randomness

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by auswiq
After all, evolution is free to do whatever it jolly well likes, seeing randomness; non-design et al provides such wondrous freedom to go anywhere but loose.  

It's God that gets to do whatever He jolly well likes. Evolution is constrained by history and the fact that it can't make huge leaps.  Only God is allowed to design something from scratch.  The fact that you consider this impossible means that you consider creationism impossible.

Pigs can't sprout wings because there are no genes to provide bones coming out of the shoulder to make another pair of limbs to serve as wings.  The evolution of dinos to birds took thousands of speciation events with the characteristics of birds added gradually during those speciation events: bipedality, feathers, backward facing claws (that were eventually used for perching), modification of the sternum to a keelbone, etc.  All this is documented as arising in steps, not all at once.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Now, did all this happen on its own as atheists believe or is this how God created as Christians believe? Science can't answer that. You appear to be an atheist in believing that if these material processes operate, then God is absent. So be it.

Have you ever met an atheist who used that illogic? I know I haven't. Still you are right that it does seem to be an error in logic that Micaiah is hung up on, and one that puts him in the precarious position of believing two contradictory things, and having to reconcile them by not acknowledging real-world data.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Micaiah
Here is a link to the AIG site

Let's go through the site.

"Creationists do not argue that life is merely complex, but that it is ordered in such a way as to <B>defy</B> a natural explanation. The order in the proteins and DNA of living things is independent of the properties of the chemicals of which they consist"

Untrue. It turns out the proteins formed by chemical reaction -- thermal polymerization -- not random. That is, the order is determined by the chemical properties of the individual types of amino acids.

"The arrangement of cards resulting from shuffling would not normally suggest anything other than a random process. However, if all the cards were ordered by their suits from lowest to highest, we would logically conclude that an intelligent agent arranged them (or ‘stacked the deck’ in card-playing parlance) because such an arrangement is highly unlikely from genuine shuffling—a random, non-intelligent process."

But amino acids are not playing cards.&nbsp;

"We are indeed <B>fearfully and wonderfully made</B> and no amount of illogical and irrelevant analogy will counter the clear evidence for this."

Agreed, but the proximal cause for this is Darwinian selection, not manufacture by an intelligence.

"The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional ‘simple’ cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged<SUP>name=f2>2</SUP> to be worse than 1 in 10<SUP>57800</SUP>. "

This is GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out.&nbsp; The assumptions behind this calculation is that one and only one sequence of amino acids can form a protein and that one and only one set of specific proteins can make a living cell. Both of these assumptions have been shown to be wrong by the data.&nbsp; There is a VAST (very large but finite) number of amino acid sequences that can do the function of any protein, not just one sequence. And there is a VAST combination of different versions of proteins that can be a living cell -- because living cells are not all composed of one specific set of proteins.

&nbsp;

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Have you ever met an atheist who used that illogic? I know I haven't. Still you are right that it does seem to be an error in logic that Micaiah is hung up on, and one that puts him in the precarious position of believing two contradictory things, and having to reconcile them by not acknowledging real-world data.

All atheists use that "illogic".&nbsp; If they don't, they can't be atheists. And you use it also.&nbsp; But this was Auswig, not Micaiah.

Atheists must believe that the natural processes work on their own without any necessity of deity to sustain them.&nbsp; If you don't believe that, then you are either an agnostic or a theist.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by lucaspa
Atheists must believe that the natural processes work on their own without any necessity of deity to sustain them.&nbsp; If you don't believe that, then you are either an agnostic or a theist.

Or a "not applicable" as my roommate would say.

 

[Jerry Smith]

All atheists use that "illogic". If they don't, they can't be atheists. And you use it also.

I don't use it, and am still successfully atheist. That's the most horrid logic I have ever heard: "if material processes operate, then it follows that God must be absent."

Atheists must believe that the natural processes work on their own without any necessity of deity to sustain them.

By definition, yes we believe that. But this is not a conclusion we draw from the fact that natural processes operate.

If you don't believe that, then you are either an agnostic or a theist.

Oh, no. I do believe that. But not for the reasons you gave.

By the way, in another thread I had a post where I asked you if you minded letting us know what your position is (i.e. atheist, theist, or agnostic) -- I apologized to you for seeming to jump to the conclusion that you were theist. The fact is that I had a memory (quite possibly a false one) of seeing a thread where you professed faith as a theist.. So, was I off base in thinking you a theist?

 

[Jerry Smith]

p.s. - we don't claim to have knowledge that no deity is necessary to sustain natural processes, but we do hold that no deity is necessary in order to explain natural processes.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
p.s. - we don't claim to have knowledge that no deity is necessary to sustain natural processes, but we do hold that no deity is necessary in order to explain natural processes.

Sorry, Jerry, even won't fly.&nbsp; If deity is necessary to sustain natural processes, then a complete explanation requires that you include deity.

What is happening is that we don't need an extra material mechanism of deity, i.e. special creation, in order to have sufficient material causes.

What creationists and IDers offer is an extral natural process that they say is necessary as a material explanation.&nbsp; That is, they say that manufacture offsite by a deity using processes not present is necessary.&nbsp; Just as manufacture of a watch in an offsite factory is necessary to have a material explanation of the watch on the heath.

What science in general, and evolution in particular says is that the material processes discovered are sufficient as materal processes and no offsite manufacture is necessary.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith I don't use it, and am still successfully atheist. That's the most horrid logic I have ever heard: "if material processes operate, then it follows that God must be absent."

The real logic [not your strawman] isn't bad, it's just that the evidence won't support the logic.&nbsp; The logic is that material processes work on their own without the necessity of deity.&nbsp; Unless you believe that, then atheism is untenable.&nbsp; Because you either have to say "I don't know if the processes require deity to work or not" in which case you are an agnostic or you say "the material processes require deity in order to work" in which case you are a theist.

[lucaspa] Atheists must believe that the natural processes work on their own without any necessity of deity to sustain them.

By definition, yes we believe that.

Good, then we agree.&nbsp; And notice that you have just admitted that atheism is a faith.&nbsp;


The fact is that I had a memory (quite possibly a false one) of seeing a thread where you professed faith as a theist.. So, was I off base in thinking you a theist?

Your memory was a false one.&nbsp; I have never stated my worldview on the boards.&nbsp; However, you should be able to figure it out from some of my statements to Morat.

But it really doesn't matter.&nbsp; What we are discussing are the ideas, and ideas are independent of the people who hold them.&nbsp; I don't have to agree with a particular worldview in order to understand its statements and test them. Nor would I intentionally misrepresent them if I didn't agree.

What my worldview is has nothing to do with what objective ultimate reality actually is.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
Or a "not applicable" as my roommate would say.

"Not applicable" doesn't work. There are a limited number of options.&nbsp; If&nbsp;anyone says "not applicable"&nbsp;they simply haven't thought it through.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Sorry, Jerry, even won't fly. If deity is necessary to sustain natural processes, then a complete explanation requires that you include deity.

An explanation can be considered "complete" in more than one way. The first way, and the way in which humans use explanations is that the explanation makes sense of all observations, in the context of a given set of initial conditions, or one that can be approximated with confidence. In that sense, even if there is a sustaining deity, our explanation is still complete unless that sustaining deity leaves objectively observable evidence of her action.

In another sense, the one dear to philosophers looking for "ultimate" answers, an event is fully explained only when every factor that contributes to it is identified and explained. This leaves every human explanation ultimately incomplete. Even if we have explained all of the processes that contribute to the event, and somehow are able to exclude the possibility that we have missed a necessary process that leaves no observable evidence, we still have the daunting challenge of accounting for all initial conditions before our explanation can be called "complete." There is no requirement that we care about "complete" explanations in this sense.

What science in general, and evolution in particular says is that the material processes discovered are sufficient as materal processes and no offsite manufacture is necessary.

And when no other processes are in evidence, no other explanations need be invoked.

The real logic [not your strawman] isn't bad, it's just that the evidence won't support the logic.

This is no straw man. You may have been misstating, but this is the logic as you presented it:

You appear to be an atheist in believing that if these material processes operate, then God is absent.

Once again, we conclude that the hypothesis of God is spurious, and therefore conclude that nature does not require that hypothesis for explanation. We do not conclude that God is absent from the observation that nature operates.

The logic is that material processes work on their own without the necessity of deity. Unless you believe that, then atheism is untenable.

You have not created a logical sentence. You have given what is either a postulate or a conclusion wihtout identifying which:
"material processes work on their own without the necessity of deity."
A logical sentence would be "because of x, material processes work on their own...", or "Material processes work on their own.... therefore we conclude". You also fail to explain why the atheist position is untenable unless the atheist believes the statement "material processes work on their own without the necessity of a deity." Why would an atheist bother to qualify the statement that material processes work with a statement about a hypothetical entity which atheists do not accept?

Good, then we agree. And notice that you have just admitted that atheism is a faith.

No, we don't.. But I am guilty of misstating, by not clarifying what we "by definition" believe. Actually, it can be restated two ways. The idea as I had it in mind is correctly stated this way:

Atheist believe that the natural processes work on their own without the need to postulate any necessity of deity to sustain them.

However, it can also correctly be restated this way:
Atheists believe that the natural processes can work on their own without any necessity of deity to sustain them. [Where deity is defined in any meaningful way - that is over and beyond the stripped down "sustainer of that which is natural"].

As to your religious world view, I'm not that curious. I will not pry.