?

If it (Evolution) was rediscovered in exactly the same way, wouldn't that suggest "design"? Doesn't the fact that Wallace almost discovered "Evolution" point to design?
Evolution is a process. Not an ideology to "justify".

None of the above.

Wallace, like Darwin, discovered the mechanism, of evolution, which is sexual selection.
Neither man discovered evolution, which was known about for centuries before.
If neither man had been born, we would still see the same process taking place.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
Evolution is a process. Not an ideology to "justify".

You are misdirecting a strawman. I am not attempting to advance ideology. Be that as it may, you take the conversation backwards, by suggesting that a process on its own, is sufficiently perfect to define its own accountability. That simply is not the case.

None of the above.

Wallace, like Darwin, discovered the mechanism, of evolution, which is sexual selection.
Neither man discovered evolution, which was known about for centuries before.
If neither man had been born, we would still see the same process taking place.

The whole point is that we are not to be at a loss for words, for the sake of correctly interpreting that discovery.

Jesus correctly determined, that the use of a thing is more important than its discovery - I am merely bringing His words on the matter to light.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,821
45
✟917,556.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
They would name it, though, it is important not to forget that. Even if you become as competent as possible when dealing with selection pressure, there will be systemic discoveries that hinge on design: such as naming things that you have discovered.

But science and naming are human endevours. I agree that they are absolutely a product of design.

That doesn't mean what they are studying are also the product of design.

What Jesus said was "Hypocrites! You strain out a gnat (in this context: alternative names for 'Evolution') but you swallow a camel (in this context: mixing selection pressure with mutation)". In common parlance this is similar to "not seeing the forest for the trees". The point is, that the temptation is to attribute everything that changes to "Evolution" when what you should be looking for, is the means to strengthen survival.

Evolution is a description of the result after the fact, not about the individual chances of survival and change themselves.

Also, no one should attribute all survival to genetic advantages.

A genetic advantage will give a statistical advantage over the whole population... the individuals may have all manner of luck and personal choices (or even divine intervention if you believe in that) to give or take their chances of survival.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gottservant
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
But science and naming are human endevours. I agree that they are absolutely a product of design.

That doesn't mean what they are studying are also the product of design.

They may be, they may not be.

Evolution is a description of the result after the fact, not about the individual chances of survival and change themselves.

Stating something is a fact is not a fact - you keep saying Evolution "is fact" when the minutiae is unstated: which Evolution is fact? You can't have all of them (all the Evolutions)??

Also, no one should attribute all survival to genetic advantages.

A genetic advantage will give a statistical advantage over the whole population... the individuals may have all manner of luck and personal choices (or even divine intervention if you believe in that) to give or take their chances of survival.

The point is, if we are going to do this at all (interpret Evolution), we will do well to start with the Words of Jesus.

If Jesus says "hypocrites are vulnerable to boasting" then we had better be sure that we aren't boasting about science (hypocritically).

If Jesus says "don't think about it so much" then we had better be sure we are not unable to rest.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,119
KW
✟127,483.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Religion enables me to hold certain words to be "true", which in addition to Evolution is a potential: either for change or greater change.
Religion and science are not at odds. It is the creationist literal interpretation of genesis that is at odds with science.

Suggesting that what is true can only come from within science, without holding certain words to be true in the process, leaves you at square one: with respect to that which is more than true, being discovered.
That is a creationist misunderstanding, although it does appear that creationist organizations like AIG and DI have ulterior motives for perpetrating that misunderstanding.

You can cut yourself short if you want, but whatever your object might be, you're only making it harder to reach (unless you are somehow forcing a greater hand from God, despite your objections to Him!).
I don't have any objections to others believing there is a God but I don't know if there is a God and if there is a God that it is the Christian God.
 
Upvote 0

Mr Laurier

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2021
1,141
366
57
Georgian Bay/Bruce Peninsula
✟31,584.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You are misdirecting a strawman. I am not attempting to advance ideology. Be that as it may, you take the conversation backwards, by suggesting that a process on its own, is sufficiently perfect to define its own accountability. That simply is not the case.



The whole point is that we are not to be at a loss for words, for the sake of correctly interpreting that discovery.

Jesus correctly determined, that the use of a thing is more important than its discovery - I am merely bringing His words on the matter to light.

You seem to have no clear idea what evolution is, beyond an idea that you oppose for religious reasons.
Please try to clarify what you think evolution is.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Freodin
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,821
45
✟917,556.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
They may be, they may not be.

No, naming and science are definitely human endevours and designed.

And that is not a reason to assume what they apply to are designed or not.

Stating something is a fact is not a fact - you keep saying Evolution "is fact" when the minutiae is unstated: which Evolution is fact? You can't have all of them (all the Evolutions)??

I didn't say "Evolution is a fact" I used the turn of phrase "after the fact".

I was talking about how evolution doesn't apply to individual instances... it's about species wide statistical changes.

And you are making mistakes about how evolution works again. There aren't multiple evolutions and individuals do not have an evolution.

Evolution is a process. Not a possession. Not an attribute. Not a theology. Not a philosophy.

The point is, if we are going to do this at all (interpret Evolution), we will do well to start with the Words of Jesus.

If Jesus says "hypocrites are vulnerable to boasting" then we had better be sure that we aren't boasting about science (hypocritically).

If Jesus says "don't think about it so much" then we had better be sure we are not unable to rest.
We don't need to boast about science, it's a practical tool. Same for evolution in particular, it's just a practical way to look at the history and changes in life... it's consistent with the evidence and is useful as a tool of understanding the physical world.

It really isn't relevant to Jesus, his teachings, or to the salvation of his followers.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,130
6,377
29
Wales
✟346,890.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
What Jesus said was "Hypocrites! You strain out a gnat (in this context: alternative names for 'Evolution') but you swallow a camel (in this context: mixing selection pressure with mutation)".

And that's just post hoc logic from you at it's finest (and no, that's not a compliment).
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Stating something is a fact is not a fact - you keep saying Evolution "is fact" when the minutiae is unstated: which Evolution is fact? You can't have all of them (all the Evolutions)??



.
In this forum, by common agreement, there is only one evolution being discussed: biological evolution and the scientific theory which describes it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
Yes, but precisely why would a theory about Evolution, not necessarily evolve (subsequent discovering)?
Do you think a theory about Gravity would always fall down?

A theory is a system of explanations about an observable phenomenon. It isn't the phenomenon itself.

The map is not the territory, as the saying goes.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums