Creationists and research

[toff]

I suspect you are guilty of confusing philosophy and science if you make such a statement. I am trying to demonstrate why science is philosophy - and for me to demonstrate that you must show me the scientific theory of evolution. If you just point to "any amount of documentation on precisely this subject", then I will point to a philosophical model. Let's get specific.

Science is not philosophy. Philosophy is not science. If you are trying to demonstrate they are, you have failed. If you are not aware of the theory of evolution (a scientific theory) then do some research and learn it, don't come here and expect people to hand-feed it to you.

 

[toff]

Abiogenesis is random, and while not a part of the field of biology, is an absolutely essential part of the entire philosophical model of evolution. But of course, it's not possible to draw such distinctions until we are clear on what exactly the scientific theory of evolution is.

There is no "philosophical model of evolution". It is a scientific theory.

 

[Bushido216]

I'll make an attempt at a definition here, as quoted from dictionary.com

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

and

The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny. (i.e., the evolution of a population.)

 

[LorentzHA]

Is it not true that naturalism holds that "the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations"?

Maybe so, I am not that familiar with what naturalism says.

And that, therefore, if you claim abiogenesis is possible to have been initiated by a divine being you are destroying the naturalistic foundation that evolution is built on?

Not at all. Evolution could care less what the Prime mover was. Deity is certainly one of the options.

If you are an atheist or a naturalist, then such a possibility for abiogenesis cannot be considered, leaving only the impossibility of it randomly occuring. Therefore either destroying a) naturalism & atheism, or b) philosophical model of evolution

I am not a naturalist or an atheist. Nope, again Abiogensis is different than Evoltuion. Evolution does not speak to the prime mover. Chemistry is not random.

 

[toff]

Is it not true that naturalism holds that "the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations"? And that, therefore, if you claim abiogenesis is possible to have been initiated by a divine being you are destroying the naturalistic foundation that evolution is built on?
If you are an atheist or a naturalist, then such a possibility for abiogenesis cannot be considered, leaving only the impossibility of it randomly occuring. Therefore either destroying a) naturalism & atheism, or b) philosophical model of evolution

Unless you have other naturalistic explanations for abiogenesis.

I would say that what you have posted above is an accurate description of what naturalism holds. However, your next sentence errs in a couple of ways. Firstly, abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory, so whatever is claimed/discovered about abiogenesis will not affect evolutionary theory in the slightest. Secondly, you err in assuming that evolutionary theory is based on a "naturalistic foundation". It is not, no more than gravitational theory or the theory of relativity is. Like all science, they are based on observation and formulation of hypotheses. When naturalistic hypotheses satisfy the observations, why posit a supernatural hypotheses? And, of course, the tendency to posit a supernatural hypotheses when we do not have a naturalistic one leads to a god of the gaps...a rather dangerous backing for a theist.

Obviously, the claim that a divine being created counters both naturalism and atheism; so what? They are both positions based on what we know; if something is discovered which violates them, they no longer become viable positions to hold. Thus far, however, they are both still viable, as they have not been violated by anything we know.

And, again, there is no "philosophical model of evolution".

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Evolution isn't based on naturalism. It's based on observed facts.

First we must establish what evolution is, before we can say whether it is based on observed facts or not. To which you have said later:

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

This sounds scientific to me. It's falsifiable. I have had quoted other similar definitions, typically from talkorigins.org which reads, from their FAQ:

Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time.

Are people happy with these scientific definitions of evolution? Do you all have a preference of one over the other? If you are happy, then I will go on.

 

[Bushido216]

Obviously I'm fine with them. It's alot deeper than that, but if you want the basic definition there you go.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Science is not philosophy. Philosophy is not science. If you are trying to demonstrate they are, you have failed. If you are not aware of the theory of evolution (a scientific theory) then do some research and learn it, don't come here and expect people to hand-feed it to you.

I have not tried yet, I'm first trying to get from you and the others a scientific theory of evolution. I have done plenty of research, but why shouldn't I ask you for what you think is a scientific definition? Surely if you defend evolution then you know what your own beliefs are. I could easily have quoted talkorigins.org on your behalf, but what would that prove? I want you to provide the scientific definition for us to work with, not me.

There is no "philosophical model of evolution". It is a scientific theory.

Well, that's what we're here to discuss, isn't it?

Firstly, abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory, so whatever is claimed/discovered about abiogenesis will not affect evolutionary theory in the slightest.

On the contrary, as I said above, if abiogenesis is shown impossible on naturalistic assumptions then it would simultaneously disprove atheism and naturalism. It may or may not affect evolution, depending on what scientific definition of it we agree on.

Secondly, you err in assuming that evolutionary theory is based on a "naturalistic foundation". It is not, no more than gravitational theory or the theory of relativity is. Like all science, they are based on observation and formulation of hypotheses.

Again, this is hard to comment on without a scientific definition of evolution. However, what I was referring to (unclearly, I admit) was the claim that we should accept the theory that is simplest - Ockham's razor - and that typically evolution is claimed to be the simplest. However, it is the simplest if we assume naturalism. But you are right barring that.

Obviously, the claim that a divine being created counters both naturalism and atheism; so what? They are both positions based on what we know; if something is discovered which violates them, they no longer become viable positions to hold. Thus far, however, they are both still viable, as they have not been violated by anything we know.

My reason for mentioning them is simple - you claim that abiogenesis is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. I claim that it is tied in. For if abiogenesis is demonstrated or falsified then that will modify certain assumptions such as naturalism and atheism. If naturalism is destroyed then that raises many other questions about the supernatural involvement in other parts of evolution. It is absolutely critical to the full philosophical model of evolution, which I will comment on shortly.

 

[Bushido216]

My reason for mentioning them is simple - you claim that abiogenesis is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. I claim that it is tied in. For if abiogenesis is demonstrated or falsified then that will modify certain assumptions such as naturalism and atheism. If naturalism is destroyed then that raises many other questions about the supernatural involvement in other parts of evolution. It is absolutely critical to the full philosophical model of evolution, which I will comment on shortly.

Not really. Evolution describes the Origin of Species. Even if God put the lightning in just the right place to strike up the first protein, evolution could easily have taken over from there without any trouble at all and produced the full pageant of life on earth.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Not really. Evolution describes the Origin of Species. Even if God put the lightning in just the right place to strike up the first protein, evolution could easily have taken over from there without any trouble at all and produced the full pageant of life on earth.

That's not the point. Once naturalistic assumptions have been abolished, you no longer have a good reason for assuming the absence of supernatural involvement from that point on. Tell me why it is reasonable to assume that the supernatural was absent from the point after God struck lightning in just the right place?

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Obviously I'm fine with them. It's alot deeper than that, but if you want the basic definition there you go.

I think I know what you mean by "deeper", but that is the point of what I am to say.

I agree with those two scientific theories of evolution. They fit the observable data, and have been demonstrated time and time again. Therefore I am an evolutionist. I also believe the earth is only around 6000 years old, and that humans do not share a common ancestor with apes, dolphins, or whales. I believe that God created life on the earth around 6,000 years ago.

 

[toff]

I have not tried yet, I'm first trying to get from you and the others a scientific theory of evolution. I have done plenty of research, but why shouldn't I ask you for what you think is a scientific definition? Surely if you defend evolution then you know what your own beliefs are. I could easily have quoted talkorigins.org on your behalf, but what would that prove? I want you to provide the scientific definition for us to work with, not me.

It's not something that varies from person to person. Evolution isn't a belief which some people might have in slightly different ways to others. It is a scientific theory, and doesn't have different definitions depending on your taste or beliefs. If someone, for example, defines evolutionary theory to include abiogenesis, they are simply wrong. Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory.

Well, that's what we're here to discuss, isn't it?

lol then stop beating around the bush and discuss it!

On the contrary, as I said above, if abiogenesis is shown impossible on naturalistic assumptions then it would simultaneously disprove atheism and naturalism. It may or may not affect evolution, depending on what scientific definition of it we agree on.

And it may or may not affect gravity, as well...if we define gravity incorrectly. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. If abiogenesis is shown....ANYTHING, it will nt affect evolution in the slightest.

Again, this is hard to comment on without a scientific definition of evolution. However, what I was referring to (unclearly, I admit) was the claim that we should accept the theory that is simplest - Ockham's razor - and that typically evolution is claimed to be the simplest. However, it is the simplest if we assume naturalism. But you are right barring that.

No, it is the simplest based on observation. Nothing else. No assumptions.

My reason for mentioning them is simple - you claim that abiogenesis is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. I claim that it is tied in. For if abiogenesis is demonstrated or falsified then that will modify certain assumptions such as naturalism and atheism. If naturalism is destroyed then that raises many other questions about the supernatural involvement in other parts of evolution. It is absolutely critical to the full philosophical model of evolution, which I will comment on shortly.
[/size][/color][/font]

If you claaim abiogenesis is "tied in" to the theory of evolution, you are simply wrong. I'm sorry, but that's it. And again, there is no "philosophical model of evolution." The destruction of naturalism or atheism would have not the slightest affect on the theory of evolution.

 

[toff]

That's not the point. Once naturalistic assumptions have been abolished, you no longer have a good reason for assuming the absence of supernatural involvement from that point on. Tell me why it is reasonable to assume that the supernatural was absent from the point after God struck lightning in just the right place?

Wrong question. Even if god is proven, there is no need to assume that the supernatural was present in evolution. Occam's razor, again. Evolution can be explained by naturalistic processes; there is no 'need' for god in it.

 

[Arthur Dietrich]

Well, this is something slightly new 0.0

To the evolution=philosophy people: Care to provide some sources backing/dicussing this? Surely since it is so obvious (to you) that evolution=philosophy, Then someone somewhere (preferably with the proper credentials) must've jotted it down other than you. Though my biology teacher will be quite disapointed we wasted all that time on the chapters on Evolution.

*would add in some refereeing (sp?), but has decided to eat rice cakes instead*

 

[Bushido216]

That's not the point. Once naturalistic assumptions have been abolished, you no longer have a good reason for assuming the absence of supernatural involvement from that point on. Tell me why it is reasonable to assume that the supernatural was absent from the point after God struck lightning in just the right place?

Because there's no evidence of that. Nor is there any reason to assume there was.

Besides, when has God not shown us his intervention?

 

[Bushido216]

I think I know what you mean by "deeper", but that is the point of what I am to say.

I agree with those two scientific theories of evolution. They fit the observable data, and have been demonstrated time and time again. Therefore I am an evolutionist. I also believe the earth is only around 6000 years old, and that humans do not share a common ancestor with apes, dolphins, or whales. I believe that God created life on the earth around 6,000 years ago.

The data disprove that.

Sorry.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

The data disprove that.

Sorry.

That's not the point. You gave a scientific theory of evolution. I merely pointed out that that scientific theory itself does not:
a) presuppose an old earth
b) disprove creation

Now this whole argument about evolution vs creation is philosophical, as I have stated before. If you can find me a scientific theory of evolution that presupposes an old earth and/or is counter to the creation model, then I will provide you with an equivalent scientific definition of creation.

Tell me this scientific theory that you think disproves creationism.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Ok, I have a better way to get this back on course. Tell me why creationism isn't science.

 

[Bushido216]

That's not the point. You gave a scientific theory of evolution. I merely pointed out that that scientific theory itself does not:
a) presuppose an old earth
b) disprove creation

Now this whole argument about evolution vs creation is philosophical, as I have stated before. If you can find me a scientific theory of evolution that presupposes an old earth and/or is counter to the creation model, then I will provide you with an equivalent scientific definition of creation.

Tell me this scientific theory that you think disproves creationism.

I didn't say that evolution disproved an old earth. I said the data did.

Creationism isn't a theory because it doesn't explain any facts. The facts point to an old earth.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

I didn't say that evolution disproved an old earth. I said the data did.

Creationism isn't a theory because it doesn't explain any facts. The facts point to an old earth.

My point: the scientific theory of evolution does not contradict creationism.

So then, what is this scientific theory of evolution that states, in a falsifiable way, that we all descended from a common ancestor?

Remembering that science deals with the observable, and makes predictions about the future, and must be falsifiable.