Direction of Evolution

Speedwell said:

In scientific discourse "random" simply means "unpredictable." It does not mean uncaused or without purpose.

Click to expand...

Hello Speedwell.

Perhaps you can explain the following?

Randomness can be seen as conflicting with the deterministic ideas of some religions, such as those where the universe is created by an omniscient deity who is aware of all past and future events. If the universe is regarded to have a purpose, then randomness can be seen as impossible. This is one of the rationales for religious opposition to evolution, which states that non-random selection is applied to the results of random genetic variation.(Wikipedia)

klutedavid said:

Hello Speedwell.

Perhaps you can explain the following?

Randomness can be seen as conflicting with the deterministic ideas of some religions, such as those where the universe is created by an omniscient deity who is aware of all past and future events. If the universe is regarded to have a purpose, then randomness can be seen as impossible. This is one of the rationales for religious opposition to evolution, which states that non-random selection is applied to the results of random genetic variation.(Wikipedia)

Click to expand...

Why do some religions and so many religious people, firmly accept evolution?

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

As has been pointed out, random doesn't mean uncaused. Although, as I understand it, there is a question mark over the direct cause of a radioactive decay at the level of an individual atom.

You miss the point - the numbers drawn may not be random, but that doesn't matter; as long as there's no way for participants to discover the numbers before buying their tickets, the lottery is random from their perspective.

Whether the draw really is 'random' is an interesting point - if the world is classically deterministic, then the observer effect together with the Butterfly Effect (sensitive dependence on initial conditions) may make it impossible in practice to know all the variables, because a measurement will disturb the system and the Butterfly Effect will amplify that disturbance, invalidating the prediction (also, the relativity of simultaneity might make it impossible to simultaneously measure all the variables)... so it would be random in the sense of being unpredictable in practice.

On the other hand, the uncertainty principle and stochastic quantum mechanics may mean that there really are no definite variables to base a prediction on... so it would be random in the sense of being unpredictable in principle.

I think the jury is still out on QM randomness; for example, the 'Many Worlds' interpretation is deterministic, positing that the randomness we experience is an artifact of our perspective in much the same way as the randomness the lottery participants see is an artifact of theirs.

Click to expand...

Hello FB.

A very good reply.

bhsmte said:

Why do some religions and so many religious people, firmly accept evolution?

Click to expand...

Hello bhstme.

People believe the ideology they are taught.

Ophiolite said:

Do you deny that random events occur?
Do you understand that random does not mean without cause?

Click to expand...

Hello Ophiolite.

All events are caused events, therefore there is pattern and predictability to all events. The word, 'random', describes a temporary phenomenon, in time all will be understood.

klutedavid said:

Hello FB.

A very good reply.

Click to expand...

Hello kd.

Thanks.

klutedavid said:

Hello Speedwell.

Perhaps you can explain the following?

Randomness can be seen as conflicting with the deterministic ideas of some religions, such as those where the universe is created by an omniscient deity who is aware of all past and future events. If the universe is regarded to have a purpose, then randomness can be seen as impossible. This is one of the rationales for religious opposition to evolution, which states that non-random selection is applied to the results of random genetic variation.(Wikipedia)

Click to expand...

Evolution is a process which contains a randomizing element, but such an element need not be a barrier to telos. For example, in the electronics industry, processes based on random variation and selection are widely used, both in manufacturing and design. A semiconductor device, a transistor, say, can be built to exacting and expensive standards so that all of the transistors are precisely to type. On the other hand, it turns out to be cheaper to allow the performance parameters to vary randomly during production, then test and select the transistors afterwards, rejecting those which do not meet the standards for the type. These devices are produced by random variation and selection, but no one would say they were without purpose.

sfs said:

Could you please address this fundamental question: why do you think evolution at its core rules out any intelligence, design, or intent behind it?

Click to expand...

For the same reason people talk about "theistic evolution". There's a reason why they put "theistic" there.

USincognito said:

- Why humans and chimpazees share 203,000 endogenous retroviral insertions?

Click to expand...

Because they are seriously cute. Would love to play with one someday. Thanks for the pleasant reminder.

Endtime Survivors said:

For the same reason people talk about "theistic evolution". There's a reason why they put "theistic" there.

Click to expand...

That didn't answer his question at all.

Endtime Survivors said:

Because they are seriously cute. Would love to play with one someday. Thanks for the pleasant reminder.

Click to expand...

So, not only do not have an answer for the three examples you cut out of my quote, you don't have an answer for the one you actually did quote.

See, the thing is Creationists always want to argue semantics and hypotheticals, but when presented with actual evidence, they tend to avoid it entirely, respond with a non sequitur or go on a Gish Gallop.

My questions were actually pretty simple to answer.

Speedwell said:

Nor would I want to risk being associated with the fascist extremists at the Discovery Institute who invented Intelligent Design as a cover for their political agenda.

Click to expand...

It sounds like the basis for all this arguing, from the very beginning, is just you having one big reaction to not wanting to be associated with certain kinds of people who have various extreme views, hence your strong desire to get away from "creationism" and to shelter under the more respectable "evolution".

Ya know, many Christians today seem to think that if Shadrach, Meshach, and abednego had just bowed to the golden statue, while pretending it was really God they were bowing to in their hearts, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble, so that's how many Christians today behave. They go around bowing to the various golden statues of our time, pretending that in their heart they really serve their creator.

USincognito said:

My questions were actually pretty simple to answer.

Click to expand...

Remember that time you suggested I go talk to a professional geneticist if I wanted to understand your point of view? Overwhelming me with a bunch of vernacular and technical jargon won't get you anywhere except perhaps a good feeling that you managed to contribute in a way that I could not properly address. Well, It worked. Ya got me. You know more technical jargon than I do. Congratulations.

USincognito said:

That didn't answer his question at all.

Click to expand...

I think it answers the question just fine. Recall an earlier example from speedwell...

Speedwell said:

You have never heard of theistic evolutionists?

Click to expand...

Why do you think he felt a need to qualify that it is theistic evolution he referring to. In fact, why did anyone at any time ever feel the need to talk about theistic evolution? The answer is obvious. You just need to be reasonable about it.

Endtime Survivors said:

It sounds like the basis for all this arguing, from the very beginning, is just you having one big reaction to not wanting to be associated with certain kinds of people who have various extreme views, hence your strong desire to get away from "creationism" and to shelter under the more respectable "evolution"

Click to expand...

You bet I want nothing to do with creationism. But I don't care that much about evolution. If the theory of evolution was overturned tomorrow, it still wouldn't change my mind about the Bible.

Ya know, many Christians today seem to think that if Shadrach, Meshach, and abednego had just bowed to the golden statue, while pretending it was really God they were bowing to in their hearts, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble, so that's how many Christians today behave. They go around bowing to the various golden statues of our time, pretending that in their heart they really serve their creator.

Click to expand...

While you bow down to a book which you have endowed with magical properties. Comes to the same thing in the end.

AV1611VET said:

Of these thousands of paper biologists you've read/listened to, how many of them mentioned 'abiogenesis'?

Click to expand...

Excellent point. They've actually got it chopped up into three parts; the appearance of time/ space/ matter, then abiogenesis, then evolution of life; all nicely separated and confined to their independent little compartments. How convenient.

Endtime Survivors said:

I think it answers the question just fine. Recall an earlier example from speedwell...



Why do you think he felt a need to qualify that it is theistic evolution he referring to. In fact, why did anyone at any time ever feel the need to talk about theistic evolution? The answer is obvious. You just need to be reasonable about it.

Click to expand...

The point being that evolution, as an observable process in the material world, is the same for the theistic evolutionist as for the atheist. The term wouldn't even be necessary if it were not for people like you trying to spread the falsehood that evolution is inherently atheistic.

Speedwell said:

While you bow down to a book which you have endowed with magical properties. Comes to the same thing in the end.

Click to expand...

If you had any evidence that I was doing so, your argument would have some validity. I make comments on your views toward evolution based on what you've actually said here in this thread and I'm pretty careful to include quotes, so my comments actually relate to the topic at hand. In fact, my comments have only been limited to what you've said here in this thread. I don't know anything about you outside of this particular topic so I don't comment on issues which fall outside of this topic.

If you have some quotes on my views regarding the Bible, then go ahead and quote them, so that you also can be accountable to the same standards I'm using when coming to conclusions on your stance. Be fair with me, speedwell.

Endtime Survivors said:

Remember that time you suggested I go talk to a professional geneticist if I wanted to understand your point of view?

Click to expand...

No I do not. I do remember, however, suggesting that if you had questions about genetics we have a working geneticist here who would me more than willing to answer any questions you have.

Endtime Survivors said:

Overwhelming me with a bunch of vernacular and technical jargon...

Click to expand...

Everything I posted could be plugged into a search engine in less than 10 seconds.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

OR, and here's a better idea, he accepts actual science and also believes in God at the same time! Now how's that for a novel idea, Mister Mindreader?

Click to expand...

Hi Warden. I hope you don't mind if I ask a favor that you not refer to me as Mister (it's something Jesus taught). Just call me ETS. Thanks.

As for your comments on science, I think it makes sense that God invented science, and that the most likely reason so many Christians today distrust science is because so many atheists have tried to use science to discredit God. There have been a lot of overreactions on both sides, I think.

I'm inclined to believe that all the various geniuses throughout history were specifically made that way by God because he wanted us to learn more about just how amazing his creation really is. Some of them used their gifts properly and we learned a great deal about the world around us.

It creates a bemusing paradox for some scientists in that, the more they discover just how complex life and the universe really are, the more they feel there is no need for any intelligence behind that complexity; In other words, the complexity becomes the explanation for the complexity.

A few years ago a new Science series was released called "Cosmos" (I think), narrated by Neil DeGrass Tyson. I watched all of it and it was really good (he's got a really soothing voice, I think). They put a lot of quality into that show, but it also heavily stressed the theme that a belief in God is what barbarians did in the past when they had no other explanation for all the complexity around them.

These people were definitely pushing a godless evolution, very, very strongly. No ambiguity with those guys, which, while I disagree with, I still respect, especially compared to all the waffling I've found here.

Haha, it actually makes me feel like praying for an atheist who's clear on the issues, instead of all this waffling around about the possibilities of God being behind evolution.

If you want to consider the possibility of a creator behind it all, then that's creation, not evolution, though I don't see any problem with considering the idea that God engineered evolution as a self-replocating system. I think it's good to consider the various possibilities even if we disagree on some of them. However, that would still be creation.