Two quick articles on human evolution:

[Kylie]

Why do you say "force belief in their God on the people," rather than "present God to the people"?

Religion has often used force to increase the numbers of believers.

If science is supposedly so convincing, why do atheists still exist?

Because the science does not support religion, nor does it support intelligent design.

 

[stevevw]

Basically I think that most people sit on the extreme ends of the evolution and creation debate and both ends can be motivated by a belief and can be fixed in their views. I think most people are influenced by their worldview and this can be influenced by personal experiences. To grow as a person we need to recognize this and be open to evaluate how we see things.

But I think fundamentally at the heart of the evolution and creation debate is people's beliefs about spiritualism and materialism. Science cannot explain or dismiss belief in God or spirituality and spirituality is beyond materialism. Based on this it logically follows that those who are materialistically inclined will see everything in a physical sense and that is where the investigation stops. But I think it is also important to be open to explanations beyond materialism and science as some things are beyond science. At some point, the physical/material reality must have come from a nonmaterialistic state.

I take a middle-ground position on evolution. Though I support evolution I think there is also some design in life. I don't think a materialistic explanation is able to account for what we see. I guess you could say it is more along the lines of theistic evolution. So belief does not limit people's views on evolution and evolution can easily be accommodated.

I think a person of belief can be open to both the physical and spiritual aspects of life but a person who limits their view to materialism is not as open to nonphysical explanations. In that sense I think being open to material and spiritual possibility is a more balanced position to take. If we really follow the evidence then there are big gaps in the traditional explanation for evolution which has limits in explanation and that some sort of inherent design and purpose is a more realistic explanation.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I think a person of belief can be open to both the physical and spiritual aspects of life but a person who limits their view to materialism is not as open to nonphysical explanations. In that sense I think being open to material and spiritual possibility is a more balanced position to take.

I disagree. A materialism worldview does not ignore supernatural explanations. If a supernatural explanation has good evidence for belief I will believe it. If a supernatural being interacts with this world science should be able to study that interaction. The problem is if a supernatural event happens how do you know it is supernatural and not a natural phenomenon that we don't understand yet?

There was a Gilligan's island once where some natives captured everyone except Gilligan. He used the radio to portray himself as a god to scare the natives away. The natives did not understand the technology and assumed a supernatural cause. Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from the supernatural. What method do we have to tell the difference?

If we really follow the evidence then there are big gaps in the traditional explanation for evolution which has limits in explanation and that some sort of inherent design and purpose is a more realistic explanation.

What gaps are you talking about? Are you claiming that scientists are not following the evidence?

 

[inquiring mind]

Basically I think that most people sit on the extreme ends of the evolution and creation debate and both ends can be motivated by a belief and can be fixed in their views. I think most people are influenced by their worldview and this can be influenced by personal experiences. To grow as a person we need to recognize this and be open to evaluate how we see things.

But I think fundamentally at the heart of the evolution and creation debate is people's beliefs about spiritualism and materialism. Science cannot explain or dismiss belief in God or spirituality and spirituality is beyond materialism. Based on this it logically follows that those who are materialistically inclined will see everything in a physical sense and that is where the investigation stops. But I think it is also important to be open to explanations beyond materialism and science as some things are beyond science. At some point, the physical/material reality must have come from a nonmaterialistic state.

Well put, I agree.

I take a middle-ground position on evolution. Though I support evolution I think there is also some design in life. I don't think a materialistic explanation is able to account for what we see. I guess you could say it is more along the lines of theistic evolution. So belief does not limit people's views on evolution and evolution can easily be accommodated.

I think a person of belief can be open to both the physical and spiritual aspects of life but a person who limits their view to materialism is not as open to nonphysical explanations. In that sense I think being open to material and spiritual possibility is a more balanced position to take. If we really follow the evidence then there are big gaps in the traditional explanation for evolution which has limits in explanation and that some sort of inherent design and purpose is a more realistic explanation.

I see the main point of your comment here, but I’m just curious as to what you mean by “taking a middle-ground position on evolution?” For example, do you view evolution more in terms of being limited to variation and adaptation processes of a particular kind (to use biblical term) or do you go so far as our having a common ancestor? In my thinking anyway, the latter would be more than a middle-ground stance. Just curious? In some ways I find it’s harder to defend a middle-of-the-road position than it is to be one way or the other on it.

 

[Speedwell]

Well put, I agree.



I see the main point of your comment here, but I’m just curious as to what you mean by “taking a middle-ground position on evolution?” For example, do you view evolution more in terms of being limited to variation and adaptation processes of a particular kind (to use biblical term) or do you go so far as our having a common ancestor? In my thinking anyway, the latter would be more than a middle-ground stance. Just curious? In some ways I find it’s harder to defend a middle-of-the-road position than it is to be one way or the other on it.

There is no "middle-of-the-road" position with respect to the evolution/creation debate. Either Genesis is a literal and fully accurate description of our origins or it is not. If you think it is you are a creationist. If you don't think it is you are not a creationist--along with most Christians and other theists as well as atheists.

 

[stevevw]

I disagree. A materialistic worldview does not ignore supernatural explanations. If a supernatural explanation has good evidence for belief I will believe it. If a supernatural being interacts with this world science should be able to study that interaction.

But that is self-refuting. How can a scientific method provide evidence or an explanation of the supernatural when the supernatural is beyond what science can explain. If it can explain the supernatural then it is no longer supernatural according to science. That is the nature of how science works.

Science could have current theories that are explaining supernatural events like gravity for example. Basically what we see is large solid objects floating in mid-air which by all accounts could be classed as supernatural. But because science comes up with an explanation it is deemed a natural event. But who says so. It is humans who create this explanation that limits phenomenon to nature. Science is only an explanation and explanations don't have any creative power. Like math, is math created or discovered.

The problem is if a supernatural event happens how do you know it is supernatural and not a natural phenomenon that we don't understand yet?

But who said creating an explanation to help understand something within an assumed worldview is a natural phenomenon. Taking that position even if there was the supernatural it could never by acknowledged because people are assuming what is in the first place.

There was a Gilligan's island once where some natives captured everyone except Gilligan. He used the radio to portray himself as a god to scare the natives away. The natives did not understand the technology and assumed a supernatural cause. Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from the supernatural. What method do we have to tell the difference?

But what your explaining here is an assumption of what is and should be. So everything is made to fit according to that assumption. We would not have a chance to even tell the difference between only one explanation is being accepted and therefore looked for.

The question should be asked who says hat the scientific method is the only way to measure and explain things. If we turned things on its head and took a metaphysical approach then this becomes the assumption then all of a sudden we have different explanations that are claimed to be valid. We have moved well beyond the simple explanations in the Gilligan Island example. We are at the point where even science is now appealing to explanations beyond science because science is inadequate to explain what we see. Not because we just don't know but because that is where the evidence points.

What gaps are you talking about? Are you claiming that scientists are not following the evidence?

There are jumps and assumptions that do not fit what we see with traditional explanations. One example is convergent evolution. Similar traits between creatures on distant branches of the evolutionary tree were said to just be a coincidence of similar environments producing similar outcomes. But now we see that it is more than this and goes right down to the genetic and molecular level.

It seems all living things follow similar pathways in development so it is not just a case of natural selection selecting out certain traits blindly but it is inevitable that only certain traits will always be produced. So it's not a coincident at all but living things following pre-existing development patterns that evolve along similar paths.

 

[stevevw]

Well put, I agree.



I see the main point of your comment here, but I’m just curious as to what you mean by “taking a middle-ground position on evolution?” For example, do you view evolution more in terms of being limited to variation and adaptation processes of a particular kind (to use biblical term) or do you go so far as our having a common ancestor? In my thinking anyway, the latter would be more than a middle-ground stance. Just curious? In some ways I find it’s harder to defend a middle-of-the-road position than it is to be one way or the other on it.

Can you explain what you mean by middle ground as with a common ancestor? I think the traditional explanation of evolution primarily supports natural selection acting on variations caused by random mutations. Though I support these core tenets I also support what some call the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES). Natural selection is only one part of the influences for evolution and some say only a small part of evolution. There are a number of other influences that may have more say in how evolution works.

The traditional theory is inadequate for explaining what we see in how living things change and develop. There are built-in mechanisms that help creatures develop along specific paths rather than evolution being blind and random though that is also part of it. But traditionalists make that the be-all and end-all and that why I think that even those who support the traditionalist position can also use belief and assumption rather than what really is happening.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

 

[inquiring mind]

There is no "middle-of-the-road" position with respect to the evolution/creation debate.

I think that's what I said. Maybe I tiptoed a little too much.

 

[Speedwell]

I think that's what I said. Maybe I tiptoed a little too much.

I think it's time to stop tiptoeing. We have had a spate here recently of the "evolution is nothing but a lie of Satan" sort of poster and it is getting tiresome having to be civil to them. The present political situation has a bearing on it as well, being as these are largely the same people supporting the Christian Right's ugly political agenda, the "Jesus hates gun control and doesn't believe in global warming" crowd.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

But that is self-refuting. How can a scientific method provide evidence or an explanation of the supernatural when the supernatural is beyond what science can explain. If it can explain the supernatural then it is no longer supernatural according to science. That is the nature of how science works.

But the supernatural would interact with the physical world or else we could not know it exists. That interaction can be investigated. If a rock supernaturally is suspended in the air we can investigate it with science. How else could you know it was supernatural?

Science could have current theories that are explaining supernatural events like gravity for example. Basically what we see is large solid objects floating in mid-air which by all accounts could be classed as supernatural. But because science comes up with an explanation it is deemed a natural event. But who says so. It is humans who create this explanation that limits phenomenon to nature. Science is only an explanation and explanations don't have any creative power. Like math, is math created or discovered. But who said creating an explanation to help understand something within an assumed worldview is a natural phenomenon. Taking that position even if there was the supernatural it could never by acknowledged because people are assuming what is in the first place.

A natural explanation is accepted for gravity becasue a natural explanation adequately explains the phenomenon. If you want to say that a god supernaturally put the las of gravity in motion then you need to support that claim. Until then, the natural explanation is adequate.

But what your explaining here is an assumption of what is and should be. So everything is made to fit according to that assumption. We would not have a chance to even tell the difference between only one explanation is being accepted and therefore looked for.

Science does not only provide explanations but evidence that they are true. God can be an explanation for anything, but what is the justification to believe god is the cause?

The question should be asked who says hat the scientific method is the only way to measure and explain things. If we turned things on its head and took a metaphysical approach then this becomes the assumption then all of a sudden we have different explanations that are claimed to be valid.

No. The explanation would have to be somehow verifiable and supported by evidence. Science is not the only way we can determine truth, it has shown to be the most reliable way.

We have moved well beyond the simple explanations in the Gilligan Island example. We are at the point where even science is now appealing to explanations beyond science because science is inadequate to explain what we see. Not because we just don't know but because that is where the evidence points.

I agree that science cannot explain all things.

There are jumps and assumptions that do not fit what we see with traditional explanations. One example is convergent evolution. Similar traits between creatures on distant branches of the evolutionary tree were said to just be a coincidence of similar environments producing similar outcomes. But now we see that it is more than this and goes right down to the genetic and molecular level.

It seems all living things follow similar pathways in development so it is not just a case of natural selection selecting out certain traits blindly but it is inevitable that only certain traits will always be produced. So it's not a coincident at all but living things following pre-existing development patterns that evolve along similar paths.

Convergent evolution is interesting but it is not coincidental. Natural selection is not random or blind and populations with similar selection pressures will develop analogous traits. Even if this is not the case and evolution has no explanation for convergent evolution why then do you get to insert a creator? How do we know a creator was involved over an unknown natural process?

 

[tampasteve]

ADMIN HAT ON

Please refrain from flaming, goading, and stay on topic. Focus on the topic, not the people.

ADMIN HAT OFF​

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Science cannot explain or dismiss belief in God or spirituality and spirituality is beyond materialism.

Science can't dismiss belief in God because there is clear evidence of beliefs in God, but science can explain belief in God; plausible biological and sociocultural evolutionary explanations have been described in these forums.

Based on this it logically follows that those who are materialistically inclined will see everything in a physical sense and that is where the investigation stops.

Not necessarily - there is a long history of investigations into paranormal and supernatural phenomena. The results were, at best, ambiguous or inconclusive, so interest has waned.

At some point, the physical/material reality must have come from a nonmaterialistic state.

What makes you think so?