Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I follow you on contingency, but I think a randomness that could fail to produce brings up some some issues regarding God's ability and intentions. I know you are still thinking through it but that should be avoided or at least side lined for contingency imo. I guess you could consider a restrained randomness which these new theories might provide. Random mutation is no longer a default explanation and must now compete with other naturalistic mechanisms so there is some room there to consider a randomness between and constrained by contingent mechanisms.
You mean the belief that we have a sin nature inherited from Adam, which means we sin because we're sinners, rather than we're sinners because we sin?
Here is one example. As an undergraduate we went out to some fields in the Midland Valley of Scotland. We laid out geophones then set off some explosives. The sound waves reflected off a subterranean boundary, were sensed by the geophones and their arrival times recorded.
What makes you think I am "undecided?" I accept the theory of evolution as a plausible and well-evidenced explanation for the diversity of life. I accept it with the provisionality which is built into all scientific theories. I am not "convinced" of its "truth" because in the end it may prove to be wrong, just like any other scientific theory.
Consider this: Engineers now employ what they call "genetic algorithms" to design new components. That is, random variation and selection programs just like evolution running on computers. Do you suppose that because the algorithm begins with random variation, the components produced are without purpose? Consider this, also: The second-order evolutionary mechanisms to which you refer almost certainly evolved through the basic process of evolution by random variation and selection.
One can broaden this to note that the history of the universe has been one of the emergence of increasingly complex systems and entities. Intelligence would be a (current) end point of this process. I frequently wonder if science has not made an error by excluding the possibility of teleology. Certainly, viewing ongoing emergence as teleologically based would provide the necessary link between divine action and stochastic processes.
Arguably sound put down of the second paragraph, while totally ingoring the first paragraph. Science doesn't do proof. Live with it, or stop complaining.Now is that nice?
What if I where to say, "I guess it's really true what they say about the stupidity of the young and inexperienced people, they don't listen to all sides of the story, only the side that works for them."
But I would never accuse anyone of being stupid because they are young, any more than I would them being stubborn because they are old because it's just rude, and actually, in itself a cop out excuse to dismiss what they claim, as in, while in an argument, if I were to say:
"All young people are ignorant because they are young" as means of discounting a perfectly good point they may have.
See how that works?
This example makes the issue with God even worse as the purpose of the genetic algorithm is to acquire fitness efficiently due to the inefficiency of the one initiating the process. We do this because we don't know and it would take a lot to acquire the knowledge on our own. God should not need such a mechanism. It would still be design as you say, due to the installed parameter of fitness, but at the cost of God's maximal greatness.
I think you misunderstood. We use this mechanism because it's more efficient than from our own capability. God should not need an outside process to determine what would acquire increased fitness.
You still misunderstand. A maximally great being does not require genetic algorithms to acquire knowledge about what changes would increase fitness. We require genetic algorithms to acquire knowledge about what changes would increase fitness because we are not maximally great. God, by definition, is a maximally great being. So if you are suggesting God requires genetic algorithms to acquire knowledge then you are not refering to the actual God - by definition.
Not all interpretations of Genesis are equal. We shouldn't pander our intellectual egos to believe less than we should.
I don't follow that at all. Why should using random variation and selection as a design technique be an imputation of inefficiency? It's rather like saying that it is more efficient for God to hold the planets in their orbits by an act of miraculous intervention than to let gravity do it.
Be careful you do not confuse the two meanings of "design." In one sense, it means "purpose." In the other sense, it merely refers to the functional arrangement of component parts.
Strictly speaking, no, it is not proof. It is evidence that the water will be colder than before. It is evidence which confirms (not proves) your hypothesis. But evidently that distinction between proof and confirming evidence is lost on you because you can't get over the notion that we are trying to trick you or put something over on you.
No, just confirming evidence. Personally, I don't care whether you call the confirming evidence of evolution proof, but you don't show any willingness to sit still for it whatever you call it.
That is essentially the condition of the given example. The genetic algorithm is conditioned with a purpose in mind, it is designed to include fitness, as predefined, and exclude unfitness. Without that it is not a useful service.
