Evolution

[AV1611VET]

I think AV said that. I don't know how your name ended up in the post.

I said it.

 

[cloudyday2]

the book on the shelf does not "evolve more pages" or "error correction" or "new versions of itself" -- for that to happen - intelligent design must be applied to the material in the book and to the book itself.

I don't know if you are a Tolkien fan, but he was constantly revising the LOTR, Silmarillion, etc. That is probably true of every book. There are even changes with the second edition and so on. The author and reviewers notice issues and tweak this or that. Some ideas work and some ideas don't work. Creativity is just a form of randomness - doing something unexpected. This is just like a variation in the genome. An author gradually learns patterns that work and uses those patterns to produce future books. The genome of the books is the learning of the authors.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob[/QUOTE]

I don't know if you are a Tolkien fan, but he was constantly revising the LOTR, Silmarillion, etc. That is probably true of every book.

The books don't do it to themselves - an intelligent mind has to plan, design, create the changes and then implement those changes and come up with a new revision -- it is not a matter of the book evolving. It is a matter of an intelligent mind revising the book.

IF you think that the brilliant painter or writer is merely "a random act" then the 5 year old in pre-K fits such a model - and yet no one today is confused as to whether the 5 year old writings/stories/math/science is equal to the masters.

 

[cloudyday2]

The books don't do it to themselves - an intelligent mind has to plan, design, create the changes and then implement those changes and come up with a new revision -- it is not a matter of the book evolving. It is a matter of an intelligent mind revising the book.

IF you think that the brilliant painter or writer is merely "a random act" then the 5 year old in pre-K fits such a model - and yet no one today is confused as to whether the 5 year old writings/stories/math/science is equal to the masters.

The organisms don't evolve themselves either. Evolution happens when organisms compete to reproduce in an ecosystem. This is the same as an artist competing for success in a career. Tolkien started out as a 5 year old and honed his knowledge and talents over a lifetime. He was inspired by reading the works of earlier authors, etc. This is analogous to reproduction.

I think we need clear definitions of intelligence, design, and evolution. The disagreements come from differing definitions IMO.

 

[BobRyan]

The organisms don't evolve themselves either.

If a scientist -- or God scoops them up and makes changes to them - then it is not what people today call evolution.

If a book "revises itself" well people call that "a miracle".

Evolution happens when organisms compete to reproduce in an ecosystem.

well that is the story. but notice that bacteria - remain ... bacteria. They do not cross over and become amoeba -- they remain prokaryotes... after all these years.

This is the same as an artist competing for success in a career.

In the case of the artist - an intelligent mind, design, planning, creativity. Intelligent creativity is "directed" it has purpose.

in the case of bacteria - they are not planning anything. And they are still bacteria. And they have declared no direction to become eukaryote.

There is a huge difference between undirected random interaction - and a planning, goal-driven, creative work of the mind.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[cloudyday2]

well that is the story. but notice that bacteria - remain ... bacteria. They do not cross over and become amoeba -- they remain prokaryotes... after all these years.

Bacteria still exist, because they are able to still exist. At some point in the past, a community of bacteria began to evolve into something else that could also exist. Just like Catholics evolved into Lutherans, but Catholics continue to exist too.

In the case of the artist - an intelligent mind, design, planning, creativity. Intelligent creativity is "directed" it has purpose.

in the case of bacteria - they are not planning anything. And they are still bacteria. And they have declared no direction to become eukaryote.

Metaphysical naturalism would imply that free will does not exist (correct me if I'm wrong). Science assumes methodological naturalism which is virtually equivalent to metaphysical naturalism. The artist is simply a very complex machine with some random or pseudorandom inputs. The goal of the artist is simply a rationalization for what happened naturally. The inspirations of the artist are not any different than an apple falling out of a tree.
[/QUOTE]

 

[dlamberth]

The artist is simply a very complex machine with some random or pseudorandom inputs. The goal of the artist is simply a rationalization for what happened naturally. The inspirations of the artist are not any different than an apple falling out of a tree.

The goal of an artist is to create. Creativity and rationalization are not the same thing. The inspirations of an artist partially comes from self-awareness but also from an inspired mind. That's something an apple falling out of a tree does not have. I do not at all agree with your premise.

.

 

[BobRyan]

If a scientist -- or God scoops them up and makes changes to them - then it is not what people today call evolution.
If a book "revises itself" well people call that "a miracle".

well that is the story. but notice that bacteria - remain ... bacteria. They do not cross over and become amoeba -- they remain prokaryotes... after all these years.

In the case of the artist - an intelligent mind, design, planning, creativity. Intelligent creativity is "directed" it has purpose.

in the case of bacteria - they are not planning anything. And they are still bacteria. And they have declared no direction to become eukaryote.

There is a huge difference between undirected random interaction - and a planning, goal-driven, creative work of the mind.

Bacteria still exist, because they are able to still exist.

They exist -- but evolution is not about stasis - not steady state - but rather a bootstrap many-storied process where prokaryote bacteria mythically crossover to become eukaryotes, if not in fact... well then in story, in name, in hope.

At some point in the past, a community of bacteria began to evolve into something else that could also exist.

That is the way the story goes. Just not "observable science" rather -- it is "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" as one well know atheist scientist put it.

Just like Catholics evolved into Lutherans, but Catholics continue to exist too.

We can "see" Catholics crossing over to become Lutherans every day. They do not "do it once 300 years ago".

The mormon story is all about hiding the mechanism -- the magic glasses, the plates... not observable. The evolution story is much the same - hiding the mechanism in a 'trust me it happened even if it is not observable science - it happened anyway" kind of way.

The artist is simply a very complex machine with some random or pseudorandom inputs.

It would be like saying "People are just very complex stick men -- so when I make a stick man-- I just created a human being" it is equivocation in the extreme but what is more - machines do not evolve. No computer is capable of "imagining" the next generation of computer that is a vast improvement in design over itself.

IT is called "information entropy" a simple geometry math text book does not "imagine calculus" and then create a Calculus text book. For that you need a "mind". The book does not have one.

The mind has vastly superior creative power - by comparison to the machine that simply runs your instructions preprogrammed into it. And because of that -- God is not responsible for what you do. Were you a mere machine - God would be responsible for every wrong act you do.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[smaneck]

When science can build a machine that can do this:[VERSE=2 Kings 6:17,KJV]And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.[/VERSE]... then I'll reconsider.

Ever watch the space shuttle blast off? (In person, not on TV) It is pretty impressive. Science doesn't have much use for chariots and horses, but walking on the moon is at lease equivalent to this.

God is invisible to science.

I think I already indicated this.

When it comes to the creation week, the Bible tells us Who did it, how He did it, why He did it, when He did it, where He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were.

I think we would do well to remember what Galileo had to say on this subject:

"The reason produced for condemning the opinion that the earth moves and the sun stands still in many places in the Bible one may read that the sun moves and the earth stands still. Since the Bible cannot err; it follows as a necessary consequence that anyone takes a erroneous and heretical position who maintains that the sun is inherently motionless and the earth movable.

With regard to this argument, I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth-whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify. Hence in expounding the Bible if one were always to confine oneself to the unadorned grammatical meaning, one might; fall into error. Not only contradictions and propositions far from true might thus be made to appear in the Bible, but even grave heresies and follies. Thus it would be necessary to assign to God feet, hands ans eyes, as well as corporeal and human affections, such as anger, repentance, hatred, and sometimes even the forgetting of` things past and ignorance of those to come. These propositions uttered by the Holy Ghost were set down in that manner by the sacred scribes in order to accommodate them to the capacities, Of the common people, who are rude and unlearned. For the sake of those who deserve to be separated from the herd, it is necessary that wise expositors should produce the true senses of such passages, together with the special reasons for which they were set down in these words. This doctrine is so widespread and so definite with all theologians that it would be superfluous to adduce evidence for it.

Hence I think that I may reasonably conclude that whenever the Bible has occasion to speak of any physical conclusion (especially those which are very abstruse and hard to understand), the rule has been observed of avoiding confusion in the minds of the common people which would render them contumacious toward the higher mysteries. Now the Bible, merely to condescend to popular capacity, has not hesitated to obscure some very important pronouncements, attributing to God himself some qualities extremely remote from (and even contrary to) His essence. Who, then, would positively declare that this principle has been set aside, and the Bible has confined itself rigorously to the bare and restricted sense of its words, when speaking but casually of the earth, of water, of the sun, or of any other created thing? Especially in view of the fact that these things in no way concern the primary purpose of the sacred writings, which is the service of God and the salvation of souls - matters infinitely beyond the comprehension of the common people.

This being granted, I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages but from sense experiences and necessary demonstrations; for the holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word the former as the dictate of the Holy Ghost and the latter as the observant executrix of God's commands. It is necessary for the Bible, in order to be accommodated to the understanding of every man, to speak many things which appear to differ from the absolute truth so far as the bare meaning of the words is concerned. But Nature, on the other hand, is inexorable and immutable; she never transgresses the laws imposed upon her, or cares a whit whether her abstruse reasons and methods of operation are understandable to men. For that reason it appears that nothing physical which sense experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have some different meaning beneath their words. For the Bible is not chained in every expression to conditions as strict as those which govern all physical effects; nor is God any less excellently revealed in Nature's actions than in the sacred statements of the Bible"

The alternative is to deny that the world is round, that the earth goes around the sun, etc.

 

[cloudyday2]

The goal of an artist is to create. Creativity and rationalization are not the same thing. The inspirations of an artist partially comes from self-awareness but also from an inspired mind. That's something an apple falling out of a tree does not have. I do not at all agree with your premise.

o.k. I will admit that the concepts you mentioned "inspiration", "self", "mind" are apparently natural to our thinking. It is difficult to even communicate without using these concepts. As far as I know, all of these concepts are abstractions, and we should not believe these abstractions transcend the material world somehow (IMHO). All we need is metaphysical naturalism. Why complicate our model with untestable spiritual concepts?

 

[cloudyday2]

They exist -- but evolution is not about stasis - not steady state - but rather a bootstrap many-storied process where prokaryote bacteria mythically crossover to become eukaryotes, if not in fact... well then in story, in name, in hope.

That is the way the story goes. Just not "observable science" rather -- it is "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" as one well know atheist scientist put it.

We can "see" Catholics crossing over to become Lutherans every day. They do not "do it once 300 years ago".

The mormon story is all about hiding the mechanism -- the magic glasses, the plates... not observable. The evolution story is much the same - hiding the mechanism in a 'trust me it happened even if it is not observable science - it happened anyway" kind of way.

It would be like saying "People are just very complex stick men -- so when I make a stick man-- I just created a human being" it is equivocation in the extreme but what is more - machines do not evolve. No computer is capable of "imagining" the next generation of computer that is a vast improvement in design over itself.

IT is called "information entropy" a simple geometry math text book does not "imagine calculus" and then create a Calculus text book. For that you need a "mind". The book does not have one.

The mind has vastly superior creative power - by comparison to the machine that simply runs your instructions preprogrammed into it. And because of that -- God is not responsible for what you do. Were you a mere machine - God would be responsible for every wrong act you do.

in Christ,

Bob

It doesn't seem like I'm persuading you. My explanations are probably not the best. If you go to an atheist forum or a science forum, then at least you will be getting the best explanations for evolution.

I do agree that religious people should NOT believe in evolution. It is like praising God when your car starts but taking your car to the mechanic when it doesn't start. Obviously you don't really believe that God does anything. You just give God credit for things.

 

[dlamberth]

I do agree that religious people should NOT believe in evolution.

There's no way that I, a Lover of God, am able to wrap my mind around the idea that God does not create new life forms through evolution. That just doesn't work for me. So clearly, I have a different belief on what religious people should or should not believe.

.

 

[bhsmte]

There's no way that I, a Lover of God, am able to wrap my mind around the idea that God does not create new life forms through evolution. That just doesn't work for me. So clearly, I have a different belief on what religious people should or should not believe.

.

In other words, you know enough about science and the evidence for evolution, to not be able to perform the psychological gymnastics that would be required, to deny it?

 

[smaneck]

It doesn't seem like I'm persuading you. My explanations are probably not the best. If you go to an atheist forum or a science forum, then at least you will be getting the best explanations for evolution.

I do agree that religious people should NOT believe in evolution. It is like praising God when your car starts but taking your car to the mechanic when it doesn't start. Obviously you don't really believe that God does anything. You just give God credit for things.

I'm a religious person who believes in evolution. And I believe God does everything. But normally He does so via natural law, not by magic. There is no reason God could not have created life forms via natural selection. But science can only study the laws of nature, not the Lawgiver.

 

[cloudyday2]

I'm a religious person who believes in evolution. And I believe God does everything. But normally He does so via natural law, not by magic. There is no reason God could not have created life forms via natural selection. But science can only study the laws of nature, not the Lawgiver.

Let's take the example of Newton's apple falling from the tree.
F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2

That equation doesn't need an extra term for God. It works just fine without God. We don't need to invent a "God" constant, and the letter "G" is already used for the gravitational constant. I'm afraid there is no room for God in that equation.

It's the same with evolution. There is no need for God in the theory, so why add an unnecessary factor that contributes nothing to the theory's effectiveness?

If we understand the geology that causes volcanoes, then we should stop believing in the volcano gods.

The religious people should argue against evolution, because its implications are atheistic. If God wasn't involved in the creation of life, then shouldn't we question if He is involved in anything? Religious people need an alternative to evolution where God has a role. Religious people don't need to believe in the literal creation myths, but they need something different from evolution - something that matches the fossil record and includes God. Evolution is for atheists and deists only (IMO )

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm afraid there is no room for God in that equation.

Except for one thing.

God sets boundaries that nature cannot cross.[VERSE=Psalms 74:17,KJV]Thou hast set all the borders of the earth: thou hast made summer and winter.[/VERSE]

 

[cloudyday2]

Except for one thing.

God sets boundaries that nature cannot cross.[VERSE=Psalms 74:17,KJV]Thou hast set all the borders of the earth: thou hast made summer and winter.[/VERSE]

I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but I have been fascinated by the probability waves in quantum mechanics. Physics says we can't use the natural state of the universe to predict how these probability waves will collapse into events. That is like a boundary on science. (Of course, I only have a layman's understanding of quantum mechanics, so I may be wrong about this boundary.)

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure if this is what you mean,

What I meant was:

If you try to breed two different kind, they will produce sterile offspring -- assuming they produce at all.

In addition, animals go extinct over time because they have a set number of generations -- then it's bye-bye time.

 

[cloudyday2]

What I meant was:

If you try to breed two different kind, they will produce sterile offspring -- assuming they produce at all.

In addition, animals go extinct over time because they have a set number of generations -- then it's bye-bye time.

O.k., thanks for clarifying. Probably you're aware of ring species if you have debated these things, but here is a quote anyway.

In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighbouring populations, each of which can interbreed with closely sited related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series, which are too distantly related to interbreed...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

 

[dlamberth]

In other words, you know enough about science and the evidence for evolution, to not be able to perform the psychological gymnastics that would be required, to deny it?

How can I deny what the earth itself is showing us? Even the universe has evolved. It's the way of things.

.