Do you think evolution is a religion? why or why not?

[Smilin]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Some people worship Crack, or Alchohol, or whatever.

errr...I don't think addictions qualify as a religion souljah...

 

[Morat]

BTW, it's not an "appearance" of design, but the real thing. What you are doing is adding a hidden prepositional phrase to "design" -- by an intelligent entity.

Really? It's the real thing? Someone designed all these life forms? How do you know?

It's ducking the issue because you can't set up the experiments to test the hypothesis. You have no way to refute Butler's statement. Trying to define away the problem is ducking the issue. It's not science nor even very good critical thinking. You have no way to tell if there is any process other than the material at work because you have no way of showing a control where you know there is only the material present. Until you do that, all you know is that you have one component of the answer.

Now, if only I hadn't said this very thing several times you, this might be a watershed moment.

I have no reason to assume any process but the material exists, because material processes are the only ones that are evidenced.

Since I don't have a reason, I assume only material processes exist, until I have a reason to think otherwise. Provisional acceptance and all that.

You, on the other hand, assume other, unevidenced processes, exist.

Why? What evidence do you have that anything beyond the material exists?

Well, perhaps you would have no reason to hypothesize him (BTW, does that "invent" imply that God cannot exist? Seems so to me, which means you just met your own qualification for a strong atheist.)

That's a pretty lame attempt there.

However, that does not mean there wouldn't be a reason or reasons to hypothesize the existence of a deity. Once again, when you get back to two questions: Why does the universe exist at all?

You skipped one: "Does the universe have a reason it exists?". See, if you ignore that obvious first question, I can see where you're coming from.

But I don't assume it has a reason to exist. Perhaps it has one, perhaps it does not. Cart and horse, again.

and Why does it have the order it does rather than some other order?,

Why not? Who says this order is any less, or more, likely than any other? It's a fascinating question for physics, isn't it?

then a hypothesis you should come up with is: the universe is an artifact and, as such, an entity manufactured it and chose this order as opposed to some other order.

Why would I come up with that? What a weird assumption. Why not come up with: "Does the universe exist for a reason?" and "Why is it the way it is?"

The first is rather metaphysical. You assume, without evidence (this is first causes, after all) that it does. I assume, without evidence, that it does not. But I reserve the right to change that assumption, should evidence suggest a reason.

But assuming it does not is the proper sort of skepticism people practice in real life, that I use on everything. After all, I don't assume Insane Clown Gods orbit Saturn, do I?

As you said, you do know that people make artifacts. Therefore you know artifacts exist. It is a small step to hypothesize that the universe is an artifact.

A small step? Try a big one. The universe looks nothing like what people make.

Now, is that hypothesis correct? That's a separate issue. Your claim is that there is no reason to hypothesize the existence of a deity. I just gave you a reason and refuted the claim.

No. You gave a reason people might hypothesize God. I never said people wouldn't invent them. By your own faith, most of the people on the planet invented God(s).

I asked why I would. And the answer is, I probably wouldn't. The existance of a deity doesn't really change anything, other than to give warm fuzzies to untestable questions.

But if I was going to invent God, I might end up with Zleeb the Dragon God. And how do you know Zleeb didn't create the universe, and your God is but a figment of some desert fanatic's toasted mind?

Third time in one post you've brought up that misunderstanding. Why? Wasn't once enough. Sorry, I said that you would be an atheist and that atheism would be a faith whether you had ever heard of theism or not.Remember, Morat, a deity objectively exists or does not exist independent of any of our beliefs.

Absolutely. I totally agree. Our beliefs do not, in any way, alter what is.

So I try to mold my beliefs to what is, in the hope that I have more luck that way.

Yet your beliefs aren't based on what is, but what might be, but can't be evidenced or tested.

How do you know your faith isn't wishful thinking?

Even if you had never conceived of a deity and believed that the material causes were all that existed, that belief in the sufficiency of material causes would itself be a faith.

Except I do not ever claim to have total knowledge. I think that material causes are all that is. That seems to work. However, I admit I could be wrong.

Haven't you worked this out, Lucapsa? Faith is a statement of knowledge, of absolute knowledge! "I believe in God" is saying "God exists". That's faith.

Yet I, as a weak atheist, never say "God does not exist". I say, only, that I do not believe God exists. And I have been very careful to state that I could be wrong, since I am basing this only on an absence of evidence and need.

Methodological materialism prevents you from falsifying the alternative hypotheses. That you personally fail to verbalize that alternative hypothesis doesn't negate its existence. After all, Hovind constantly fails to verbalize the alternative hypotheses for his evidence for a young earth, yet those alternatives exist. So yes, you have a faith.

Bait and switch, once more. Perhaps if you spent more time listening to what I believed, you wouldn't spend your time barking up the wrong tree.

Yep. Falsification.

Um, no. Logical positivism was replaced by semantic holism. Falsification, indeed all of modern science, is mostly logical positivism. That is, you can determine a true or false answer to any statement.

You know "This is a dead parrot". Well, it seems simple enough to determine whether the parrot is dead or alive, right? According to logical positivism, yes.

However, it turns out (in accordance with semantic holism) that there are an infinite number of reasons the parrot might look, act, and test dead...yet not be. You can't rule out everything.

If it's invisible, it's not pink. That's falsification. Color comes from light reflected from an object. If the object is invisible, it isn't reflecting light and therefore does not have a color. What you have done is make an ad hoc hypothesis -- "if you could" see it-- to avoid falsification

Strangely, that's how strong atheists disprove your God. You better be careful here...

What I have done, Lucapsa, is point out why logical positivism is dead, and why semantic holism is very much alive.

There is no way, whatsoever, to determine whether an invisible pink unicorn exists. Even the language itself offers leeway (what is pink? What is invisible? Does that mean it is pink when visible? Or if it was?), but ultimately, you cannot falsify it.

Which is why science is built on evidence and falsification.

What we can show is that the hypothesis: the parrot is alive -- is false

No, you can't. How do you rule out flashback? Brain in a jar syndrome? Parrot-switching sleight-of-hand artists? Hypnosis? Mental control?

You can't falsify it. No matter what test you devise, no matter what you try, I can wiggle out of it. Monty Python can be so instructive. Semantic holism.

I've shown you a couple of "needs" to hypothesize deity. There are a couple of historical reasons that people did hypothesize deity separate from those.

Did you notice how many have been discarded? Try "almost all of them".

But if you stick to this, and use it as a universal criteria for the rest of us, then you kill science. Science is all about hypothesizing entities without need.

Of course. For the purposes of testing them. In that sense, I hypothesis God all the bloody time. Every time I log onto this forum.

That should be clear enough. I can't imagine how anyone could read otherwise.

Because, in order to find out, you have to make hypotheses to test them. Don't you know anything about how science is done?

I see I'm going to have to explain everything. Apparantly you've got me pegged as "idiot".

Why on earth would you think "I don't have a reason to believe God exists, therefore I don't" would preclude me from doing things like that?

For the love of Pete, I keep talking about how I'd change my mind if I was ever given reason. How do you think I'd know what was a sufficient reason, if I didn't think about what (and how) things would be with God?

The question of whether a deity exists or does not exist is an unanswered question for science. You, however, make a leap of faith that deity doesn't exist. You call it an assumption but a rose by any other name ...

No! No! No! For the last time, no! I do not claim God doesn't exist.

You keep saying this, and it keeps failing to be true. I've seen you read my words as if they were penned by an idiot in an attempt to force this belief of yours and my words together.

I do not believe in God. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist. I don't have a reason to think he does, so I don't. This isn't rocket science, but for some reason you can't wrap your brain around it.

 

[Morat]

Jerry (and Lucapsa):

Morat - maybe you could clear this up by stating formally that natural phenomenon do not require God in this sense:

We need no further explanations for natural events (e.g. lightning) given the existence of the universe, the laws of nature, and the proper meteorological conditions.

Exactly. Yes. Preciesly. Totally. I agree.

Lucaspa may be saying that a God is necessary to arrive at this confluence of conditions, and takes your negation of God's necessity as applying to not just the events given those conditions, but to the conditions that allow the events themselves....

Quite possibly, although I tried to make that clear. That's an utterly different topic.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by What is a Darwin?
To jerry smith
I have yet to see science enforce evolution in any lasting way.
There are no scientific "facts" for evolution.

oookkayyy...you convinced me...no scientific 'facts' for evolution..

errrr...now I'm confused...

Please explain the following (since evolution isn't factual)

1.  Antibiotic-resistant strains of bacterium.. (you can't claim it's selective reduction...so what causes them?)

2.  New breeds of cats, dogs, cattle, pigs, horses..etc.. (you can't claim selective-breeding since evolution is false)  I guess new breeds of animals are 'continuously created' then.  Whatcha think?

3.  All of the new types of apples, oranges, etc. (most produce now in the markets).... you can't attribute them to hybridization...since hybrids can't exist if evolution is false. (Approximately 70,000 plants exist because of hybridization...you have a long list to explain)

We'll start with these three.  After you've provided a scientific explanation for these,,,, I have many more questions I'd like answers to.... (since there is 'no scientific evidence' for evolution)

very confused and lost...

Smilin

 

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by clue
If I am pointing out the obvious inconsistencies between the 2 theories, I am only 'speaking the truth in love'.

Please point out, precisely, the inconsistencies between evolution and the bible.

Then, I'll point out several biblical stories that can't be explained without accepting evolutionary science.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by clue
Really?  Maybe you should read some of Stalin or Hitler's writings.

You're diverting now.  How on earth do these two dictators have ANYTHING to do with evolution?

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
If the theory of evolution is to be considered a religion, then so is the theory of gravity, relativity, electricity, and France.

and I guess since I'm an electrical engineer, Ohm's Law is my religion....

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by ocean
CREATIONISM is religious, not evolution. Creationism is actually a belief based on a religious text, and the only people who believe it[creationism] are people who follow the Christian religion!

WAIT...back up ocean...

MANY religions teach creation.....(not just Christianity...don't give the notion of a Creator to just us Christians)

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by What is a Darwin?
I think most of you are ignoring the facts in this thread.

Present your facts...you've only made statements.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Smilin

Then, I'll point out several biblical stories that can't be explained without accepting evolutionary science.

Oh! What a cool idea for a thread! Could you start that in its own thread?

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by seebs
Oh! What a cool idea for a thread! Could you start that in its own thread?

sure...

I've made my case several times... and no response from the 'hit and run' posters who claim evolution is false...

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by lucaspa
No, it's not. In fact, the "reliability" of logic alone is rejected by science.

"...what we learned in school about the scientific method can be reduced to two basic principles.
"1.  All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they *really* are.  How do we determine what they really are?  Through direct experience of the universe itself.  "

...and that is perfectly logical.

For instance, logic has what is called the "law of the excluded middle".  That matter is both a wave and a particle at the same time refutes this "law" of logic.

You haven't refuted logic, you've refuted illogic.

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by lucaspa
I don't see the logic in this one. God could still be omnipresent and "evil" happen. As soon as I read Kenneth Miller's arguments of deity creating a universe where life has meaning, the "problem of evil" disappeared. If our lives are to have meaning, then the consequences of our actions have to be real. Thus deity, if it exists, can't step in and fix everything or it destroys the meaning of our lives. And one of the clear theological messages in the Bible is that Yahweh is not a puppetmaster but that humans have control over their actions.

The bible teaches divine predestination, not freewill. This is off-topic, so if you would like to continue discussing this, post a thread in the general apologetics forum.

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by lucaspa
Sorry, that's not special pleading. After all, a car has a "designer" -- humans -- but we don't have to say where humans came from, do we, in order to explain the car. The same applies to ID. 

It would be special pleading to argue that a car must have a designer because it is complex, but the cars designer, who is even more complex than the car, was not designed.

 

[sulphur]

Going back to a quote by neo. Should the word be energy instead of matter?