Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Job 33:6]

I agree that atheists don't have to declare themselves as Humanists.
I'm having a hard time seeing Christians declaring themselves as Humanists though(?)

Christian humanism - Wikipedia

I get the impression that people have taken humanistic ideas and have tied them to religions and non religions in various ways. Though I'm thinking that these days humanism is probably more of a secular concept.

 

[tas8831]

Quite; I thought I'd make the point satirically

And you did, Sir.

 

[tas8831]

I was raised without religion as well, though now I am an avid church goer and happy to be so.

But I think that there is a difference here in the topic of evolution and the topic of something along the lines of the anthropic principal.

The question of if there are long neck giraffes is a bit different from the question of why any giraffe even exists to begin with rather than the universe being some mottled or incoherent, non-sentient jumble of matter.

I have to say, I'd go with the atheists here in the topic on the theory of evolution, but as far as I can tell, there doesn't appear to be an answer from atheists for why the universe has the apparent order that it does that hosts life. And to be fair, theists have beliefs, but it's not like we were alive in the beginning to "know" these deep questions either beyond faith based ideas. For atheists though, as noted, the rabbit appears in the hat without any particular reason or rhyme nor even a purpose.

Atheism doesn't really have a clear philosophy on life. Something to collectively motivates people in life through ups and downs, together as a "church". It doesn't have a philosophy that makes efforts for cohesion of people.

@tas8831 what do you think of this?

Seems reasonable, but my position on "why"-type questions (as in why is the universe the way it is) is basically that they are not something I think too much about. I'm an atheist in that I see no evidence for any deities, any supernatural entities or actions, and so, feel no need to for them. If some being created the universe, I'm not sure how that answers and real questions, not sure how that changes what we know about, say, cosmology (post-big bang, anyway) or biology, for there is at least some evidence that such propositions are not needed.
Regarding guiding philosophies, that too is not something I am all that interested in. But from my own life experiences, the atheists I know are no different (at a fundamental level, anyway) than theists - we enjoy time with family and friends, complain about taxes, go to work, etc. We don't seem to need external guiding values/worldviews/philosophies/beliefs to make sense of things, or to guide us through rough times. You (the generic you) may go to church for such things, we just hang out, maybe talk with a friend. I knew certain things were wrong when I was kid because I felt it, not because my family dragged me to church to be told they were (my family was religiously neutral - never went to church, but had bibles, and a crucifix hanging in the living room, etc.). My only exposure to Scripture was when my older sister would show me the scary pictures in our big family bible, but I didn't read it until I was 20. Got a bit off topic, but my point is I, and most of the atheists I personally know, don't really feel a need for those things.

 

[Job 33:6]

I suspect most atheists would say, "We don't know!". Whatever your belief or lack of it, sooner or later you reach brute fact, e.g. "Why does God exist?"

That's because atheism is just a lack of belief in a god or gods. I suspect most atheists have some kind of philosophy of life, but that's an individual decision.

Atheists are members of clubs, societies, charities, all kinds of groups, depending on their interests and affiliations. Some atheists have tried a 'semi-religious' approach with all the social trimmings of religion, e.g. weekly 'church' meet-ups, but AIUI, it hasn't really caught on significantly.

I think that there is merit in saying that at the end of the day "we don't know". But I also think that's a shortcoming of atheism, not having a clear or unified positive position.

I think that the idea of not knowing why God exists (or holding a faith based position that God is eternal), and by extension viewing us as created in an organized anthropic principal-like universe, is a bit easier than the idea that we don't know why anything exists as it does, in that holding a belief in God still points us toward the unified idea that we serve a greater purpose. Rather than purpose being more individually determined (my purpose on earth is to be happy for example). What do you think about this last statement @FrumiousBandersnatch ?

There is a verse in scripture, Ephesians 3:10.

"His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,"

I tend to view this as, in a Christian view, we've been created to display the glory, wisdom and beauty of God and Gods creation for essentially the universe and beyond to see, and to be inspired by. And that creation was essentially made to display the glory of God as Gods image bearers.

When we compare these ideas. An atheist approach of, you live maybe to be happy, or to help others, or maybe not for any particular reason at all, compared to the idea that you were created to shine. The atheist position, without something more attached to it, I think it feels kind of non-inspiring or empty.

Do atheists largely prefer the idea or belief that we don't serve a greater purpose? or do atheist beliefs vary and perhaps some do view a greater purpose? And what might that greater purpose be?

And that's what thurwood or whatever that guy's name is was really getting at when he brought up the rabbit in the hat

 

[Job 33:6]

Seems reasonable, but my position on "why"-type questions (as in why is the universe the way it is) is basically that they are not something I think too much about. I'm an atheist in that I see no evidence for any deities, any supernatural entities or actions, and so, feel no need to for them. If some being created the universe, I'm not sure how that answers and real questions, not sure how that changes what we know about, say, cosmology (post-big bang, anyway) or biology, for there is at least some evidence that such propositions are not needed.
Regarding guiding philosophies, that too is not something I am all that interested in. But from my own life experiences, the atheists I know are no different (at a fundamental level, anyway) than theists - we enjoy time with family and friends, complain about taxes, go to work, etc. We don't seem to need external guiding values/worldviews/philosophies/beliefs to make sense of things, or to guide us through rough times. You (the generic you) may go to church for such things, we just hang out, maybe talk with a friend. I knew certain things were wrong when I was kid because I felt it, not because my family dragged me to church to be told they were (my family was religiously neutral - never went to church, but had bibles, and a crucifix hanging in the living room, etc.). My only exposure to Scripture was when my older sister would show me the scary pictures in our big family bible, but I didn't read it until I was 20. Got a bit off topic, but my point is I, and most of the atheists I personally know, don't really feel a need for those things.

I think this makes sense.

I think it also helps me understand my own thoughts.

I think that what we really need is the honesty of atheistic humanism with respect to things like questions of science and the universe (theists don't have a particularly good track record with handling scientific advances), but I think that atheism lacks a centralized idea that mobilizes and motivates people to do things.

I suppose the secular government has programs that help with poverty and programs that redirect taxes to fund housing for the elderly. Though I think that a lot of people view these things with an expectation of personal gain. Growing up I may have volunteered to help somewhere a couple times for the sake of passing a class. In comparison, volunteering is basically a norm at church. If you aren't volunteering, you're doing something wrong. This mentality of modern protestant churches appears to stem from teachings of Christ (if Christ gave his life for humanity, then the least you could do is give your free time to do the same).

While it is fair to say that there are christian sinners who might rob you while your back is turned, I think that in large part, while theism seems to lack this critical scientific honesty on origins, I think that atheism seems to lack the mobilizing, inspirational and somewhat humanistic ideas (maybe modern christian ideas as opposed to historic) of the new testament.

Those are my thoughts. I suppose I'm typing this for myself but all are welcome to share thoughts.

 

[jacknife]

I think this makes sense.

I think it also helps me understand my own thoughts.

I think that what we really need is the honesty of atheistic humanism with respect to things like questions of science and the universe (theists don't have a particularly good track record with handling scientific advances), but I think that atheism lacks a centralized idea that mobilizes and motivates people to do things.

I suppose the secular government has programs that help with poverty and programs that redirect taxes to fund housing for the elderly. Though I think that a lot of people view these things with an expectation of personal gain. Growing up I may have volunteered to help somewhere a couple times for the sake of passing a class. In comparison, volunteering is basically a norm at church. If you aren't volunteering, you're doing something wrong. This mentality of modern protestant churches appears to stem from teachings of Christ (if Christ gave his life for humanity, then the least you could do is give your free time to do the same).

While it is fair to say that there are christian sinners who might rob you while your back is turned, I think that in large part, while theism seems to lack this critical scientific honesty on origins, I think that atheism seems to lack the mobilizing, inspirational and somewhat humanistic ideas (maybe modern christian ideas as opposed to historic) of the new testament.

Those are my thoughts. I suppose I'm typing this for myself but all are welcome to share thoughts.

Atheism is an answer to one question "do you believe in god/god's" were not a hive mind or organized in our beliefs, there are religous athiest, spiritual atheist (I fall into that category) and non-religous non-spiritual atheist. I think you are trying to make it out to be more then it's suppose to be.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think that there is merit in saying that at the end of the day "we don't know". But I also think that's a shortcoming of atheism, not having a clear or unified positive position.

That's because atheism isn't a philosophy, a position, or a worldview, it's just a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's all there is to it. Atheists can have whatever philosophies, positions, or worldviews they prefer.

I think that the idea of not knowing why God exists (or holding a faith based position that God is eternal), and by extension viewing us as created in an organized anthropic principal-like universe, is a bit easier than the idea that we don't know why anything exists as it does, in that holding a belief in God still points us toward the unified idea that we serve a greater purpose. Rather than purpose being more individually determined (my purpose on earth is to be happy for example). What do you think about this last statement @FrumiousBandersnatch ?

If 'serving a greater purpose' is what floats your boat, that's fine. I (and, I suspect, many others) prefer not to be an involuntary servant. It seems that some people need to be explicitly given a 'greater' purpose, told what's right and wrong, and how to live their lives; and some people don't.

"His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,"

I tend to view this as, in a Christian view, we've been created to display the glory, wisdom and beauty of God and Gods creation for essentially the universe and beyond to see, and to be inspired by. And that creation was essentially made to display the glory of God as Gods image bearers.

When we compare these ideas. An atheist approach of, you live maybe to be happy, or to help others, or maybe not for any particular reason at all, compared to the idea that you were created to shine. The atheist position, without something more attached to it, I think it feels kind of non-inspiring or empty.

As I said, there is no atheist 'position' - any more than there is a 'non-stamp collector's position', or a 'non-believer in the monster-under-the-bed position'.

Personally, I'm happy not to be in thrall to some deity or the product of its need for approbation and appreciation (from its own creation? ). The universe we see, the planet we live on, and the creatures on it are all entirely consistent with being the product of a simple set of physical laws, and mix great beauty with great horrors. We're one of the most complex things it has produced, so we can wonder about its origins, and make up stories about it, and it seems to me these stories are clearly the products of human imagination.

But seriously, if God is supposed to have created the universe, who are these other "rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms" he's showing off to?

Do atheists largely prefer the idea or belief that we don't serve a greater purpose? or do atheist beliefs vary and perhaps some do view a greater purpose? And what might that greater purpose be?

Atheist beliefs, philosophies, worldviews, etc., vary - all they have in common is not including a god or gods. If you want to know if someone thinks there is a greater purpose, you should ask them. Personally, I don't; I have my own purposes in life, and I find this apparent obsession with 'greater purpose' suggestive of some deep insecurity.

And that's what thurwood or whatever that guy's name is was really getting at when he brought up the rabbit in the hat

Huh? you've lost me there...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sometimes I think that I've been fortunate to find a church that reflects some of my core values and so it's easy for me to become a part of

It certainly makes more sense to me that your church should reflect your core values rather than your core values reflecting your church.

I always found it interesting that people who professed to believe in a particular creed and/or religion from which they claimed to get their core values, could later change to another creed and/or religion that 'suited them better'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Christian humanism - Wikipedia

I get the impression that people have taken humanistic ideas and have tied them to religions and non religions in various ways. Though I'm thinking that these days humanism is probably more of a secular concept.

Humanism is typically a non-religious worldview - see about humanism.

 

[Job 33:6]

Humanism is typically a non-religious worldview - see about humanism.

I'll have to do more reading on this one.

Humanist Common Ground: Protestant Christianity - American Humanist Association

I'm finding more and more cross over the more I read up on humanism. And it's history.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

In these discussions it's quite common for creationists to claim they accept microevolution, but don't accept macroevolution. What is less clear is precisely what creationists think those two things are.

To clear the air, this thread is for the purpose of creationists explaining their respective understanding of each. If you're a creationist, what do you think microevolution and macroevolution are exactly?

Microevolution can be demonstrated experimentally, macroevolution cannot be demonstrated experimentally.

 

[Phred]

Microevolution can be demonstrated experimentally, macroevolution cannot be demonstrated experimentally.

So here we have a process. Doesn't matter what it is. It's a process. And we have two measurements of that process. One is tiny increments of the process and we call that "microprocess." The other is large increments of the process and we call that "Macroprocess."

They are both the SAME PROCESS. Just different measurements of that process.

For example, I have a test tube and we fill that test tube with an eye dropper. One drop is a Microfill. When it's full it's a Macrofill.

If you only saw three Microfills and then saw a Macrofill are you seriously going to tell me that you couldn't state that the Macrofill wasn't directly related to the Microfill?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

So here we have a process. Doesn't matter what it is. It's a process. And we have two measurements of that process. One is tiny increments of the process and we call that "microprocess." The other is large increments of the process and we call that "Macroprocess."

They are both the SAME PROCESS. Just different measurements of that process.

For example, I have a test tube and we fill that test tube with an eye dropper. One drop is a Microfill. When it's full it's a Macrofill.

If you only saw three Microfills and then saw a Macrofill are you seriously going to tell me that you couldn't state that the Macrofill wasn't directly related to the Microfill?

Your analogy is not correct. Drops add up to fill the test tube. Microevolutionary steps don't add, they are random occurrences. You must calculate the joint occurrences of microevolutionary changes by multiplication of their probabilities of occurrence.

 

[Frank Robert]

Microevolution can be demonstrated experimentally, macroevolution cannot be demonstrated experimentally.

Macro evolution has been demonstrated in a lab with green algae.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Micro evolution has been demonstrated in a lab with green algae.

There are many experiments that demonstrate microevolution. The Lenski LTEE and Kishony Mega-Plate experiments are good examples of measurable and repeatable experiments that demonstrate microevolution with multiple microevolutionary steps.

Have you ever tried to do the mathematics which predicts and simulates the behavior of microevolution?

 

[Frank Robert]

There are many experiments that demonstrate microevolution. The Lenski LTEE and Kishony Mega-Plate experiments are good examples of measurable and repeatable experiments that demonstrate microevolution with multiple microevolutionary steps.

Have you ever tried to do the mathematics which predicts and simulates the behavior of microevolution?

I mistyped, I meant macro and have edited the post

I read many of your discussions on math with the experts, you say the same things over and over and fail to take correction.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I mistyped, I meant macro and have edited the post

I read many of your discussions on math with the experts, you say the same things over and over and fail to take correction.

Identify the specific genetic changes in your reference on algae evolution. I read your link and they don't identify those mutations.

And do the mathematics of DNA evolution correctly if you think I've done it incorrectly. The math I've presented predicted very accurately the behavior of the Kishony Mega-Plate experiment before he performed his experiment and it also simulates and predicts the behavior of the Lenski experiment and explains why the Kishony experiment will not work with 2 drugs in his experimental apparatus.

None of your experts correctly explain either experiment.

 

[Phred]

Your analogy is not correct. Drops add up to fill the test tube. Microevolutionary steps don't add, they are random occurrences. You must calculate the joint occurrences of microevolutionary changes by multiplication of their probabilities of occurrence.

Of course they add. Once speciation occurs, which in itself is a micro-level event that's Macroevolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Microevolution can be demonstrated experimentally, macroevolution cannot be demonstrated experimentally.

Actually it has been. The problem is that creationists do not even understand what macroevolution is.

I would challenge you to support this claim, but I know that you can't. So I am going to give you a simpler challenge. Define macroevolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course they add. Once speciation occurs, which in itself is a micro-level event that's Macroevolution.

Oh rats. You already answered my challenge.