Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

[OldWiseGuy]

This is the very reason religious people are said to be deluded.

But highly functional, with qualities much needed and desired by society. Kinda like mixing good grain in with bad to make the whole batch marketable (the elect and all that).

 

[RickG]

I believe everything, all the laws and materials, in the universe was purposely designed by God, and that there are no 'natural' explanations for any of it. It's all supernatural.

I would look at it as God left us the natural explanations, not that they don't exist. The physical evidence is here, man cannot change it as he does the interpretation of ancient mans' writings and understanding of their physical environment.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So your end of the discussion is dishonest too?

Or are you the lone honest man in this world of deceit?

Even I can't get to the truth it's so well hidden in the Babylon of confusion. I do try however.

 

[RickG]

I stand by what I said, that science has not, and cannot, address the true complexity of the living world, and we who are not scientists are unable to even compose coherent questions about it.

What I put in bold in your comment, from my point of view contradicts the first part of the sentence.

There can be no 'honest' discussion because people, even (gasp) scientists, are so dishonest.

There are dishonest people in all walks of life, even the Christian faithful. Singling out scientists is neither a fair or accurate assessment.

I'll resurrect my dirty lakes example once more. I received a flyer from yet another agency proclaiming to be about 'cleaning' up our lakes. This on top of dozens of other agencies and groups that have rolled up their sleeves on behalf of our lakes. Yet after years of efforts and millions spent on research the lakes remain in poor condition. So why are the lakes still dirty?

This is part of the unfathomable complexity I'm referring to. How does science explain why humans are unable to do something as simple as clean up a lake when it is their stated desire to do so?

It is not the fault of scientists to clean those lakes, rather the politicians.

 

[Speedwell]

So you believe that natural causality is an illusion? Mind you, I'm not criticizing, it's a respectable philosophical position.

So, OWG, if we're going to move ahead you should answer my question.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I would look at it as God left us the natural explanations, not that they don't exist. The physical evidence is here, man cannot change it as he does the interpretation of ancient mans' writings and understanding of their physical environment.

Everything that happens in the 'natural' world is the result of laws crafted, put in motion, and sustained, by God. God doesn't have to design each snowflake, the 'law of snowflakes' works on autopilot. God set up the 'dominos' to fall if any are tipped over. Material acts according to the laws that govern materials.

Put another way, if I tell my kids to rake the leaves I don't have to rake them myself in order to validate my word. I send my 'word' with them and they carry it out.

To expand on this, if I send my kids to the store with a list of 50 items to buy the same principle applies. I don't have to go with them and supervise the activity.

 

[durangodawood]

Even I can't get to the truth it's so well hidden in the Babylon of confusion. I do try however.

"Honesty" is not the same thing as having all factual truth at your disposal.
And you know this perfectly well.
Are you honest here, in this discussion?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So, OWG, if we're going to move ahead you should answer my question.

See post #66.

 

[Speedwell]

Everything that happens in the 'natural' world is the result of laws crafted, put in motion, and sustained, by God. God doesn't have to design each snowflake, the 'law of snowflakes' works on autopilot. God set up the 'dominos' to fall if any are tipped over. Material acts according to the laws that govern materials.

Put another way, if I tell my kids to rake the leaves I don't have to rake them myself in order to validate my word. I send my 'word' with them and they carry it out.

To expand on this, if I send my kids to the store with a list of 50 items to buy the same principle applies. I don't have to go with them and supervise the activity.

So you do believe in natural causality.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It is not the fault of scientists to clean those lakes, rather the politicians.

That wasn't the subject of the question.

 

[Speedwell]

See post #66.

So by your example, the "design" (as order and function) of a snowflake is due to natural causes but the "design" (as purpose or intention) is God's.

Yet I have the distinct impression that you previously rejected the possibility of that dichotomy.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So you do believe in natural causality.

This world/earth and what goes on here has become so familiar that it is considered 'natural'. As I said I believe it's all wonderfully supernatural. To demonstrate this just do something that isn't familiar or natural around your friends and family and observe their response. In fact look at your own response to my assertions.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

387171"]So by your example, the "design" (as order and function) of a snowflake is due to natural causes but the "design" (as purpose or intention) is God's.[/QUOTE]

"Natural" as in functioning within the laws of physics.

Yet I have the distinct impression that you previously rejected the possibility of that dichotomy.

True. What is considered natural isn't, in the greater sense. The term can be used in the everyday or common sense providing that the greater sense is well understood.

 

[Speedwell]

"Natural" as in functioning within the laws of physics.

When discussing science, that's all it ever means.

And so the "design" (as order and function) of a snowflake can be explained by considering things like molecular bond angles, thermodynamic states, etc. but the "design" (as purpose or intention) is forever beyond the grasp of science.

And I can see no reason not to regard any observed phenomenon in the same light.

 

[quatona]

The living world is so complex and interdependent that it is almost impossible to frame coherent questions about it. When asked science presents simple answers that can't begin to address these complexities.

It seems to me that the scientific approach goes from simple to complex. The answers have gotten ever more complex.
Why should science be able to answer a question you are unable to ask, in the first place.

Perhaps the only answer is indeed that we were "fearfully and wonderfully made", by God. Psalm 139:14

The answer to which question?

 

[RickG]

That wasn't the subject of the question.

It addressed the example you gave to which I pointed out that you were placing the blame on the wrong group.

 

[In situ]

The living world is so complex and interdependent that it is almost impossible to frame coherent questions about it.

Argument from ignorance - if I don't understand something how can others possible understand it.

When asked science presents simple answers that can't begin to address these complexities

It is usually hard to provide with a simple (and accurate) answer to a complex problem, very few are able to do this and I do not count myself among them.

Perhaps the only answer is indeed that we were "fearfully and wonderfully made", by God. Psalm 139:14

Perhaps, and I don't blame anyone for doing this, in our ignorance we, everyone, will always try to understanding things by explaining them, but finding an explanation does not assure it is accurate or even correct (i.e. coherent and consistent with all that we know). Our own explanations are often a reflection of how we feel about things. And this is what makes the difference with the science method, it does not take into account the emotional aspect we have but looks at the evidence only - for good and bad.

If you find peace in your mind thinking about the world as created and governed by God, I think that is okay to do and a beautiful thing to have, but I do not think it is okay to say that biology got it all wrong simply because once own beliefs and what one feel about the subject does not confirm with what biology tells us about it.

If one seek true peace in the heart, one shall try to merge all knowledge and experience into a single coherent and consistent view - not fighting different views. I am not telling you what that view is, I am just saying I believe coherence and consistency is important. However, I do not find that in creationism or "God did it!" claims. Which is in effect what you proposed with your last sentence.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It addressed the example you gave to which I pointed out that you were placing the blame on the wrong group.

This was the question.

"This is part of the unfathomable complexity I'm referring to. How does science explain why humans are unable to do something as simple as clean up a lake when it is their stated desire to do so?"

 

[durangodawood]

This was the question.

"This is part of the unfathomable complexity I'm referring to. How does science explain why humans are unable to do something as simple as clean up a lake when it is their stated desire to do so?"

Why even bother asking this of "dishonest" people?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It seems to me that the scientific approach goes from simple to complex. The answers have gotten ever more complex.
Why should science be able to answer a question you are unable to ask, in the first place.

Science waves away the questions with a patented answer, usually something about 'natural selection'. I'm the kid who keeps asking 'why', until I'm dismissed as being a nuisance.