Theory of evolution: why is everything in balance?

[Kiah]

Thank you. I understand what you are saying, and I may be wrong, but it seems you are looking at religion exclusively from a sociological and scientific point of view. Although I personally believe in the temporal reality of my convictions, that is not what I'm talking about when I mentioned reality. Regardless of the temporal reality of religion and theology, it is still an academic field of knowledge. It doesn't matter how much you may disagree with the theoretical nature of an academic field like philosophy, your indifference or negative opinion of philosophy as a field of knowledge do not change the fact that philosophy IS a systematized and ordered field of knowledge.

When we get to theology, it is irrelevant if you see religion as a waste of time or not, Christian Theology IS an academic filed of knowledge. The reality I'm talking about is its reality as an intellectual field of knowledge and its structure. I hope that from that point of view the city metaphor makes sense and explain how IO see this. I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right, but to help you see the metaphor from a different perspective.

I do see your point and understand your perspective. I just don't see the relevance. I find theology (and philosophy to a degree) interesting as an application of mental masturbation.

[Kiah]

In fact I did read the title and posted in the thread before it was moved here from the Whine & Cheese forum (WE DON'T MOVE POSTS OUT OF W&C). And I have addressed the OP topic multiple times since. But you know that if you read the thread before joining in on the conversation.

You'll have to blame Mr. Morrow for that one. I do know that you have addressed it. You might have noticed a bit of religion touting while you were reading which is where my confusion comes in that you admonish only the side you disagree with.

No, reread his son's letter. His ideas... his actions come from his own twisted mind. He justifies them by avoiding personal responsibility for his actions and hiding behind the Bible. As people were sacrificed to the gods in ancient Greece.

This is new? The Bible has been used for way worse justification than that and many people use it to avoid personal responsibility. The creation of devils (religious and otherwise) is all about laying blame.

[Preacher Man]

I'm afraid you're never going to get this accepted as real science--at least not unless tyou can get people to change their minds about what real science is. A core belief of the current concept of real science is that it rejects supernatural explanations. You can not get any creationist theory accepted as "science" because any theory that presupposes a creator is a priori unacceptable as legitimate science. It doesn't matter if God really did create the universe because in order to be "scientific," you have to start with the unshakable faith that God is irrelevant. And the Big Bang is a perfect example. People of a "scientific" bent are perfectly willing to entertain the theory that nothing blew up and created the universe, but the minute you suggest that God caused it, you're deemed to be no longer talking science.

And apart from the prejudice built into the system, the big problem, as I see it, with getting a theory like intellegent design accepted as "scientific" is that there's no way to know whether the universe we're living in was probable or not, If you want to say that things would not be the way they are absent a creator, you need a creatorless reference point for comparisopn. And that is something we do not, and cannot, have. Instead, we have what we have, and we can only speculate about what things woudl be like if things were not as our theory posits. Unless God decides to come down from his heaven and declare for all to hear that He did indeed create the universe, I don't think you have a prayer of getting anything with God in it accepted as real science. And even if He did, they probably wouldn't believe it. Probably just some technologically advanced aliens or something.

Science must reject supernatural explanations. That is not the issue. The issue is if the fact that a theory has religious implications is enough to reject it. I mentioned the Big Bang as en example of a theory that was rejected because it had religious implications, but the theory proved to be right, religious implications not withstanding.

As for Intelligent Design, I belong to the International society of Christian Apologetics. Bill Dembski is a member. Intelligent Design is in its infancy. What that means is that from a scientific point of view, the theory has promise, and shows a good direction and framework, but not much more than that. Right now it is an interesting intellectual exercise and a possible model to explore, but more study and evidence is needed before the theory can be accepted in spite of its religious implications.

[BlackKnight86]

Your presumption of my Scriptural ignorance is quite wrong, but more importantly, not relevant. What is relevant is that I understand the cultural history of the West, and in particular, I know quite well that over the last couple of millennia, until very recently a belief in the creation story as literal was part of core orthodox Christian doctrine. People depended on religion not only to tell them how to order their lives among one another and to a divine being, but also to explain the origin of natural phenomena.

Your Scriptural ignorance is evidenced by two things: first, your reference to the "creation story" in the singular, while it actually is a cluster of perspectives ranging from the absolute literal viewpoint (which fails to elucidate due to seeming timeline contradictions) to the central lesson viewpoint (which regards the meaning of the creation story as the primary purpose, not the absolute details). The item central to Christianity is that God created everything, and it was good; but the disobedience of human beings allowed evil to enter. All else is subjective to the particular branch of Christianity.

Your second failure is your timeline, which leads me to question your level of knowledge of Western Culture, as well. I don't know what you mean by "very recently"; but your description of "core orthodox Christian doctrine" bears no resemblance to what I was taught. Perhaps you're hanging around the wrong people; but since most mainstream Christian doctrines are not secret, you should have no problems finding out what they are and at what point they may or may not have shifted. So, back your statement up.

It used to be near the very top of God's resumé that he had directly handcrafted all life on earth, and most significantly, human beings, and this was an important piece of evidence adduced not only to show his power, but also his wisdom and benevolence and design skills, and the specialness of our species. Darwin's theory blew that to pieces. If all that we see living on the earth came about by a series of blind random processes, operating through a brutal and amoral competition among and within species, then--at least according to the dominant theological paradigm at the time--it called into question the inerrancy of Scripture, the participation of God in direct creation, the divine and special nature of human beings as "in His image," God's benevolence, etc.

Darwin's theory explains changes from one existing organism to another. So what? It still does not explain where everything came from. It still does not establish the first principles. And it still possesses enough unknowns with respect to human-specific evolution to discount your dismissal of the specialness of the human being, vice the rest of the animals. The fact is, you've taken a core set of facts and extrapolated; and now you insist that your extrapolation be accepted by everyone else as fact. Call me back when you've found the CHLCA.

And given your characterization of God's "resume", I understand why you reject it. Someone clearly failed you in your early religious education.

People who still want to maintain part or all of the mostly discarded interpretation of Scripture continue to resist evolution with furious rearguard actions to preserve some or all of the old narrative. Their name is legion: young earth creationists, advocates of intelligent design, etc. You don't have to look hard to find them. Powernoodle clearly has a bone to pick with evolution, or there was this recent high-profile full-throated endorsement of folly and ignorance by a GOP Congressman from Georgia.

If there is no conflict between evolution (or more generally, science) and religion, or if they have now divided into different disciplines, it's only because religious people have learned to adjust their "core beliefs" to accommodate science and bow out gracefully from such questions. It has certainly not always been the case that believers have left the subjects of science to science, not by a long shot. History shows that they have bascially fought and kicked and screamed against advances in astronomy, geology, and biology. It's still not the case among many conservative American Protestants, like those who advocate on teaching creationism in school and treating evolution as just "one explanation among many." Nor is this tussle over. As advances in biology and neuroscience continue apace, the next battleground is likely to be over the existence of something called a "soul."

Oh, please...is this more of your vast understanding of "the cultural history of the West"? Saint Augustine addressed these issues back in the 5th Century. Science grew out of the intellectual traditions of Christianity and Islam, and the increasing contact that those two religions had, both with each other and with Asia. The natural conflicts that grew out of that were normal as each discipline sought to find it's place.

The modern "conflict" between "science" and "religion" is different, in that it is the tool for the advancement of the agenda of whatever side instigates it.

[pialia]

It seems that at least some of you are not liking the idea of evolution because it doesn't explain how everything started, well, is it supposed to? I was under the impression that it's merely an explanation for what happened after things started rolling. It seems like you're trying to merge the theory of evolution with astrophysics. I even remember reading some comment about Dawkins not saying anything about how the universe began and what happened after that, or some such thing. What I think you're forgetting is that Dawkins is a biologist and has stated numerous times that he does not understand the very complicated theories of astro- and theoretical physics. I think where some of the problems lie is the fact that it is so difficult to understand, not everything can be explained in layman's terms and that is why I think you're giving so little credit to f.e. the big bang theory.

I try to stay humble when it comes to things I don't understand and realize that the whole purpose of science is progress, and trying to perpetuate some hoax about the universe is completely countrary to scientific progress.

[BlackKnight86]

It seems that at least some of you are not liking the idea of evolution because it doesn't explain how everything started, well, is it supposed to? I was under the impression that it's merely an explanation for what happened after things started rolling. It seems like you're trying to merge the theory of evolution with astrophysics. I even remember reading some comment about Dawkins not saying anything about how the universe began and what happened after that, or some such thing. What I think you're forgetting is that Dawkins is a biologist and has stated numerous times that he does not understand the very complicated theories of astro- and theoretical physics. I think where some of the problems lie is the fact that it is so difficult to understand, not everything can be explained in layman's terms and that is why I think you're giving so little credit to f.e. the big bang theory.

I try to stay humble when it comes to things I don't understand and realize that the whole purpose of science is progress, and trying to perpetuate some hoax about the universe is completely countrary to scientific progress.

No....you are misunderstanding the crux of the problem. Those people who falsely put religion and science at odds, and who insist that proof of one constitutes refutation of the other are the problem.

You say that Dawkins has stated numerous times that he does not understand astro- and theoretical physics? Well, he sure seems to think he understands things far more outside the realm of human understanding than those disciplines. I have no problem with evolution; and I have no problem with people who don't believe in God. Where I have the problem is with pompous gas-bags thinking that they are in a position to say that science proves that there is no God, especially when they deliver it in a mocking, contemptuous tone. That's begging to be called on it; that's why I counter with my questions. If they're so sure there is no God, then they need to come up with their alternate theory. The fact that they evade by saying, "oh, we don't really need to know that, do we?" is prima facie evidence that they sure as heck have no place making any determination about the existence of a deity.

Think about the irony in your own words: "I try to stay humble when it comes to things I don't understand", juxtaposed with "some hoax about the universe". I realize that I am making an assumption about what you mean by "some hoax"; but if you're talking about people who believe in Creationism, then you don't sound humble at all.

If people want to play in the big kids' sandbox, then they need to learn how to play with the big kids' toys.

[pialia]

No....you are misunderstanding the crux of the problem. Those people who falsely put religion and science at odds, and who insist that proof of one constitutes refutation of the other are the problem.

You say that Dawkins has stated numerous times that he does not understand astro- and theoretical physics? Well, he sure seems to think he understands things far more outside the realm of human understanding than those disciplines. I have no problem with evolution; and I have no problem with people who don't believe in God. Where I have the problem is with pompous gas-bags thinking that they are in a position to say that science proves that there is no God, especially when they deliver it in a mocking, contemptuous tone. That's begging to be called on it; that's why I counter with my questions. If they're so sure there is no God, then they need to come up with their alternate theory. The fact that they evade by saying, "oh, we don't really need to know that, do we?" is prima facie evidence that they sure as heck have no place making any determination about the existence of a deity.

Think about the irony in your own words: "I try to stay humble when it comes to things I don't understand", juxtaposed with "some hoax about the universe". I realize that I am making an assumption about what you mean by "some hoax"; but if you're talking about people who believe in Creationism, then you don't sound humble at all.

If people want to play in the big kids' sandbox, then they need to learn how to play with the big kids' toys.

By pompous gas-bags I assume you're refering to Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris etc etc. I don't believe I've heard any of them say that science proves that there is no god. I've heard Dawkins say that it would be as likely that there lived faeries in his garden, but not that there was any kind of evidence to prove the non-existence of god. What usually comes up quite often is that they say that science is rendering god more or less unnecessary, because we're discovering things that previously only could be explained by invoking some kind of creator. This is why several of them have described themselves as agnostic, since they can't prove the non-existence of god.

You did misinterpret what I was trying to say. I was referring to the theories about the universe and life on earth as "hoaxes" and that there would be no point for scientists to perpetuate them since it just hinders scientific progress if they are in fact "hoaxes" as some people have called them. The theories are only as good as the evidence that supports them. What I was trying to say is that I believe a lot of things are discredited because they can't really be explained in layman's terms and that seems to create some kind of distrust towards scientists.

Hope I was able to clarify.

[ron_m80]

I am still waiting to see what happens to the world when/ if we ever figure our origins out. It is far too imperfect to be entirely god-created. But LIFE is also entirely too uniform and amazing for both its simplicity, and its complexity to just have banged into existance.

The ancient Aliens show made me think of something funny once. I was sitting there listening to the docu-drama crap and heard what the man was saying. Then I giggled at the thought of the "faithful" and what they would do when the "Ancient Aliens" return, the green men come out, and say "Welcome to a modern age of tolerance, itelligence, compassion, and learning. Space and all of its wonders can be yours, we will show you the stars. We are the people you call "GOD", I am Jibber, and this is my son, Rejus".

Oh the earth shattering sounds of the faithful all distraught and lamenting because the god of their projections isn't at all what they thought he was. Would the green "GOD" be accepted or rejected? Would he burned as a heritic, labeled the anti-christ, or worshiped with no other gods before him? Inquiring minds wait to see.

[timcsaw]

I am still waiting to see what happens to the world when/ if we ever figure our origins out. It is far too imperfect to be entirely god-created. But LIFE is also entirely too uniform and amazing for both its simplicity, and its complexity to just have banged into existance.

The ancient Aliens show made me think of something funny once. I was sitting there listening to the docu-drama crap and heard what the man was saying. Then I giggled at the thought of the "faithful" and what they would do when the "Ancient Aliens" return, the green men come out, and say "Welcome to a modern age of tolerance, itelligence, compassion, and learning. Space and all of its wonders can be yours, we will show you the stars. We are the people you call "GOD", I am Jibber, and this is my son, Rejus".

Oh the earth shattering sounds of the faithful all distraught and lamenting because the god of their projections isn't at all what they thought he was. Would the green "GOD" be accepted or rejected? Would he burned as a heritic, labeled the anti-christ, or worshiped with no other gods before him? Inquiring minds wait to see.

Could be that the faithful would say "OK, who made you?"

[Codger_64]

It could also be that there are vieled references to these other-worldly beings in the Bible. Again, I don't see the conflict.

[Nordic Viking]

By pompous gas-bags I assume you're refering to Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris etc etc. I don't believe I've heard any of them say that science proves that there is no god. I've heard Dawkins say that it would be as likely that there lived faeries in his garden, but not that there was any kind of evidence to prove the non-existence of god. What usually comes up quite often is that they say that science is rendering god more or less unnecessary, because we're discovering things that previously only could be explained by invoking some kind of creator. This is why several of them have described themselves as agnostic, since they can't prove the non-existence of god.

Exactly, Dawkins does not say there is no God, he says that the made up God (Jewish, Muslim, Christian God et. al.) that people pray to doesn't exist or care about us. Hitchens didn't deny the existence of a supreme being either, just that the made up God (Jewish, Muslim, Christian God et. al.) is a douchebag and more suppressive that Kim Jong Il.

[ron_m80]

....... just that the made up God is a douchebag and more suppressive that Kim Jong Il.

Haha.

[timcsaw]

Exactly, Dawkins does not say there is no God, he says that the made up God (Jewish, Muslim, Christian God et. al.) that people pray to doesn't exist or care about us. Hitchens didn't deny the existence of a supreme being either, just that the made up God (Jewish, Muslim, Christian God et. al.) is a douchebag and more suppressive that Kim Jong Il.

So those fellas' believe their IS a God, but don't think that any of the formal religions know him and/or have wrongly identified the God that those fellas' believe in? First time I've ever heard this sort of explanation...

[ron_m80]

So those fellas' believe their IS a God, but don't think that any of the formal religions know him and/or have wrongly identified the God that those fellas' believe in? First time I've ever heard this sort of explanation...

Nah, its just the first time the light bulb came on for you.

I don't presume to know the name of "IT", nor what dirrection I should send my cosmic lottery dreams to "IT".

[timcsaw]

Nah, its just the first time the light bulb came on for you.

I'm just glad to hear that they do believe in God. Now they just need to tell the rest of their disciples. If NV is right, and they do believe in God, then they've been doing a fine job of hiding it.

[Codger_64]

I am guessing that Hitchens has found the answers to the questions he asked pertaining to a "made-up God". Or he simply ceased to exist. Perhaps he was the cat schrodinger was refering to. Dawkins will eventually get his own answers, as we each will.

[Nordic Viking]

So those fellas' believe their IS a God, but don't think that any of the formal religions know him and/or have wrongly identified the God that those fellas' believe in? First time I've ever heard this sort of explanation...

No, I don't suspect they believe in a God. They however admit that they cannot disprove the existence of a creator (since they don't know or understand how the universe was created). They seem to have disproven the existance of most common Gods by pointing out logical fallacies in people's religious beliefs about the existence of their Gods. As a non-believer I find their arguments to be more logical than any arguments for the existance of a God. That's good enough for me, YMMV.

[timcsaw]

No, I don't suspect they believe in a God. They however admit that they cannot disprove the existence of a creator (since they don't know or understand how the universe was created). They seem to have disproven the existance of most common Gods by pointing out logical fallacies in people's religious beliefs about the existence of their Gods. As a non-believer I find their arguments to be more logical than any arguments for the existance of a God. That's good enough for me, YMMV.

So they accept that their could be a God since they can't prove their isn't one. That's a good place to start. I can respect the "weak-atheist" (commonly called agnostic) position.

[ron_m80]

I'm just glad to hear that they do believe in God. Now they just need to tell the rest of their disciples. If NV is right, and they do believe in God, then they've been doing a fine job of hiding it.

So they accept that their could be a God since they can't prove their isn't one.

It is only logical.

That's a good place to start.

Before what?

I can respect the "weak-atheist" position.

You can respect them, that is wonderful Tim. Now you and "GOD" are in agreement on "them".

[Preacher Man]

By pompous gas-bags I assume you're refering to Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris etc etc. I don't believe I've heard any of them say that science proves that there is no god. I've heard Dawkins say that it would be as likely that there lived faeries in his garden, but not that there was any kind of evidence to prove the non-existence of god. What usually comes up quite often is that they say that science is rendering god more or less unnecessary, because we're discovering things that previously only could be explained by invoking some kind of creator. This is why several of them have described themselves as agnostic, since they can't prove the non-existence of god.

I have to disagree with you. It is true that not all atheist debaters are the same, and not all take the same positions. That been said, one of the characteristics of the "New Atheism" is to dismiss any historical achievement of religion under the guise that religion is nothing more than a "toxic belief" or an "archaic belief," as it stands in opposition to the "modern view of the world" and "scientific achievements" by which they mean religion stands against scientific materialism. But scientific materialism is not "science." You do not have to be an atheist to be a great scientist. Being religious doesn't automatically make anyone anti-intellectual, anti-science, or archaic.

Have you ever seen Dawkins' documentary "The God Delusion" (originally tittled "The Root of All Evils")? According to Dawkins, when a believer parent teaches his ethics and beliefs to his children, that is tantamount to child abuse. That is not a neutral view on religion. He uses the terms "virus" and "root of all evils" to describe religion, both in writing and in film. Although he has mellowed some in recent years, his position toward religion has never been neutral. That been said, Hitchens has been know to recognize in debates the positive achievements of religion in society and world history, along with its problems, of course. I have never heard Dawkins recognize the positive impact and achievements of religion, only the bad ones. There is a very good reason BlackKnight takes the position he does in relation to Dawkins in particular.