Some random discussion on evolution...

[Speedwell]

s.

That's why the focus is there, nobody has a problem with natural selection- The arrival of the fittest has always been the issue- not merely the survival. The latter explains why there are more Ford Mustangs on the road today than Pintos, it does not explain their creation.

The evolving population is already fit to a great degree or it wouldn't be alive. What variation does is present to the environment a small range of variants around that fitness value in case the selection criteria begin to change.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is no competing theory to consider. If there was, we'd be happy to consider it. No, ID is not a competing theory...it isn't even a theory. Construct it as one, and it will be considered. Unfortunately nobody has been able to do so. It remains an unfalsifiable conjecture, as it was from day one.

Just like the primeval atom used to be for most in academia- explicitly for it's overt theistic implications

And Hoyle stuck to that position till his dying day in the 1980's

in terms of competing- we both have to give creationism credit where it is due there, that is the most popular in the US, followed by theistic evolution, then fundamentalist Darwinism (no god guiding) in last place- according to Gallup

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The evolving population is already fit to a great degree or it wouldn't be alive. What variation does is present to the environment a small range of variants around that fitness value in case the selection criteria begin to change.

in case?

Then we agree entirely; natural variation exists in anticipation of naturally changing conditions, how else would you design life, or a car, or a HVAC system for example?

 

[pitabread]

in terms of competing- we both have to give creationism credit where it is due there, that is the most popular in the US, followed by theistic evolution, then fundamentalist Darwinism (no god guiding) in last place- according to Gallup

Competing from a "what do people personally believe" perspective isn't relevant in terms of evaluating the success of a scientific theory. Especially since creationism is strictly a religious belief, not science.

Success of a scientific theory is based on its explanatory power and application. In this regards there is no competitor to the modern theory of evolution when it comes to explaining the origin of species and the scientific applications derived from such.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Competing from a "what do people personally believe" perspective isn't relevant in terms of evaluating the success of a scientific theory. Especially since creationism is strictly a religious belief, not science.

Success of a scientific theory is based on its explanatory power and application. In this regards there is no competitor to the modern theory of evolution.

Again, that's what academics said about 'scientific' steady state v 'religious pseudoscience' Big Bang.

science versus atheism- and not the only example

If we are to approach science from a truly objective standpoint, there is no 'default' assumption of atheist beliefs.

 

[pitabread]

Again, that's what academics said about 'scientific' steady state v 'religious pseudoscience' Big Bang.

Not the same thing at all.

The fact is creationism doesn't have any explanatory power when it comes to biology. Evolution does. You measure the success of the scientific theory via its explanatory power and application.

science versus atheism- and not the only example

If we are to approach science from a truly objective standpoint, there is no 'default' assumption of atheist beliefs.

This is not about atheism versus theism. It's about science versus not science.

Creationism is not science.

 

[usexpat97]

Funny thing about this whole thread. The OP started with "some random thoughts about evolution." That randomness sets the stage for some evolution, yet 61 pages later this thread has evolved into...nothing.

Random collisions of atoms can evolve into multicellular human organisms containing 37 trillion cells apiece operating as a single machine, but a random internet discussion can't evolve into anything.

 

[pitabread]

Funny thing about this whole thread. The OP started with "some random thoughts about evolution." That randomness sets the stage for some evolution, yet 61 pages later this thread has evolved into...nothing.

That is par for the course here. Threads tend to wander aimlessly until things get too heated and they get locked.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

in terms of competing- we both have to give creationism credit where it is due there, that is the most popular in the US, followed by theistic evolution, then fundamentalist Darwinism (no god guiding) in last place- according to Gallup

Pew research 2009 says you are wrong - 31% YEC, 22% theistic evolution and 32% natural evolution.

I know this is really not what you want to hear, but there are far more people outside US than in it and the vast majority of them do not agree with your literal reading of Genesis. In China in 2003 72% of population (roughly 930 million) accepted evolution - that's 3 times the entire population of US. Biblical creationism didn't (and still doesn't) hit the radar.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Citation needed.

Big Bang - Wikipedia

In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[57] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.[58]

Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia
He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"

This is not about atheism versus theism. It's about science versus not science.

Creationism is not science.

That's okay, neither was the Big Bang, while the bones of Piltdown man 'belonged together without question' according to the highest academic authorities- which was used as key evidence in earlier court cases to have the theory taught in the first place


To put it another way:
The Bible is clear about the universe having a beginning- something most academics utterly rejected not so long ago

So if a person read this in the Bible and believed it, was that a religious or scientific position?

we could debate that, but the point being- the far more interesting and definitive question- is not whether something is religious, atheistic, supernatural, materialistic, reductionist, academic or popular

but simply this : Is it true? and yes it is, as far as we can tell

Because truth doesn't seem to care much about those subjective labels, ideologies, far less lawyers and academics, does it?

 

[pitabread]

Big Bang - Wikipedia

<snip>

Yeah I saw that after the fact and amended my post.

That's okay, neither was the Big Bang,

The Big Bang Theory was confirmed by evidence and determined to have greater explanatory power (as scientific theories go) than steady state, which is why it gained acceptance over time.

The same is not true of creationism. It doesn't explain anything.

If you think that sometime in the near future scientists will start flocking to creationism, I've got some bad news for you...

while the bones of Piltdown man 'belonged together without question' according to the highest academic authorities- which was used as key evidence in earlier court cases to have the theory taught in the first place

This is not actually true of Piltdown Man. I suggest not reading creationist sources for info Piltdown Man as they horribly distort the nature of the discover and acceptance; Piltdown Man was rather controversial even before it was exposed as a hoax.

And besides which, it's not even remotely relevant today.

Because truth doesn't seem to care much about those subjective labels, ideologies, far less lawyers and academics, does it?

If we're talking about "truth" from a scientific perspective then it again comes back to explanatory power.

The Big Bang Theory explains observations about the physical universe. Just like the Theory of Evolution explains observations about biology and the history of life on this planet.

Creationism does not.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Pew research 2009 says you are wrong - 31% YEC, 22% theistic evolution and 32% natural evolution.

I know this is really not what you want to hear, but there are far more people outside US than in it and the vast majority of them do not agree with your literal reading of Genesis. In China in 2003 72% of population (roughly 930 million) accepted evolution - that's 3 times the entire population of US. Biblical creationism didn't (and still doesn't) hit the radar.

Gallup 2019 has:

40% God created humans in present form (I'm calling this creationism)
33% Humans evolved with God guiding (I'm in the boring middle ground!)
22% Humans evolved with no God guiding (fundamentalist Darwinism)

wording is slightly different, more definitive here I would say...

but if you gotta go to a communist country to find agreement- that's a red flag!

In the free world, most are skeptics of Darwinism

 

[pitabread]

40% God created humans in present form (I'm calling this creationism)
33% Humans evolved with God guiding (I'm in the boring middle ground!)
22% Humans evolved with no God guiding (fundamentalist Darwinism)

"Fundamentalist Darinwism" is not a thing. You're distorting things with your editorial commentary.

In the free world, most are skeptics of Darwinism

Again "Darwinism" strictly speaking is not a thing any more. Why do you persist in distorting things? It's not earning you any debate points.

At any rate, the majority in Western democratic countries (assuming that is what you mean by the "free world") tend to accept evolution as the explanation for diversity of species. The U.S. is a bit of an exceptional case when it comes to creationism and even there creationists are in the minority and showing signs of a downward trend over time (the demographics of creationist belief tell the real story, imho).

You're not going to win an argument based on public polling here.

In fact if you want to find countries where creationism is more accepted, I'd suggest starting with the Middle East.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

but if you gotta go to a communist country to find agreement- that's a red flag!

You've just got to love xenophobia as the best counter-argument. Avoid the issue and focus on something completely irrelevant.

In the free world, most are skeptics of Darwinism

Citation required.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yeah I saw that after the fact and amended my post.

The Big Bang Theory was confirmed by evidence and determined to have greater explanatory power (as scientific theories go) than steady state, which is why it gained acceptance over time.

eventually- retaining it's pejorative label, when Lemaitre was on his deathbed- very little recognition, no Nobel prize for arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time, after all the derision he got for it..

While 'steady state' 'big crunch' 'string theory' and 'multiverse' are applauded and assumed 'probably correct' until proven otherwise- based on what empirical evidence?? you don't see a tiny bit of a double standard here?

The same is not true of creationism. It doesn't explain anything.

I'm not a creationist, but I don't rule it out

If you think that sometime in the near future scientists will start flocking to creationism, I've got some bad news for you...

not where my money is, but if they keep scoring enough 'lucky guesses'... never say never!

This is not actually true of Piltdown Man. I suggest not reading creationist sources for info Piltdown Man as they horribly distort the nature of the discover and acceptance; Piltdown Man was rather controversial even before it was exposed as a hoax.

Piltdown Man - Wikipedia
Henry Fairfield Osborn, President of the American Museum of Natural History, examined the Piltdown and Sheffield Park finds and declared that the jaw and skull belonged together "without question

^ those crazy Wikipedia creationists again!!

honestly I don't know any creationists or been to any creationist website that I'm aware of.
Piltdown man was an absolute cornerstone of human evolution for several decades, you could learn about it in major museums around the world.

And besides which, it's not even remotely relevant today.

nooo... scientists never go barking up the wrong tree now

If we're talking about "truth" from a scientific perspective then it again comes back to explanatory power.

The Big Bang Theory explains observations about the physical universe. Just like the Theory of Evolution explains observations about biology and the history of life on this planet.

Creationism does not.

intelligent design can explain the origination of hierarchical digital information systems- which is the core of the question in the 21st C

random mistakes cannot- yet I still don't entirely dismiss that out of hand-

I used to believe it... so I guess I can prove ONE thing:

my opinion on all this is entirely unreliable!

thanks again for an interesting discussion- I much appreciate all the thoughtful substantive responses

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You've just got to love xenophobia as the best counter-argument. Avoid the issue and focus on something completely irrelevant.

for the record I have Chinese relatives in my close family as well as friends, a great people- who deserve the freedom they are acquiring-

The objective truth is, freedom of religion was severely oppressed under communist regimes around the world for decades & I would be surprised if that did not still register in the polls

and with the return of freedom, faith is returning in China in a dramatic fashion also, is it not?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

for the record I have Chinese relatives in my close family as well as friends, a great people- who deserve the freedom they are acquiring- and with that freedom, faith is returning in China in a dramatic fashion is it not?

As I said, not really relevant. More relevant is your assertion that "In the free world, most are skeptics of Darwinism". I'm guessing that, since you ignored my request for a citation, you cannot support that statement.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

intelligent design can explain the origination of hierarchical digital information systems- which is the core of the question in the 21st C

As Pitabread said, creationism does not explain anything. You simply asserting otherwise does not make any difference - you need to demonstrate how your particular version of creationism explains things.

 

[46AND2]

Just like the primeval atom used to be for most in academia- explicitly for it's overt theistic implications

And Hoyle stuck to that position till his dying day in the 1980's

in terms of competing- we both have to give creationism credit where it is due there, that is the most popular in the US, followed by theistic evolution, then fundamentalist Darwinism (no god guiding) in last place- according to Gallup

As I said, construct it as a theory (well, hypothesis first), and it will be considered. Your example only supports my point.

I mean, I was responding to your point that "some people" (read: atheists) refuse to consider a "competing theory" and you responded with an example where atheists...considered a competing theory.

 

[46AND2]

intelligent design can explain the origination of hierarchical digital information systems- which is the core of the question in the 21st C

Intelligent design can explain literally anything. That's the problem. As a result, it explains nothing.