|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is there a truly satisfactory account of Theistic Evolution?
|
Tyler Durden
Shipmate
# 2996
|
Posted
I hope this isn't a dead horse cos it's quite a specific question...
Having been a young earth creationist for the first ten years of my adult Christian life, for the last 10 years I have argued that believing that God is The Creator is not incompatible with evolutionary theory.
However, it recently occurred to me that I am unclear how this works! That is, at what stage and in what way did God create? And switching from biology to physics and the recent work of people like Stephen Hawking (which I haven't actually read myself) if we say 'God lit the blue touchpaper' isn't that a god of the gaps? But if he didn't light it, what if anything did he actually do? And again, in what way is he actually the creator?
It may be that all this has been dealt with many times and I just haven't read the right books but having done two theology degrees in the last ten years, I have yet to come across a (to me) really satisfactory account of how Christian faith and Darwinism actually work together. Please don't get me wrong, I accept both but I don't understand how they fit together in a way that I can adequately explain to my parishioners or even myself (and when I spoke to Alister McGrath about this v briefly at the end of a lecture I saw him give in London, he sort of agreed with me!)
Any suggestions?
--------------------
Have you ever noticed that anyone driving slower than you is a moron, while anyone driving faster is a maniac? Jerry Seinfeld
Posts: 509 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I don't think there is a satisfactory account, and I'm not sure that there can be. It is probably impossible to marry theological (or metaphysical) concepts with concepts from physics or biology.
Thus, if we ask questions such as 'how did God create fundamental particles?', the question just seems incoherent to me, like asking 'why is the ash-tray quarrelling with the toaster?'
There is also the big problem of the unplanned nature of evolution, which on the face of it, seems to contradict theism.
But, it's worth looking at stuff by Simon Conway Morris, a palaeontologist, who is a Christian, who talks about convergent evolution in interesting ways. I think his best known book is 'Life's Solution', but he has bits and pieces scattered around the internet.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Firstly, there are some problems with the phrase 'theistic evolution'.
From the Slacktivist:
quote:
We may believe that there is a certain providence in the fall of a sparrow, but we do not speak of theistic sparrows. Nor do we speak of theistic photosynthesis, theistic fusion, theistic chemistry or theistic algebra. We believe that God cares for the lilies of the field, but we never therefore refer to them as theistic lilies or speak of theistic botany.
One of the points that Fred Clark is making here is that we believe that God is in some sense responsible for everything that happens. The differential reproduction of organisms based on heritable traits is just one of those things that God's responsible for. If the sparrow with the seed-eating beak has more children and the sparrow with the less seed-eating beak falls that's just as much God acting as any other fall of a sparrow.
That is, there are no special philosophical or theological problems applying to evolution that don't apply equally to anything else we believe God's providence applies to.
As Julian of Norwich has it, everything that is created exists now and forever because God loves it. God is creator means that his love is the explanation of why there is something rather than nothing and why there continues to be something rather than nothing.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
This is quite definitely a dead horse, but that should not be taken as a criticism or a death sentence. It is a quite a specific question (and one I personally find very interesting since I wrestle with many of the same concerns) but it is a question that by definition belongs on the Dead Horses board with all other discussions of creation and evolution.
Buckle up and enjoy the ride. Please continue your conversation in the corral.
Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tyler Durden
Shipmate
# 2996
|
Posted
Fair enough!
--------------------
Have you ever noticed that anyone driving slower than you is a moron, while anyone driving faster is a maniac? Jerry Seinfeld
Posts: 509 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think there is a satisfactory account, and I'm not sure that there can be. It is probably impossible to marry theological (or metaphysical) concepts with concepts from physics or biology.
This surprises me. I think that there is an easy and obvious way to marry these things to create a truly satisfactory account of theistic evolution.
All that is necessary is to posit that there are consistent physical laws that govern the physical world, and also consistent spiritual laws that govern the spiritual world. These two sets of laws coexist, one within the other, and interact.
What this does is provide purpose and guidance from God. Invisibly. All it really means is that perfect randomness doesn't actually exist - but I think that everyone already knows this.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
I tend to think that theistic belief and evolutionary theory are generally married together for the pragmatic reason that the former is desirable and the latter undeniable, rather than because they form a coherent picture. Nevertheless, I think it's possible to construct an understanding of this question that makes a certain amount of sense.
If you roll a die, the result is random, right? Yes, of course, but on the other hand, no. It's possible in theory to calculate the outcome of any given roll of a die. Just measure the initial position, orientation, velocity and rotation (not to mention wind speed and a precise mapping of the surface you're rolling on) with sufficient accuracy, and you can predict the result. Easy, see?
Of course, we can't do that in reality - the precision required is just too great. Even a simple coin toss poses a massive problem, and that's without trying to perform the calculations in real time. But the calculation can be done in principle. Even chaotic systems like weather patterns or the rotation of Hyperion conform to normal physical laws - it's just the accuracy of the initial conditions and the rapid divergence of paths from minute differences in those conditions make it impossible in practice.
If you define randomness as being determined out of thin air, then nothing's truly random - it's all pseudorandom. There's no way for an observer to predict it with accuracy, but that's just because the various factors that determine the supposedly random result are either sufficiently well-hidden or sufficiently complex to make those barriers insurmountable.
Apply this reasoning to an infinite intellect responsible for everything that exists, and Robert's your mother's brother. Of course, that infinite intellect represents a rather large assumption on its own, and it brings the Problem of Evil back into very sharp focus, but one thing at a time.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
In general "theistic evolution" covers a range of hypotheses in which God is actively involved in the direction of evolution. It includes Intelligent Design, in which God steps in to specifically create particular cellular pathways that, according to ID propenents, couldn't be produced any other way. It includes a variety of models in which God nudges things along every step of the way, without leaving behind the fingerprints ID says exist.
Deism posits a God who created the universe with a set of laws, lit the blue touch paper and retired without subsequently getting involved in how those laws work out.
I would say that theism asserts that God sustains all things by his powerful word, continuously calling creation into being. But it tends to be more vague about the exact nature of that sustaining power. The faithfulness of God is demonstrated in the fact that the ways he sustains is consistent, and we see this in the laws of nature. But, the sovereignty of God is also demonstrated because he can choose to act differently, and we see a miracle. Theistic evolution sits within the structure of theism, but theism is larger.
One approach I've found interesting is posited by John Polkinghorne. He draws an analogy with free will. God has the power to compel us to do his will; he chooses not to, wanting us to freely love him. Polkinghorne suggested a term he called "free process"; God could compel the physical universe to act in a particular way, but chooses to let it develop freely within the constraints of his orderly and faithful sustaining power. Thus, although everything exists in response to Gods continuing "let there be ...", it also exists in a manner that is free of the direct will of him who sustains it. That freedom covers biological evolution, of course, but also the physical evolution of the universe and earth - so includes cataclysmic events such as super-novae and earthquakes as examples of the physical universe exercising freedom in its processes while under the direct call of God into existance.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Here is my own satisfactory account:
God made everything.
All of the physical evidence suggests that it happened over a long time (humanly speaking) and that life, critters, etc. developed gradually.
God is involved, both providentially (in every moment of spacetime, in this world and any other) and, when it suits Him, miraculously, in everything that happens.
... erm, beyond that, the details vary. How matters such as the Fall, the brokenness of the created world, death, and the like work in this context--I have suppositions, notions and opinions about how some of it might fit together, but neither my faith in God, nor my understanding of evolutionary biology/geology/etc., rely on those. (The idea that evolution--or anything else in the world--is truly random or meaningless is, I argue, a philosophical notion and not a scientific one.)
I am sure that, like the rest of His Creation, God loves the wee tyrannosaurs and stegosaurs that He made (everything is wee to Him, and He loves it), and I hope/trust that they will get to come back in the new Creation, however that will work. We may find out that the Neanderthals were always just as human as our distinct species, and/or that Eve was of the same race as "Lucy." I do not know.
I tend to suspect that the story in Genesis may be the only way to communicate certain truths to the human mind about the nature of Creation, the Fall, and the like--perhaps it is a kairos/chronos thing. Again, I do not know.
But this satisfies me, anyway. Your mileage may vary. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I tend to think that theistic belief and If you define randomness as being determined out of thin air, then nothing's truly random - it's all pseudorandom. There's no way for an observer to predict it with accuracy, but that's just because the various factors that determine the supposedly random result are either sufficiently well-hidden or sufficiently complex to make those barriers insurmountable.
Apply this reasoning to an infinite intellect responsible for everything that exists, and Robert's your mother's brother.
Yes, that's it. I find that truly satisfactory. The piece that completes it for me is an understanding of the way that God exerts this consistent influence.
As I understand it, the Lord sustains everything in existence moment-to-moment, and animates all living things, through a constant influx from Him, through the spiritual realm into the physical realm. Everything in the physical world receives this influx according to its form, everything in its own way. However, this influx also has purpose and direction, and influences the things that receive it. This means that over time everything undergoes gradual changes, influenced by many different factors, but essentially guided by the Divine influence.
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Of course, that infinite intellect represents a rather large assumption on its own, and it brings the Problem of Evil back into very sharp focus, but one thing at a time.
Yes, it is important to account for this. One way is to trust that the infinite intellect knows what it is doing, and that evil would not be permitted if it did not serve a larger positive purpose.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
If you define randomness as being determined out of thin air, then nothing's truly random - it's all pseudorandom. There's no way for an observer to predict it with accuracy, but that's just because the various factors that determine the supposedly random result are either sufficiently well-hidden or sufficiently complex to make those barriers insurmountable.
I can't say I understand it - maybe Alan or IngoB do as this is much more their part of science than mine - but for the last eighty years or so physicists have been telling us that they do NOT think that is how the world works. There are no "hidden variables" which, if we only knew them would allow us to predict things like, say, when an atomic nucleus is going to decay.
So there is real unpredictability and uncertainty. Even if you knew the state of every particle in the universe you could not calculate exactly what would happen next. Not even in principle - its not due to limited knowledge or limited computing power but because that's the way things are.
[ 14. September 2012, 15:22: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Also the main (but not only) traditional Jewish/Christian/Muslim idea of God does not say that God can predict what happens in the universe by means of infitie intellect. It says that God creates what happens in the universe. Including time and space.
The universe is noit like a book of mathematical tables, where a sufficiently mathematical reader might be able to predict what was on the last page if they knew what was on the first page. Its more like a story, where things happen because the author wants them to.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think there is a satisfactory account, and I'm not sure that there can be. It is probably impossible to marry theological (or metaphysical) concepts with concepts from physics or biology.
This surprises me. I think that there is an easy and obvious way to marry these things to create a truly satisfactory account of theistic evolution.
All that is necessary is to posit that there are consistent physical laws that govern the physical world, and also consistent spiritual laws that govern the spiritual world. These two sets of laws coexist, one within the other, and interact.
What this does is provide purpose and guidance from God. Invisibly. All it really means is that perfect randomness doesn't actually exist - but I think that everyone already knows this.
Ah, apologies. I thought the OP was asking if such a link can be demonstrated as against merely asserted. I would have thought not.
I agree that an unsupported assertion can link anything with anything, but the tricky bit is to provide a demonstration of it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought the OP was asking if such a link can be demonstrated as against merely asserted. I would have thought not.
I'm sure you are right. This is not something that could ever be demonstrated. It can only be asserted.
This doesn't mean that an adequate and accepted explanation is impossible. But is it likely that an explanation can be accepted that can't be demonstrated?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought the OP was asking if such a link can be demonstrated as against merely asserted. I would have thought not.
I'm sure you are right. This is not something that could ever be demonstrated. It can only be asserted.
This doesn't mean that an adequate and accepted explanation is impossible. But is it likely that an explanation can be accepted that can't be demonstrated?
That is a great question. I think there are different answers to it.
1. There are unsupported assertions which make us feel warm and fuzzy, and many people accept them. For example, life is beautiful.
2. There are some which can't be demonstrated, but which seem impossible to turn down, as they are metaphysical subtrata. Examples, (a) this is now; (b) free will exists; (c) other minds exist; (d) I am a person; (e) there was a past.
3. There are some assertions which follow within a deductive system, e.g. maths. Or really, they flow from a set of foundational axioms. So they do have some support, and can indeed be demonstrated within the system. QED.
Of course, the really interesting thing is that theism has been linked with both (2) and (3), and I suppose (1) also.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Correction to that - many of the things in (2) are being challenged today. Thus free will is argued against commonly today; and it is quite common to hear people say, there is no past, and I actually know Buddhists who say there is no present.
So we are in a period of great tearing down of such ideas, which is very exciting no doubt.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Isn't the problem is that we are confusing two ways of measuring knowledge?
To say that evolution is scientifically provable is to make a claim based on empirical evidence.
If I say that God was responsible for evolution, I'm not making a scientific claim. I'm making a theistic claim which is no more scientific than saying that I believe that God raised Jesus from the dead. Science can neither prove or disprove the existence or involvement of God.
The problem with creationism isn't because it is about God. The problem with creationism is that it doesn't square with the empirical evidence and thus fails as a scientific explanation for biological origins.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Anglican Brat
Exactly right. In fact, science makes no comment about God since it is not a philosophical (metaphysical) discipline. It uses methodological naturalism, which of course, omits any consideration of God. But it is not saying 'there is no God' or 'there is only nature'.
You can even argue that science makes no comment about truth or reality, for the same reason, although this is more controversial. Thus, if I make an observation and generalize on it, that has no implications for a theory of reality.
Of course, you can construct such a theory - scientific realism, but that itself, is not a scientific claim.
I would say creationism is failed science, but that is another can of worms.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
1. There are unsupported assertions which make us feel warm and fuzzy, and many people accept them. For example, life is beautiful.
2. There are some which can't be demonstrated, but which seem impossible to turn down, as they are metaphysical subtrata. Examples, (a) this is now; (b) free will exists; (c) other minds exist; (d) I am a person; (e) there was a past.
3. There are some assertions which follow within a deductive system, e.g. maths. Or really, they flow from a set of foundational axioms. So they do have some support, and can indeed be demonstrated within the system. QED.
Of course, the really interesting thing is that theism has been linked with both (2) and (3), and I suppose (1) also.
Yes, that last point is important. All of religion is an unsupported assertion. Belief in the Bible is the best example.
So people can have a perfectly satisfactory and adequate belief in theistic evolution, even though it is not demonstrable.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Freddy
It depends on what you mean by 'satisfactory', I suppose.
How can you distinguish it from a guess?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tyler Durden
Shipmate
# 2996
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The universe is noit like a book of mathematical tables, where a sufficiently mathematical reader might be able to predict what was on the last page if they knew what was on the first page. Its more like a story, where things happen because the author wants them to.
Interesting. So God is the author?
--------------------
Have you ever noticed that anyone driving slower than you is a moron, while anyone driving faster is a maniac? Jerry Seinfeld
Posts: 509 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It depends on what you mean by 'satisfactory', I suppose.
How can you distinguish it from a guess?
Yes, that's the question.
I guess my answer is that once ideas like this are woven into a complex system that purports to explain reality they become more than a guess. They can certainly be wrong. They usually are. But I have no trouble accepting that a system of thought can be adequate, despite not being demonstrable.
"Satisfactory" is a subjective term, so it does depend on what a person means by it. But "adequate" can have a more helpful meaning.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
So God is the author?
Yes - that's a very old analogy.
[ 15. September 2012, 21:57: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican Brat
To say that evolution is scientifically provable is to make a claim based on empirical evidence.
I think that needs qualifying. Evolution within certain limits can be observed, as a mechanism of adaptation, but the grand theory is clearly an extrapolation from this.
quote:
The problem with creationism is that it doesn't square with the empirical evidence and thus fails as a scientific explanation for biological origins.
Again, it depends what you mean by "creationism". Certainly the general affirmation of the role of an intelligent creator is not contrary to the scientific method, because that is a perfectly logical inference from the empirical data of the information rich complex systems of life. After all, information requires a source.
The question is: how could this intelligent creator actually create? My view is that the creator has put into the systems of life a body of information that allows for considerable freedom, adaptation and environmental interaction. Hence evolution (up to a point). And this is the kind of evolution we can observe.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Nothing is scientifically provable as such, but you can test a scientific hypothesis. I think evolutionary theory allows us to make many predictions which can be, and have been, tested.
The claim for the existence or role of God cannot be scientifically tested. But it is most challenged, if there is nothing left for the idea of God to explain. I think the biggest challenge will come when some scientist somewhere, combines inanimate substances and creates a process chain that ends up with a multicelluar life form. And I think that will happen.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
... Certainly the general affirmation of the role of an intelligent creator is not contrary to the scientific method, ...
An "intelligent creator" is irrelevant to the scientific method, since it cannot be studied or tested by scientific means. As for "information requires a source", that's just the prime mover argument, which is also untestable. EVERYTHING has information in it, not just biological systems - crystal structure, planetary orbits, electromagnetic radiation ....
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I think the biggest challenge will come when some scientist somewhere, combines inanimate substances and creates a process chain that ends up with a multicelluar life form. And I think that will happen.
If it does... poor things. ![[Frown]](frown.gif) We do such terrible things to the critters we already have, so God knows what processes would be involved, and how many of them would live short/unhappy lives in the process of coming up with whatever the end results would be. And of course the notion that if we made them entirely, then we could do whatever we liked with them. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
There was a truly horrific art piece done by someone showing what genetically-engineered pets could be like, and even more disturbing (which was part of the point) if you read between the lines.
Not sure that such a thing would be a challenge, honestly, since we are made in God's image and all that. Not to mention, of course, that it's not as if we'd be making such beasties ex nihilo!
PS: Since the whole issue of hoaxes and lying about art (see other thread here in DH about abortion) are on my mind this morning, I thought I'd point out the critical disclaimer for the GenPet site-- while you have to click on "about" to see it, the fact that it is an art project and not a real animal is right there on the site.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Well it took 277 clones with abnormalities inconsistent with life before Dolly was successfully produced. So I think the answer will be lots.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
ken - reality is indeterminate. Period. By God who thinks it. He can't think it otherwise. Why do we need IngoB ? The OP is asking why the sea is boiling hot and whether pigs have wings.
Dame Julian and John Polkinghorne have it via Dafyd and Alan. Therefore, Lamb Chopped, science DOES disprove God IN evolution. It's in Him.
Materialism is hoist by its own petard in Fermi's paradox of course. Higher with every dead exoplanet. Making life and mind ever more spectacularly miraculous, if that were possible. We could have been squid of course.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Anglican Brat
Exactly right. In fact, science makes no comment about God since it is not a philosophical (metaphysical) discipline. It uses methodological naturalism, which of course, omits any consideration of God.
This depends on what kind of God you're talking about and whether He/She/It/They interact with the universe in any way. For instance, if you were to say "Zeus causes the rain by pissing into a sieve" that's a claim that is testable by the scientific method.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It depends on what you mean by 'satisfactory', I suppose.
How can you distinguish it from a guess?
Yes, that's the question.
I guess my answer is that once ideas like this are woven into a complex system that purports to explain reality they become more than a guess. They can certainly be wrong. They usually are. But I have no trouble accepting that a system of thought can be adequate, despite not being demonstrable.
"Satisfactory" is a subjective term, so it does depend on what a person means by it. But "adequate" can have a more helpful meaning.
Well, sure, some guesses are more complex than others!
I don't think 'adequate' is any better really. It sort of floats around in the ether, like a Chesire Cat, unless you define the possible constraints on being adequate.
It sounds like for you, it means 'I like it', which is fine.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think 'adequate' is any better really. It sort of floats around in the ether, like a Chesire Cat, unless you define the possible constraints on being adequate.
It sounds like for you, it means 'I like it', which is fine.
Yes, that's one way to define "adequate." ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I had in mind something more along the lines of "offers reasonable explanations of all associated phenomena" or "has fully thought out answers to challenges and objections."
My psych professor in college used to say that none of the various psychological systems advanced by noted psychologists were "adequate" because they failed to explain "feelings of warmth and intimacy." I always thought that it was funny that he dwelt on this one point so often, but it made an impression on me about the meaning of "adequacy."
It seems to me that something can be "adequate" and also dead wrong. But "adequacy" implies to me that many people consider the system to be satisfactory.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Like scientology?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Like scientology?
Exactly. I wouldn't consider it adequate. Neither would you, I'm sure. I'm not sure it's even a system. But for some it probably fits the bill.
If it did for everyone, or for most people, then it might be generally considered satisfactory.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Okay, let's try.
The big bang. Everything began with that. God planned to the random and non-random processes take over and never intervened or did anything further. The idea that something can be infinitely small and then explode outwards into infinite possibility has a symmetry with an infinite deity. It is aesthetically pleasing to consider that God created at the big bang such that there were infinite possibilities, and that God quit after that, and by creating infinite possibilities, that free will was the only possibility. Hence the possibility for life or possibility of not life, and apparently self conscious life being a rare event. Free will meaning the possibility that molecules could form, become self replicating and it being fully possible that the whole process could stop with that, or even stop with no life occurring.
I don't think multicellular life was designed in any way at all, it just evolved, and could more easily have not evolved given an history of the universe/planet with most of its existence. There is no inevitability for conscious life, no inevitability for beings to become aware of self, other, mortality, nor God. It just happened within an universe of infinite size and possibility as set to start before the big bang.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Given a single universe and Fermi's paradox life can't arise spontaneously from matter. Given a multiverse and Fermi's paradox, something unimaginably weird is going on.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
The Fermi paradox is: quote:
The Fermi paradox (or Fermi's paradox) is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilization and humanity's lack of contact with, or evidence for, such civilizations.
Not much of a paradox, if you ask me.
The missing element in the idea of this paradox in a single universe is the question of whether the physical universe exists by itself, or whether there is a co-existent spiritual universe, as most religions assume.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No it isn't.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The Fermi paradox is: quote:
The Fermi paradox (or Fermi's paradox) is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilization and humanity's lack of contact with, or evidence for, such civilizations.
The big problem with the Fermi Paradox (and the related Drake Equation) is that the assumptions upon which it is based are largely guesswork. It's always dangerous to extrapolate from a sample of one (the number of planets we know of where human-level intelligence has developed). I've pointed out the big pitfalls in this analysis before, most of which stem from physicists making undue assumptions about biology.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There was life on Earth as soon as it rained. How difficult is it ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna
An "intelligent creator" is irrelevant to the scientific method, since it cannot be studied or tested by scientific means.
Likewise an unintelligent creator, because science could never prove conclusively that any living system actually self-assembled - i.e. arose without intelligent intervention.
Furthermore, even if an "intelligent creator" is irrelevant to the scientific method, it is not irrelevant to truth. The scientific method is limited in its scope, especially considering that it relies on certain assumptions that lie outside its remit, such as...
1. The uniformity of nature.
2. The universality of cause and effect.
3. Its own validity (by which I mean that *the idea* that claims have to be validated by this method cannot itself be validated by this method).
Given that we can only draw conclusions about nature from a scientific experiment by inference on the basis of these and other assumptions, then it follows that we can also infer the existence of non-empirical realities - such as an intelligent creator - from what we can observe.
By the way... it is interesting to note that SETI is considered a project consistent with the scientific method. But this is premised on the idea that it is possible that we could detect a certain kind of information from outer space, which would lead us to infer the existence of non-observed extraterrestrial intelligence. If that is not so, then the project is a complete nonsense. Such a project does not rely on the idea that we can only believe in the existence of such an intelligence if we can directly observe it. This is exactly the same method which is used to infer the existence of a supernatural intelligence (i.e. inferring the existence of an unobserved intelligence from the nature of what we can observe). After all, an extraterrestrial intelligence and a supernatural intelligence are both unobservable (at least while the extraterrestrial intelligence remains as merely the distant transmitter of the signal). It is a huge irony that the celebrated atheist who argued against the existence of God by means of his analogy based on radical empiricism (the invisible dragon in the garage) was one of the prime movers behind SETI. I am, of course, referring to the late Carl Sagan.
Clearly we cannot claim that the inference of unobserved realities is consistent with the scientific method when it suits our philosophy and deny the same privilege to conclusions, which happen to be ideologically unacceptable. That is just plain dishonesty.
quote:
As for "information requires a source", that's just the prime mover argument, which is also untestable.
So what if it is untestable? The scientific method itself is untestable, as I have argued above.
quote:
EVERYTHING has information in it, not just biological systems - crystal structure, planetary orbits, electromagnetic radiation ....
Exactly. Therefore everything follows instructions, which came from where exactly?
But, of course, we need to look at the type of information. The information of crystals, for example, is completely different from that of the genome. Crystals are formed by a process of the iteration of a simple function - or algorithm - which is not the case with genetic information. This information is a language not determined by chemical affinities within the molecular structure of DNA / RNA, in the same way that the words I am typing are not determined by the pixels on my screen. This kind of algorithmically incompressible information requires an information source independent of the information content of the laws of physics and chemistry. It is clearly not the case that the sequence of nucleobases in DNA and RNA is determined by the information inherent within the structure of these macromolecules. If that were the case then such molecules could carry very little information content - certainly not sufficient to code for the complex functions necessary for life.
[ 19. September 2012, 21:20: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Er, the information coded by the sequence ensures the survival of the sequence. Or not. No ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Likewise an unintelligent creator, because science could never prove conclusively that any living system actually self-assembled - i.e. arose without intelligent intervention.
Living systems self assemble all the time. I recall watching a seed assemble itself (slowly) into a much larger plant a school when I was seven. Unless you're positing that lima beans are intelligent, that seems to disprove your assertion.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Furthermore, even if an "intelligent creator" is irrelevant to the scientific method, it is not irrelevant to truth. The scientific method is limited in its scope, especially considering that it relies on certain assumptions that lie outside its remit, such as...
1. The uniformity of nature.
2. The universality of cause and effect.
3. Its own validity (by which I mean that *the idea* that claims have to be validated by this method cannot itself be validated by this method).
These aren't so much "assumptions" as they are "observations". Newton didn't assume that the gravitational forces at work on Earth were the same forces moving the planets, he observed that this was the case, and the demonstrated it to satisfaction of his peers.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Clearly we cannot claim that the inference of unobserved realities is consistent with the scientific method when it suits our philosophy and deny the same privilege to conclusions, which happen to be ideologically unacceptable. That is just plain dishonesty.
I'm not sure what you're asserting here. If "unobserved realities" are interfering their effects (i.e. the interference) can be observed. Clarification?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But, of course, we need to look at the type of information. The information of crystals, for example, is completely different from that of the genome. Crystals are formed by a process of the iteration of a simple function - or algorithm - which is not the case with genetic information. This information is a language not determined by chemical affinities within the molecular structure of DNA / RNA, in the same way that the words I am typing are not determined by the pixels on my screen.
This seems obviously false. If genetic information isn't determined by the molecular structure of genes, you'd expect that genetic damage would be harmless to organism. This is obviously not the case.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
... Clearly we cannot claim that the inference of unobserved realities is consistent with the scientific method when it suits our philosophy and deny the same privilege to conclusions, which happen to be ideologically unacceptable. That is just plain dishonesty. ...
When science makes inferences or hypotheses about "unobserved realities", they are still consistent with natural phenomena and laws that we can observe directly. We can send signals using various electromagnetic wavelengths, so it's a reasonable inference that alien life forms could do the same. The existence of Pluto was predicted because it explained orbital aberrations of observed planets. Proposing a intelligent designer is in no way equivalent to proposing another planet.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
... This kind of algorithmically incompressible information requires an information source independent of the information content of the laws of physics and chemistry. ...
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here, but a string of completely random ones and zeros is also algorithmically incompressible, and I can generate it with a penny and a piece of string. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I wish I could say, why the penny ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Recently published research into empathy in dogs illustrates my dissatisfaction with purely evolutionary explanations.
In a study of canine empathy with human emotions, dogs' reactions to humans were monitored:
quote:
The majority of the dogs comforted the person, owner or not, when that individual was pretending to cry. The dogs acted submissive as they nuzzled and licked the person, the canine version of "there there." Custance and Mayer say this behavior is consistent with empathic concern and the offering of comfort.
Very interesting. But the explanation is one I have heard a thousand times:
quote:
Custance and Mayer think canines over the thousands of years of domestication have been rewarded so much for approaching distressed human companions that this may somehow be hardwired into today's dogs.
Another account of the same study said:
quote:
She said the dogs' behavior shows how highly attuned they are to human emotions owing to thousands of years of evolution. (The Week, September 21, 2012, p. 21)
The canine response is due to evolutionary adaptation. I think that this is the standard explanation.
I don't find this very satisfactory. As a religious person I think that it makes much more sense that emotions come from a single source, and that all living things respond to them in their own way. This is not simply due to random evolution, but is part of a pattern that has its ultimate source in God.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The canine response is due to evolutionary adaptation. I think that this is the standard explanation.
I don't find this very satisfactory. As a religious person I think that it makes much more sense that emotions come from a single source, and that all living things respond to them in their own way. This is not simply due to random evolution, but is part of a pattern that has its ultimate source in God.
Is there any reason to prefer your theory besides personal prejudice? And doesn't your theory fall down on the question of general applicability? For instance, if all emotions come from a single source, wouldn't canine sympathy extend beyond humans? This seems distinctly disadvantageous for a semi-predatory species.
Further, if this canine reaction is due to the common source of all emotion, why wouldn't this apply equally to other species? We would expect any crying human to be mobbed by a horde of local wildlife if your hypothesis were correct.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
