|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The Archbishop of Canterbury and Richard Dawkins
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Absolute rubbish!
The more we study the more beautiful and complex the creation of God appears!
The more beautiful and complex the universe appears, granted. But if it were to appear more like the Creation of God, then the more scientific knowledge advances the greater the proportion of believers there would be. And the more deeply someone was embeded in science the more likely it would be that they were a believer.
Unfortunately neither is true. The more we know, the fewer places we see God as a group, and the more someone studies the world the less likely they are to be a theist.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I'm sorry to do the "a plague on both your houses" thing, but for either Christians or atheists to say the universe is "beautiful" is nonsense. To a Christian, the universe is fallen. To an atheist, the perception of beauty is merely a chemical in my head going "fizz", nothing more.
In fact, now I think of it, the whole discussion of evil/Evil on the previous page comes down to the same thing: "evil" happens when a chemical in somebody's head goes "fizz". And since any human being is merely a bag of chemicals, to get angry at evil is just one chemical going "fizz" in response to another chemical going "fizz".
All rather pointless, really, isn't it?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Absolute rubbish!
The more we study the more beautiful and complex the creation of God appears!
The more beautiful and complex the universe appears, granted. But if it were to appear more like the Creation of God, then the more scientific knowledge advances the greater the proportion of believers there would be. And the more deeply someone was embeded in science the more likely it would be that they were a believer.
Unfortunately neither is true. The more we know, the fewer places we see God as a group, and the more someone studies the world the less likely they are to be a theist.
If I were God and I created the universe, I would sign it so people could easily tell that I created it. Since there is no such signature, clearly there cannot be a creator. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
If I were God and I created the universe, I would sign it so people could easily tell that I created it. Since there is no such signature, clearly there cannot be a creator.
Or, maybe, God really is a surgeon -- and His signature is just unreadable...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Absolute rubbish!
The more we study the more beautiful and complex the creation of God appears!
The more beautiful and complex the universe appears, granted. But if it were to appear more like the Creation of God, then the more scientific knowledge advances the greater the proportion of believers there would be. And the more deeply someone was embeded in science the more likely it would be that they were a believer.
Unfortunately neither is true. The more we know, the fewer places we see God as a group, and the more someone studies the world the less likely they are to be a theist.
If I were God and I created the universe, I would sign it so people could easily tell that I created it. Since there is no such signature, clearly there cannot be a creator.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) Try engaging with the argument. It is not proven that there is no Creator. Merely extremely likely that if there is a Creator, that Creator does not want to be known. If the Creator is making itself as hidden as possible, I don't see much reason to worship it against the wishes expressed. And if there is no Creator then that is entirely consistent with matters too and there's no reason to worship.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
If I were God and I created the universe, I would sign it so people could easily tell that I created it. Since there is no such signature, clearly there cannot be a creator.
Such statements always remind me of Oolon Coluphid and his argument that the Babel fish was the ultimate proof for the non-existence of God (for instance here).
More seriously, what do you think such a signature would be like?
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
If I were God and I created the universe, I would sign it so people could easily tell that I created it. Since there is no such signature, clearly there cannot be a creator.
Try engaging with the argument. It is not proven that there is no Creator. Merely extremely likely that if there is a Creator, that Creator does not want to be known. If the Creator is making itself as hidden as possible, I don't see much reason to worship it against the wishes expressed. And if there is no Creator then that is entirely consistent with matters too and there's no reason to worship.
I'm not particularly interested in arguing about evidence for God (or lack thereof), but I am interested in how you are arguing about it. Your logic is fine (although I'd modify it a bit to say that the Creator does not want to be known by means of empirical observations), but you seem to be using it to reach a predetermined conclusion, particularly from the deductions you make about what God's wishes must be. I have no problem with you doing that, and I admit to constructing arguments to reach a predetermined conclusion myself as well, but I hope you realize that the rhetorical effect is less than impressive.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
More seriously, what do you think such a signature would be like?
To paraphrase a "Swedenborgian" lecturer I heard, God's signature would be in the angle of carbon bonds. Or to put it another way, work by Stephen Wolfram shows how incredibly complex patterns can be produced by repeated application of relatively trivial rules. God's signature for the universe would be the rules that he chose to base it on, namely the basic laws of physics and the particular values of the relevant constants that determine the precise nature of the universe that we observe. Of course, such a signature would only persuade those of us already inclined to see it as a signature.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm sorry to do the "a plague on both your houses" thing, but for either Christians or atheists to say the universe is "beautiful" is nonsense. To a Christian, the universe is fallen. To an atheist, the perception of beauty is merely a chemical in my head going "fizz", nothing more.
In fact, now I think of it, the whole discussion of evil/Evil on the previous page comes down to the same thing: "evil" happens when a chemical in somebody's head goes "fizz". And since any human being is merely a bag of chemicals, to get angry at evil is just one chemical going "fizz" in response to another chemical going "fizz".
All rather pointless, really, isn't it?
As someone who paints, thinks and campaigns - you do believe in the reality of beauty (in whatever form your aesthetics allow) and in morality and therefore evil ....
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Adeodatus: To a Christian, the universe is fallen.
To all Christians? It isn't to me.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Absolute rubbish!
The more we study the more beautiful and complex the creation of God appears!
The more beautiful and complex the universe appears, granted. But if it were to appear more like the Creation of God, then the more scientific knowledge advances the greater the proportion of believers there would be. And the more deeply someone was embeded in science the more likely it would be that they were a believer.
Unfortunately neither is true. The more we know, the fewer places we see God as a group, and the more someone studies the world the less likely they are to be a theist.
If I were God and I created the universe, I would sign it so people could easily tell that I created it. Since there is no such signature, clearly there cannot be a creator.
I would consider humanity - made in God's image - as being his signature. Not even artists, incidentally, always signed off on their work. Not sure why you think the Almighty should!
Sign me up as another Christian who sees the creation as imperfect but at times incredibly beautiful. I'd rather die in a hole in the ground, if I couldn't find something beautiful about the creation.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
As someone who paints, thinks and campaigns - you do believe in the reality of beauty (in whatever form your aesthetics allow) and in morality and therefore evil ....
I was taking a bit of a swipe at the atheist position in that post, but actually I'm not sure I do believe in all that stuff. It depends a bit on what you mean by the reality of beauty, etc. I believe in beauty as a set of conventions, a perception, a construction. And I'm deeply interested in its perception, construction and communication. But I'm not sure about that word "reality".
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The more beautiful and complex the universe appears, granted. But if it were to appear more like the Creation of God,
What do you mean more like? It is the creation of God. How can it be more like the Creation of God?
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
then the more scientific knowledge advances the greater the proportion of believers there would be.
Not necessarily as W Hyatt has pointed out. Depends often what your prejudices are when you look at the evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Unfortunately neither is true. The more we know, the fewer places we see God as a group, and the more someone studies the world the less likely they are to be a theist.
More rubbish.
Francis Collins - Head of the Genome Project - was an atheist. He was converted by his work. He is now a theist.
Off the top of my head I can think of two other scientists that were atheists but are now priests. Keith Ward and Alister McGrath.
I'm sure there are plenty of others that become more convinced after their scientific studies.
It is more logical to posit a creator than deem the world a random accident after all.
The great Francis Bacon has a lovely quote on this.
quote:
A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm sorry to do the "a plague on both your houses" thing, but for either Christians or atheists to say the universe is "beautiful" is nonsense. To a Christian, the universe is fallen.
A plague on your house too.
To say the universe is fallen is gnostic heresy.
quote:
God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. Gen 1:31
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The more beautiful and complex the universe appears, granted. But if it were to appear more like the Creation of God,
What do you mean more like? It is the creation of God. How can it be more like the Creation of God?
Then we can say it is likely God is uninterested.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Unfortunately neither is true. The more we know, the fewer places we see God as a group, and the more someone studies the world the less likely they are to be a theist.
More rubbish.
Francis Collins - Head of the Genome Project - was an atheist. He was converted by his work. He is now a theist.
Off the top of my head I can think of two other scientists that were atheists but are now priests. Keith Ward and Alister McGrath.
Your point? Three people - as against the 72% survey I mentioned of Naturalists, with the majority of the rest leaning deist rather than theist. Scientists are more atheistic than the general population, period.
quote:
I'm sure there are plenty of others that become more convinced after their scientific studies.
Three swallows do not make a summer. There will be conversions. Both ways. You've mentioned few enough names to count on the fingers of one hand.
quote:
It is more logical to posit a creator than deem the world a random accident after all.
The definition of insanity is to repeat the same action and expect different results. Given everywhere the Creator has been predicted to be and hasn't been found it's no longer that logical. And the scientists that posit a Creator lean Deist, not Theist. They as a rule posit a Creator who doesn't interfere or do much that is now relevant.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
To say the universe is fallen is gnostic heresy.
quote:
God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. Gen 1:31
It's just possible that events have moved on since Genesis 1.31.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
To say the universe is fallen is gnostic heresy.
quote:
God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. Gen 1:31
It's just possible that events have moved on since Genesis 1.31.
Good and fallen need not be mutually exclusive either.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Absolute rubbish!
The more we study the more beautiful and complex the creation of God appears!
The more beautiful and complex the universe appears, granted. But if it were to appear more like the Creation of God, then the more scientific knowledge advances the greater the proportion of believers there would be. And the more deeply someone was embeded in science the more likely it would be that they were a believer.
.
But if you're right, someone who is "embedded in science" and a believer would have to be intellectually dishonest. Evensong's argument is a strong one that scientist see the fingerprint of God in creation *through their science* as opposed to imposing a predetermined belief on their studies.
You're also making a profound mistake in suggesting that the results of scientific study *alone* would convince people to be theists. Belief in a God who has designed and intervened in the universe has personal and practical consequences.
As we all know.
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think that evolution even appears to be random. However, it is unplanned.
.
Not random, not planned - what's the other alternative?
Yo Quetzalcoatl. You might have missed this earlier. What did you have in mind?
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
To say the universe is fallen is gnostic heresy.
quote:
God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. Gen 1:31
It's just possible that events have moved on since Genesis 1.31.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Are you confusing the universe with humanity?
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Given everywhere the Creator has been predicted to be and hasn't been found it's no longer that logical.
You believe the Creator hasn't been found.
I believe the Creator is found partly in creation.
Still can't see the difference and why science and religion are not mutually exclusive?
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The definition of insanity is to repeat the same action and expect different results.
Quite so. You and I keep repeating the same arguments without getting anywhere.
I suppose that makes us both insane. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think that evolution even appears to be random. However, it is unplanned.
.
Not random, not planned - what's the other alternative?
Yo Quetzalcoatl. You might have missed this earlier. What did you have in mind?
I don't get your question. Evolution is unplanned; it is also not random. I said that this is a problem for theism, since this must assume some sort of teleology.
This may not be insuperable, since it may be possible to bring together the unplanned nature of evolution with the directedness of God in some way, and possibly palaeontologists such as Prof. Conway Morris will find a solution to this. An obvious solution is to say that God permits things to be unplanned, but this seems rather ad hoc.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
@Justinian. Oddly enough, the Bayesian approach has been used to hypothesise that it's more likely that God exists than that he doesn't.
But as your link points out, this is just one of a number of approaches to statistical modelling.
And it doesn't deal with the central point. You can debate statistical models. You can't argue with the multiple and interdependent examples of the precision of the cosmological constants necessary to produce a life-permitting universe.
Your best alternative to a creator seems to be multiverses - a metaphysical approach if there was one.
As a matter of interest, here's another
example of Bayesian theorem to argue that cosmic fine tuning is more probable on the basis of theism.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think that evolution even appears to be random. However, it is unplanned.
.
Not random, not planned - what's the other alternative?
Yo Quetzalcoatl. You might have missed this earlier. What did you have in mind?
I don't get your question. Evolution is unplanned; it is also not random. I said that this is a problem for theism, since this must assume some sort of teleology.
.
You've defined evolution in terms of two negates. It's not a), it's not b) - which leaves open other possibilities. But unless you say what those possibilities are, it's not possible to make a judgement as to whether they are more or less likely than the two possibilities you've negated. So I guess I'm trying to work out what your positive description of evolution is. It didn't come about by planning, or by random processes, so it came about....how?
Hope that's a bit clearer.
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Evolution works via mutation (variation), selection, and inheritance.
Normally, genetic mutation is described as random, and selection as governed by the environment, hence not random, but a full description would become much more complex, and would include factors such as genetic drift.
However, from the point of view of theism, the big problem is that evolution operates in an unplanned manner. Can this be reconciled with the directedness or teleology of God? I don't know.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
Those about to argue in favor of "planned evolution" please include in your explanation something about the ichneumon wasp the aids virus and tapeworms while you are at it.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Those about to argue in favor of "planned evolution" please include in your explanation something about the ichneumon wasp the aids virus and tapeworms while you are at it.
Oh but I thought evolution was the God of Atheism.
Are you saying it is not?
Are you saying atheists have no answer to such questions? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Outrageous!
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Given everywhere the Creator has been predicted to be and hasn't been found it's no longer that logical.
You believe the Creator hasn't been found.
I believe the Creator is found partly in creation.
Still can't see the difference and why science and religion are not mutually exclusive?
You just aren't getting it are you?
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. What the are is in tension. The traits work against each other like a short professional basketball player. Muggsy Bogues was both 5'3" tall and spent four years as a pro in the NBA - but this doesn't mean that the professional basketball circuit is anything other than dominated by tall people.
The history of people studying the world to get a better look at the handiwork of God is a long and honourable one.
On the other hand the further we've looked the less obvious an apparent God has been to the point where rather than looking for the Flood we've had to declare him outside the universe.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
No. You just don't get it. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Science and religion are not in tension.
For some, the further we look the more we see God's handiwork.
For others, they will see nothing at all of God the further they look. They'll just get more awed and excited but attribute it to chance or nothing.
[ 18. March 2012, 13:51: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Justinian said:
On the other hand the further we've looked the less obvious an apparent God has been to the point where rather than looking for the Flood we've had to declare him outside the universe.
Eh? It was Aristotle who said that, wasn't it? And classical theism continued with that theme, since if the cause of the universe is within it, then it is presumably natural.
It's not really outside in any case, since 'outside' still presupposes spacetime, which classical theism usually says is created by God.
I suppose some panentheists argue that the universe is inside God, but I'm not quite sure what 'inside' means here.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Oh but I thought evolution was the God of Atheism.
Are you saying it is not?
Of course it is not. I'm just saying that
something like the Ichneumon Wasp is perfectly consistent with Evolution being unplanned since
parasites just fill a niche in the ecosystem.
But if you want to defend evolution as a planned
event with everything in its predetermined place
by a designer. Parasites and deadly diseases are a
bit harder to explain.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
But if you're right, someone who is "embedded in science" and a believer would have to be intellectually dishonest.
Why?
quote:
Evensong's argument is a strong one that scientist see the fingerprint of God in creation *through their science* as opposed to imposing a predetermined belief on their studies.
Evensong's argument is in a vacuum. I know some religious scientists. I know some atheist scientists.
quote:
You're also making a profound mistake in suggesting that the results of scientific study *alone* would convince people to be theists. Belief in a God who has designed and intervened in the universe has personal and practical consequences.
As we all know.
Oh, it has personal and practical consequences. One of the practical consequences of a God who intervenes in the universe is that the interventions God makes are measurable. And once that is the case, science can approach it. At that point NOMA falls apart. Science might not reach outside the universe yet - but can reach inside it quite happily.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Evolution works via mutation (variation), selection, and inheritance.
Normally, genetic mutation is described as random, and selection as governed by the environment, hence not random, but a full description would become much more complex, and would include factors such as genetic drift.
However, from the point of view of theism, the big problem is that evolution operates in an unplanned manner. Can this be reconciled with the directedness or teleology of God? I don't know.
OK I'm with you now. You're talking about evolution in two senses. Micro evolution, or in-species selection is clearly governed by measurable factors. Certainly that's not random. But macro-evolution, mutation of once species into another is a different matter altogether. You seem to be saying that macro evolution *is* random.
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
One of the practical consequences of a God who intervenes in the universe is that the interventions God makes are measurable.
No it isn't. Not at all. In fact the opposite.
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
OK I'm with you now. You're talking about evolution in two senses. Micro evolution, or in-species selection is clearly governed by measurable factors. Certainly that's not random. But macro-evolution, mutation of once species into another is a different matter altogether. You seem to be saying that macro evolution *is* random.
I'm not sure he's saying that at all. And if he was it's be wrong. Selection is not random (by definition).
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
OK I'm with you now. You're talking about evolution in two senses. Micro evolution, or in-species selection is clearly governed by measurable factors. Certainly that's not random. But macro-evolution, mutation of once species into another is a different matter altogether. You seem to be saying that macro evolution *is* random.
Actually he isn't. There is no difference between the two types except the time needed for two populations to become unable to interbreed. Evolution is unplanned but not random.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Evolution works via mutation (variation), selection, and inheritance.
Normally, genetic mutation is described as random, and selection as governed by the environment, hence not random, but a full description would become much more complex, and would include factors such as genetic drift.
However, from the point of view of theism, the big problem is that evolution operates in an unplanned manner. Can this be reconciled with the directedness or teleology of God? I don't know.
OK I'm with you now. You're talking about evolution in two senses. Micro evolution, or in-species selection is clearly governed by measurable factors. Certainly that's not random. But macro-evolution, mutation of once species into another is a different matter altogether. You seem to be saying that macro evolution *is* random.
No. Wrong again. There is no difference between micro and macro, except that the latter involves long periods of time. (Thus, macro is the sum or accumulation of long periods of micro). Evolution is unplanned but not random. Since it is unplanned, this seems to contradict the idea of God as somehow purposive or with a plan. Is there a solution? Don't know.
Are you a creationist? They go on about micro and macro, but generally they don't know what they are talking about.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
One of the practical consequences of a God who intervenes in the universe is that the interventions God makes are measurable.
No it isn't. Not at all. In fact the opposite.
The consequence of intervening is that it looks like God hasn't done anything? That is what you are saying?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The consequence of intervening is that it looks like God hasn't done anything?
If God is the eternal and omnipotent creator of the universe, of course. Unless God chooses to be visible that is. The whole thing is God's action, not just little parts of it.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Evolution works via mutation (variation), selection, and inheritance.
Normally, genetic mutation is described as random, and selection as governed by the environment, hence not random, but a full description would become much more complex, and would include factors such as genetic drift.
However, from the point of view of theism, the big problem is that evolution operates in an unplanned manner. Can this be reconciled with the directedness or teleology of God? I don't know.
OK I'm with you now. You're talking about evolution in two senses. Micro evolution, or in-species selection is clearly governed by measurable factors. Certainly that's not random. But macro-evolution, mutation of once species into another is a different matter altogether. You seem to be saying that macro evolution *is* random.
No. Wrong again. There is no difference between micro and macro, except that the latter involves long periods of time. (Thus, macro is the sum or accumulation of long periods of micro). Evolution is unplanned but not random. Since it is unplanned, this seems to contradict the idea of God as somehow purposive or with a plan. Is there a solution? Don't know.
Are you a creationist? They go on about micro and macro, but generally they don't know what they are talking about.
No, I'm right on this one. The difference between micro and macro evolution is, roughly speaking, the difference between applying the theory either below (micro) or beyond (macro) species level. And the debate about how this might take place is a vigorous one. M.T Kinnison, (An introduction to microevolution: rate, patter, process, Genetica 112-113, 2001, 1-8) puts it like this: 'Evolution is often considered in two categories: microevolution and macroevolution. The former obviously implies a small amount of change and the latter a large amount. The difficulty comes in deciding where the boundary between the two should fall, whether or not they represent the same process (acting over different timescales), and whether or not the dichotomy is useful or valid.... Are macroevolutionary events (large morphological changes or speciation) simply the cumulative outcome of microevolutionary mechanisms (micro mutation, selection, gene flow, genetic drift) or does macroevolution require some qualitatively different mechanism? The history of this debate is long, convoluted, and sometimes acrimonious.'
So the gradualist approach that you referred to is one side of a highly energetic scientific debate. The question of how evolution at the species level could have come about is far from settled.
Your bold statement that evolution is 'unplanned but not random' assumes one position and confuses the two. Microevolution certainly is not random, and it's not contentious. But the debate about macroevolution is more complicated. Certainly theistic evolutionists have no problem at all in affirming that evolution is a planned process. The suggestion that evolution poses a problem to arguments for the existence of God is a simply category error. Evolution is a process. God is the designer and initiator of processes. The suggested conflict between the two is simply false.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Ramarius wrote:
Certainly theistic evolutionists have no problem at all in affirming that evolution is a planned process. The suggestion that evolution poses a problem to arguments for the existence of God is a simply category error. Evolution is a process. God is the designer and initiator of processes. The suggested conflict between the two is simply false.
Of course you can affirm this. But do you have an actual argument for it?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The whole thing is God's action, not just little parts of it.
Justinian doesn't understand Christians that aren't God of the Gaps proponents ken.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Certainly theistic evolutionists have no problem at all in affirming that evolution is a planned process.
I don't see why any believer in a god has to affirm that evolution is planned. Are the effects of gravity planned? How about continental drift; did God specifically intend for the continents to be as they are? What's the problem with believing that God set up the initial conditions and now (mostly) leaves them to run their course?
I'm worried by the implication that God intends things like the evolution of viruses, or the occurrence of earthquakes and other natural disasters. But I don't see how you can avoid implying this if you hold that God intends the specific results of natural processes like evolution.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
That was my point. If you believe in "planned" evolution you believe God "planned" Lupus or Yersinia pestis. This of course implies nothing about a Deist non-interventionist God.
But why would an Interventionist God who plans everything not do anything in cases like this?
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
That was my point. If you believe in "planned" evolution you believe God "planned" Lupus or Yersinia pestis. This of course implies nothing about a Deist non-interventionist God.
But why would an Interventionist God who plans everything not do anything in cases like this?
And it's a very good question. It's also a different question, taking us into the various shades of the doctrine of providence.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Ramarius
quote:
But macro-evolution, mutation of once species into another is a different matter altogether.
One species does not mutate into another; new species evolve from a common ancestor.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Ramarius
quote:
But macro-evolution, mutation of once species into another is a different matter altogether.
One species does not mutate into another; new species evolve from a common ancestor.
Yep. Exactly right. Separation of species is (usually) a process that takes time and space, not a single event in ecological time - though it might look like a single event in evolutionary time.
(My inner pedant wants to point out that in a strict sense speciation can occur in a single mutation when chromosome rearrangements such as polyploidy render onme individual unable to mate successfully with its siblings or parents - this seems to have happened quite often in the history of plants, though nowhere near as often in animals - but I hestitate to say that becaus those with the strange inner compulsion to consider that there is some worth in YEC will almost certainly misread it as supporting silly salatational theories... and also it doesn't fit with the popular idea of speciation because the new "species" is likely to be all but identical to the old one if you want to be confused do an online search for the taxonomy of agamospecies of Limonium [sea lavender])
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Ramarius
quote:
But macro-evolution, mutation of once species into another is a different matter altogether.
One species does not mutate into another; new species evolve from a common ancestor.
Yep. Exactly right. Separation of species is (usually) a process that takes time and space, not a single event in ecological time - though it might look like a single event in evolutionary time.
(My inner pedant wants to point out that in a strict sense speciation can occur in a single mutation when chromosome rearrangements such as polyploidy render onme individual unable to mate successfully with its siblings or parents - this seems to have happened quite often in the history of plants, though nowhere near as often in animals - but I hestitate to say that becaus those with the strange inner compulsion to consider that there is some worth in YEC will almost certainly misread it as supporting silly salatational theories... and also it doesn't fit with the popular idea of speciation because the new "species" is likely to be all but identical to the old one if you want to be confused do an online search for the taxonomy of agamospecies of Limonium [sea lavender])
Don't know if we're just haggling over semantics, but on mutation and evolution see
here.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The whole thing is God's action, not just little parts of it.
Justinian doesn't understand Christians that aren't God of the Gaps proponents ken.
Yes I do. However you are a God of the Gaps proponent.
Ken would appear to be indistinguishable from a panenthesit based on what he's writing.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Yes I do. However you are a God of the Gaps proponent.
In your dreams buddy.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
And it's a very good question. It's also a different question, taking us into the various shades of the doctrine of providence.
Why is it a different question? Why are the results of such "Planning" not involved when deciding whether or not there was planning involved?
Are you saying the "Providence" of God gave a friend of mine an incurable hereditary disease that has killed already all tree of her sisters and their mother ?(Lupus)
If you accept evolution is not guided this is much easier to explain. Since human beings are not the result of planning, hereditary autoimmune diseases and other "imperfections" are easier to accept because they were not put there
deliberately by central planning.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
