A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

[stevevw]

None. The ToE just describes physical reality.

Then why is it called theistic evolution

 

[stevevw]

Yes, that is a very interesting discussion which evolutionary biologists are now having. However, whatever comes out of it will remain a fully naturalistic theory. There is no "gap" being contemplated which will require the insertion of divine tinkering.

I am not saying that there needs to be some divine tinkering or supernatural events after life has been created. I am saying that these processes are different to blind natural selection acting on random mutations which have no overall direction and purpose. The processes involved are more directed and well suited for living things to be able to adapt and change which is what would be expected from a creator God.

So just like some say for the big bang to produce a fine tuned universe for life there had to be some specific settings from the beginning, the creation of life must also have some guiding mechanisms from the beginning to produce the specific situation we have today. These guiding mechanisms should be seen today just like they are for the fine tuned universe. What is classed as natural may be Gods way of installing some direction for life to adapt.

 

[stevevw]

Well, you get what you deserve when you take metaphysics from a guy like Dawkins who doesn't know anything about it. In a way he is correct, however. The physical causality (in particular, the Efficient causes) which he is taking about do not themselves transmit Telos--which is why science does not treat of it.

Richard Dawkins does not base evolution on metaphysics. He is a prominent evolutionary biologist and has based what he says on a thorough understanding of evolution. As far as I understand it evolution being blind and purposeless is a well known and common view. Natural selection cannot see into the future to select a certain outcome. It will only deselect that which will not survive and leave those who will without any specific aim.

Douglas Futuyma who is also a prominent evolutionary biologist supports the same view
This experiment conveys the essence of natural selection: it is a completely mindless process without forethought or goal. (p. 285)
National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is associated with education and support of evolution in America and they put out this statement
The diversity of life on earth is the result of evolution: an unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.

But I agree that evolution may have some direction and purpose. How do we know that evolution was not Gods intention and purpose to allow life to live in the changing environments on earth. If they did not have an ability to change then they would perish and I don't think God would want this. Why would God allow a chance process without purpose to create humans who he intended to have relationship with.

People say that if evolution was rerun there is no guarantee that it would produce the same outcomes and this could mean humans never evolved. If that's the case then God is taking a big risk with evolution to create the life we see that needed to happen to end up with exactly what we have. So even if evolution is the only way life has come about I think God knew what he was doing and intended this to be the way we ended up. If that's the case then there must be some intention, purpose and direction in evolution.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then why is it called theistic evolution

Because they believe god(s) made the rules.

 

[stevevw]

Because they believe god(s) made the rules.

I am assuming you mean the rules of evolution. So as far as theistic evolution supports are concerned would not it be logical that they see those rules as having direction and purpose rather than no purpose and chance.

 

[VirOptimus]

I am assuming you mean the rules of evolution. So as far as theistic evolution supports are concerned would not it be logical that they see those rules as having direction and purpose rather than no purpose and chance.

Maybe. But direction and purpose are religious ideas and not supportre by the facts and data.

Its metaphysics.

 

[Speedwell]

I am assuming you mean the rules of evolution. So as far as theistic evolution supports are concerned would not it be logical that they see those rules as having direction and purpose rather than no purpose and chance.

I'm beginning not to trust you. You are using mined quotes from atheists to argue (clumsily) against theistic evolution, which makes me think you are really just another biblical creationist who won't admit it.

 

[Speedwell]

People say that if evolution was rerun there is no guarantee that it would produce the same outcomes and this could mean humans never evolved. If that's the case then God is taking a big risk with evolution to create the life we see that needed to happen to end up with exactly what we have. So even if evolution is the only way life has come about I think God knew what he was doing and intended this to be the way we ended up. If that's the case then there must be some intention, purpose and direction in evolution.

It may well be that if humans had not evolved, then some other form could have acquired the capacity of self-reflective intelligence which is what makes us of special concern to God.

 

[VirOptimus]

I'm beginning not to trust you. You are using mined quotes from atheists to argue (clumsily) against theistic evolution, which makes me think you are really just another biblical creationist who won't admit it.

He has used the same arguments and misused the same papers for years.

 

[stevevw]

Maybe. But direction and purpose are religious ideas and not supportre by the facts and data.

Its metaphysics.

No direction and purpose are not exclusively religious ideas. They can be found in any area of life. If I am going on a trip there can be a reason such as going to see a friend (purpose) and I need to know how to get there (direction). A machine can be designed to make parts (purpose) and needs to be programmed (direction). Direction and purpose can be supported by the facts for the examples above and we can find support for this with living things as well.

 

[stevevw]

I'm beginning not to trust you. You are using mined quotes from atheists to argue (clumsily) against theistic evolution, which makes me think you are really just another biblical creationist who won't admit it.

I just acknowledged that I support theistic evolution a few posts back. I provide support for what I say and if you think it is unsupported then please explain how so at least we can engage in a conversation and sort out any misunderstandings.

 

[stevevw]

He has used the same arguments and misused the same papers for years.

You still have not explained those arguments and even if your claim is right in that you have explained this before you have not for the benefit of this thread which will have people who do not know what you are talking about.

 

[stevevw]

It may well be that if humans had not evolved, then some other form could have acquired the capacity of self-reflective intelligence which is what makes us of special concern to God.

Maybe but under the same context according to the secular view of evolution being a blind chance process we could also end up with no intelligent beings as the possibilities have to include every possibility that can happen on every planet in our universe. This seems to contains too many risks for what I would believe a creator God would take. I am sure a creator God would instill some mechanisms that ensured we ended up with the right outcome even if that means that evolution is more purposeful and directive than we give it credit for.

 

[VirOptimus]

You still have not explained those arguments and even if your claim is right in that you have explained this before you have not for the benefit of this thread which will have people who do not know what you are talking about.

They can read your posts.

 

[VirOptimus]

No direction and purpose are not exclusively religious ideas. They can be found in any area of life. If I am going on a trip there can be a reason such as going to see a friend (purpose) and I need to know how to get there (direction). A machine can be designed to make parts (purpose) and needs to be programmed (direction). Direction and purpose can be supported by the facts for the examples above and we can find support for this with living things as well.

In the ToE that would presuppose an agent, ie god(s), ie metaphysics ie nonscientific.

 

[Tinker Grey]

It may well be that if humans had not evolved, then some other form could have acquired the capacity of self-reflective intelligence which is what makes us of special concern to God.

Ken Miller (Finding Darwin's God) had a similar thought.

 

[stevevw]

In the ToE that would presuppose an agent, ie god(s), ie metaphysics ie nonscientific.

Yes that is what was said about Darwin's theory of evolution, design without a designer.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes that is what was said about Darwin's theory of evolution, design without a designer.

No, the ToE does not contain any design elements. Why would it? ID is just creationism in disguise.

 

[stevevw]

No, the ToE does not contain any design elements. Why would it?

It has to use design as most scientists acknowledge that there is design in life. They use words that describe design like code, language, systems, programs etc. They just don't attribute this to God. Dawkins said evolution gives the appearance of design in life. But how do we know this is not really design. What walks like a duck is usually a duck. It seems silly to see something that looks designed in life such as a living cell and say it does not have all the hallmarks of design. It is like saying a sports car is not designed.

ID is just creationism in disguise.

As stated earlier ID is not creationism. Creationism uses supernatural creation by God. ID uses science and does not include the supernatural or mention God. It cannot as this would contradict the scientific stand it takes.

 

[stevevw]

In the ToE that would presuppose an agent, ie god(s), ie metaphysics ie nonscientific.

For supporters of theistic evolution it is God. So though they support ToE they believe it could not have happened without God intervening someway. The issue for evolution is as time goes by we are finding more and more signs of direction in how life changes. It is not all about blind chance as ToE claims. We are finding that explaining things in adaptive terms (natural selection) is not enough to explain what we are finding with how life has evolved and changes.