An Eastern Orthodox perspective on evolution

[Chalnoth]

Without positive evidence for either, they would be equally valid. Furthermore, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Even if UCD were true, that would not prove naturalism.

Nothing can prove naturalism. So nobody tries. Naturalism, rather, is the only assumption under which science can ever operate. It is nothing more than a statement that the universe is explainable. If searching for an explanation, a required assumption is the assumption that the universe is explainable, correct?

A supernatural deity is not explainable, because such an entity would, by human definitions, be capable of decision making, something that is inherently unpredictable.

 

[Chalnoth]

apologize ? , surely you cant be serious

Yes, I am serious. You are attacking the integrity nearly every scientist in a number of related fields of science.

, special relativity does not belong in the same realm as common descent, one is fantastically insightful and requires tremendous intelligence to appreciate, the other appears as an ideology requiring constant protection from rational criticism.

Your accusation has nothing whatsoever to do with my point.

My point was that science changes. You stated that science stays the same. You are wrong.

Now, are you going to apologize or back up your accusation?

 

[Punchy]

A supernatural deity is not explainable, because such an entity would, by human definitions, be capable of decision making, something that is inherently unpredictable.

We need not explain the designer to realize that something has been designed.

 

[Chalnoth]

We need not explain the designer to realize that something has been designed.

Yes you do. Otherwise how do you tell that it has been designed by that designer?

 

[Baggins]

They could be related by common design rather than common descent.

have you got any evidence that this is the case.

If you believe god created life to look like it was formed from UCD then I couldn't argue with you, but you would have taken the debate out of the realms of science.

I'll stick to science and naturalism, occam's Razor says if they can explain a phenomenum why invoke a deity?

 

[Punchy]

Yes you do. Otherwise how do you tell that it has been designed by that designer?

Must you understand the painter to realize that there exists a painting?

 

[Chalnoth]

Must you understand the painter to realize that there exists a painting?

Yes. Not perfectly, I admit, but we must understand a number of things. Consider, for just a moment, how we know that something is a painting. What identifies it as being a painting? Well, the primary method is looking at how the paint is laid down. This isn't just a random collection of colored material, but the paint is laid down in specific patterns that indicate how the painting was performed. More specifically, we can observe the individual brush strokes. And how do we know they are brush strokes? Well, the easy method would be to just watch a painter, but if we assume we can't do that, we might be able to show that the die could be laid down in that particular way by being laid down in a liquid state which then dried. Given the unevenness of the way in which it was laid down, we could then infer that it was laid down by an object that consisted had a bundle of thin, long, flexible strands at its end.

Thus, in looking at the painting closely, we could infer that the painter used paints and a paint brush. We could also infer the speed and patterning of the brush strokes, as well as the thickness of the paint when it was laid down.

So, at the very least, in observing a man-made object, one can infer some or all of the method in which that object was constructed.

Now, having inferred how the painting was constructed, we would want to make predictions as to what we should see in a painting. And here is where things just completely break down: there really is no way to tell what a painter will paint. For a basic example, consider Pablo Picasso. If we looked at this painting:
http://www.partiture.org/in1.html
Would we in any way be able to infer that he would later paint this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:L'Accordéoniste.jpg

The existence of a creator thus totally destroys any possibility of predictability. Therefore, the fact that we see no "brush strokes" in the natural world, that is, no evidence of a method by which an entity would have encoded information into our universe, as well as no evidence of fundamental unpredictability in our universe (everything seems to be , in principle, explainable), we, as of yet, have no evidence of a creator.

 

[Punchy]

Given that UCD and Neo-Darwinism can neither be proved nor disproved, I am going to seek the traditional Orthodox Christian understanding on this matter no matter what it may be. Adam and Eve are our first parents and Genesis is a historically reliable account of God's Creation. There is nothing in patristics nor tradition to negate this truth. That does not mean, however, that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

 

[Chalnoth]

Both can be, in principle, demonstrated to be false, Punchy, as has been explained to you many times. The fact that they have not does not mean that they can not, but rather the fact that they have not and yet can be demonstrated false places strong support upon the two ideas.

Do you not understand how finding a rabbit fossil in a precambrian layer would demonstrate evolution to be false?

 

[Punchy]

Do you not understand how finding a rabbit fossil in a precambrian layer would demonstrate evolution to be false?

Do you even need to ask such questions? C'mon, please don't think that anyone who disbelieves UCD is ignorant.

What undoubtably transitional species are living today?

 

[TeddyKGB]

What undoubtably transitional species are living today?

All of them.

Think about that carefully before you scoff.

 

[Punchy]

All of them.

Think about that carefully before you scoff.

What living transitions are there between fish and amphibian, amphibian and reptile, reptile and bird, reptile and mammal, etc.?

 

[Baggins]

What living transitions are there between fish and amphibian, amphibian and reptile, reptile and bird, reptile and mammal, etc.?

What a bizarre question.

Why would you expect to transitional forms for transitions that occured 10s of millions of years ago today?

For that to happen again the niches they evolved into would have to be empty and they obviously aren't.

I sometimes question the amount of education on these matters you claim to have.

There could well be transitional forms alive today, it is just impossible to predict what pathways evolution will take in the future.

But there are some animals alive that show transitional features:

Peripatus and seals spring to mind. Seals are neither fully marine mammmals nor fully terrestrial, they could well be evolving towards one state or the other, who knows, we certainly never will.

 

[Punchy]

Why would you expect to transitional forms for transitions that occured 10s of millions of years ago today?

It's quite convenient if all these transitional forms became extinct. That would either be evidence for a divine plan or negative evidence that these transitions actually occurred.

I'd recommend reading Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Most of the reviews I've read from atheists attempt to caricaturize Denton as a creationist in support of a theological agenda. But when Denton wrote the book, he was only speaking from what he observed as a scientist of the insufficiencies in the evidence for UCD and phyletic gradualism.

That Denton was a non-theist demonstrates that not only Christian fundamentalists would express doubt as to the scientific community's success in explaining the origin of species. Even if everything you've ever learned has told you that this is a load of garbage, I'd still recommend reading it. Not only would you at least know what it actually says, but perhaps you'd be compelled to ponder that perhaps the justifications for your current beliefs may be lacking.

Another good book is Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil by Cornelius Hunter. Hunter, a biochemist, demonstrates with ample historical evidence the much overlooked theodicy behind evolutionary thinking. Further, he shows how when these philosophical assumptions are removed, the physical evidence proves to be lacking.

From what we've observed in history since Darwin first published the origin, his theory of evolution can neither be proved nor disproved. For a theory that can adapt to any evidence or lack thereof can never be falsified. And if I am choosing one group's metaphysics over another, who do you think will have my vote? That which is most consistent with what I've already found to be true. -
Jesus is the Messiah. In death, He conquered death for us all. In His glorious resurrection, He ensured that we will be raised on the last day.

If you'd like to discuss further, please PM me.

Peace.

 

[Chalnoth]

Peripatus and seals spring to mind. Seals are neither fully marine mammmals nor fully terrestrial, they could well be evolving towards one state or the other, who knows, we certainly never will.

I'd also claim that flying squirrels and lungfish are good examples of possible living transitional forms. It seems likely that flying squirrels will, over time, evolve the ability to fly properly. I don't think we know what lungfish will evolve to do, as they could go either way really. Given the right conditions, becoming land animals (basically, they'd be come some sort of new amphibian-like organism, though significantly different from any modern amphibian), or becoming fully aquatic (losing the ability to go across he land for short distances) seems possible. Or they could do both (speciate), or stay in their current niche.

 

[Punchy]

You've missed the point. What living species is unambiguously transitional between fish and amphibian, for example? Or reptile and mammal? Not only are such transitions not found in the present, they are not unambiguously demonstrated by the fossil record.

Darwins God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil (Paperback)

From Publishers Weekly
Biophysicist Hunter brings rare depth and originality to this analysis of an often-neglected stream of Darwin's thought, illuminating not only the original debates surrounding The Origin of Species, but also contemporary questions about evolution and religion. Hunter's main argument is that most interpreters of evolution have misjudged Darwin's metaphysical motives. Rather than an assault upon God's existence, evolution was for Darwin and many of his contemporaries a defense of God's goodness, a strategy for disassociating God from the often unsavory details of nature by introducing a blind process of natural selection. Hunter attributes the early enthusiasm for evolution to the pervasive but shallow "modern theology" of many educated Victorians, whose offense at the violence and inefficiency of nature was compounded by their expectation that God's dealings with the world must always be benevolent and clearly discernable as such. Still more fascinating is the way Hunter traces similar metaphysical arguments in evolutionary rhetoric from Darwin to the present day, suggesting that theological attitudes from the na‹ve summit of the "modern" era continue to color perceptions of evolution and creation, often to the detriment of both. This book falls outside the standard niches of the evolution-and-religion literature, and readers who strongly identify with either side of creation-evolution debates will find grounds for disagreeing with some of Hunter's assertions; but the cogency of his central argument should attract readers of both persuasions.
http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-God-E...1789450?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173764536&sr=1-1

Again, if you'd like to discuss further, please PM me. May God's peace and love be with you.

Peace.

 

[Baggins]

It's quite convenient if all these transitional forms became extinct. That would either be evidence for a divine plan or negative evidence that these transitions actually occurred.

The vast majority of all species that ever existed are extinct, why should transitional species be any different.

I doubt it was convenient for them either

I

'd recommend reading Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Most of the reviews I've read from atheists attempt to caricaturize Denton as a creationist in support of a theological agenda. But when Denton wrote the book, he was only speaking from what he observed as a scientist of the insufficiencies in the evidence for UCD and phyletic gradualism.

No ta, I tend to stick to proper science books. There is plenty of good science outthere to read without having to bother with the crapulous. He was a director of the Discovery Institute, so I consider him biased

[WIKI]Reviews by the scientific community were indeed largely negative, with several attacking perceived flaws in Denton's arguments. Biologist and philosopher Michael Ghiselin described A Theory in Crisis as "a book by an author who is obviously incompetent, dishonest, or both — and it may be very hard to decide which is the case" and that his "arguments turn out to be flagrant instances of the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion[/WIKI].

Another good book is Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil by Cornelius Hunter. Hunter, a biochemist, demonstrates with ample historical evidence the much overlooked theodicy behind evolutionary thinking. Further, he shows how when these philosophical assumptions are removed, the physical evidence proves to be lacking.

Another fellow of the discovery institute? No thanks. As I said, the world is too full of good science books to bother with the bad.

Here's why:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

From what we've observed in history since Darwin first published the origin, his theory of evolution can neither be proved nor disproved.

You have been told on a number of occaisions that no scientific theory is ever proved, and you surely have to be able to think of ways that it could be falsified, we have gone over a few such as finding closer genetic links between morphologically similar animals than cladistically similar animals.

For a theory that can adapt to any evidence or lack thereof can never be falsified.

Can you really think of no way to falsify the ToE? What a lack of imagination.

And if I am choosing one group's metaphysics over another, who do you think will have my vote? That which is most consistent with what I've already found to be true. -

But what if you are choosing science?

Jesus is the Messiah. In death, He conquered death for us all. In His glorious resurrection, He ensured that we will be raised on the last day.

Jolly good.

 

[Baggins]

You've missed the point. What living species is unambiguously transitional between fish and amphibian, for example? Or reptile and mammal? Not only are such transitions not found in the present, they are not unambiguously demonstrated by the fossil record.



Again, if you'd like to discuss further, please PM me. May God's peace and love be with you.

Peace.

There are living transitionals between reptiles and mammals: Platypus and Ichidnas.

But I ask again, why would you expect to see a whole range of transitionals still around today when the vast majority of species that have existed are extinct and the vast majority of species persist for much shorter time frames than th e10s of millions of years we are looking at here.

The question is simply absurd and shows a lack of knowledge of palaeontology

 

[MrGoodBytes]

You've missed the point. What living species is unambiguously transitional between fish and amphibian, for example? Or reptile and mammal? Not only are such transitions not found in the present, they are not unambiguously demonstrated by the fossil record.

This wee fella begs to differ:

 

[Psudopod]

You've missed the point. What living species is unambiguously transitional between fish and amphibian, for example? Or reptile and mammal? Not only are such transitions not found in the present, they are not unambiguously demonstrated by the fossil record.

Can you explain to me why you think we should find a living transitional for transition that happen in the distant past?

Any species has the potential to be a transitional, as long as it doesn't become extinct.