Why is the concept of theistic evolution unacceptable to you?

[James R]

wynn:

This thread is not about the existence of God. It is about theistic evolution, which is put forward as a scientific theory. If you claim your God created planet Earth, then you really ought to provide at least some evidence of that, don't you think?

 

[Yazata]

Any source that has refers respectfully to Jan's beloved Vedas is right up there on his list of automatically-to-be-trusted sources, no matter how ill-researched, uninformed, mistaken, or just plain wrong it might be. The Vegas are just the best ever, you know! They contain all knowledge of everything and are infallible.

Hey! Don't knock Vegas!

Any religion that believes that Vegas is a divine revelation is something that I gotta look into.

What? Vedas? Oh. Sorry. Never mind.

 

[kx000]

wynn:

This thread is not about the existence of God. It is about theistic evolution, which is put forward as a scientific theory. If you claim your God created planet Earth, then you really ought to provide at least some evidence of that, don't you think?

If God naturally came to be having ultimate power, to make the void into the universe and then he let the natural order proceed, and the earth came to be, then through his action to allow the natural process to occur he in turn created everything, having the ability to make it not occur.

 

[GeoffP]

That's supposition, not evidence. Even if He existed, it wouldn't mean He did do it.

 

[kx000]

If he existed FIRST, and had the ability to do it or cease it, then yes it is of him.

My post states he possibly does exist, and he has the ability theoretically to do things ultimately. I believe the negative is in your court.

 

[wynn]

This thread is not about the existence of God. It is about theistic evolution, which is put forward as a scientific theory. If you claim your God created planet Earth, then you really ought to provide at least some evidence of that, don't you think?

It was Seagypsy who brought up the science vs. God dichotomy, and so she has to justify it.

:shrug:



Oh, and -

If you claim your God created planet Earth, then you really ought to provide at least some evidence of that, don't you think?

I've made no such claim, and I have no God to call mine.

Geez, your notions of what makes someone a theist are ... really shallow.

 

[Yazata]

This thread is not about the existence of God. It is about theistic evolution, which is put forward as a scientific theory.

I'm going to disagree with that, because I'm not convinced that theistic evolution is typically put forward as a scientific theory.

Intelligent Design ("ID") is indeed promoted as if it was a scientific theory. That was the basis of my argument with Wynn on the "ID" thread. Wynn was arguing that a particular definition of "God" is axiomatic among "theists", and that this supposed axiom somehow eliminates the inconsistency that I had earlier been arguing is inherent in "ID" arguments. My response was that the "ID" arguments purport to be scientific arguments. They begin with naturalistic observations made in this world, observations that they insist reveal "irreducible complexity" or whatever it is, that somehow implies the existence of a "designer". So the whole idea of initial theistic axioms doesn't apply in these ostensibly-scientific arguments, and can't apply without circularity.

Theistic evolution, at least as I understand the idea, is something a little different than "ID" in this supposed-scientific sense. Theistic evolution doesn't typically purport to be a scientific theory. It can and does begin with religious presuppositions. Its purpose and goal isn't to produce a ostensibly-scientific argument for the existence of a theistic God that's suitable for teaching in school science classrooms. Its purpose and goal is instead to bring traditional religious ideas and modern scientific ideas into some kind of harmony, so that theistic scientists and others can simultaneously believe in science and whatever their theistic religion is, without big-time cognitive dissonance.

 

[Yazata]

Any source that has refers respectfully to Jan's beloved Vedas is right up there on his list of automatically-to-be-trusted sources, no matter how ill-researched, uninformed, mistaken, or just plain wrong it might be. The Vegas are just the best ever, you know! They contain all knowledge of everything and are infallible.

Most people on Sciforums are probably unaware of this, but Wynn features very prominently in the Vegas. A veritable Goddess!

 

[Balerion]

Michael A. Cremo (born July 15, 1948, Schenectady, New York)

What a kick in the ass. Mr. Wacko Cremo and I share a hometown. In fact, I'm in Schenectady as I write this.

I'm going to disagree with that, because I'm not convinced that theistic evolution is typically put forward as a scientific theory.

Intelligent Design ("ID") is indeed promoted as if it was a scientific theory. That was the basis of my argument with Wynn on the "ID" thread. Wynn was arguing that a particular definition of "God" is axiomatic among "theists", and that this supposed axiom somehow eliminates the inconsistency that I had earlier been arguing is inherent in "ID" arguments. My response was that the "ID" arguments purport to be scientific arguments. They begin with naturalistic observations made in this world, observations that they insist reveal "irreducible complexity" or whatever it is, that somehow implies the existence of a "designer". So the whole idea of initial theistic axioms doesn't apply in these ostensibly-scientific arguments, and can't apply without circularity.

Theistic evolution, at least as I understand the idea, is something a little different than "ID" in this supposed-scientific sense. Theistic evolution doesn't typically purport to be a scientific theory. It can and does begin with religious presuppositions. Its purpose and goal isn't to produce a ostensibly-scientific argument for the existence of a theistic God that's suitable for teaching in school science classrooms. Its purpose and goal is instead to bring traditional religious ideas and modern scientific ideas into some kind of harmony, so that theistic scientists and others can simultaneously believe in science and whatever their theistic religion is, without big-time cognitive dissonance.

Yes, exactly. Theistic evolution appears to be an attempt by (predominantly Christian) theists who see that evolution is a scientific fact to unite their worldview with modern scientific understanding. And its proponents--if I'm reading this Wiki entry correctly--appear to be physicists, evolutionary biologists, and paleontologists, whereas ID proponents usually aren't.

 

[Aqueous Id]

James, it's quite ovious he's going to get reactions from the same type of mindset responsible for the suppression.
The only way you can refute these claims unbiasly, is to refute the actual claims in the book, and refrain from embarking
on a witchunt, which effectively proves his point.

What is convincing about this book to me is the actual scale of deciet, and the evidence he has to back it up.
It explains the conviction of this mindset to keep darwinism as the dominant explanation, and while we may have thought
they would go to any lengths to maintain the idea, here we have evidence in abundance.

I'm not interested in your attacks on him, that's what I expect.
Go out in the field and refute each and everyone of his claims.
He did the work, which took over 20 years to complete. You go and do the work.


jan.

Jan,

I'm curious why you regard this question of evolution from such a distance. Rather than relying on the anecdotes of a person who is not a scientist, wouldn't you be more comfortable taking the bull by the horns and addressing it more directly, that is, in your own mind?

The problem isn't hard to fomulate if you retrace Darwin's steps. He arrives at some uncharted islands and is quick to investigate (he's science officer on the good ship Beagle). His first observation is that these are volcanic formations. He rather accurately estimates their age at several million years. But when he goes exploring he finds some surprises. There are diving iguanas living on seaweed. There are 26 species of birds of which only 2 or 3 are found on the mainland. And then there are two versions of the same turtle, long and short necked--adapted for two heights of plants they eat. In other words, these species were "created" only within the last few millions of years.

Darwin reasoned that they evolved on the island by a process similar to selective breeding. In this case, he reasoned, nature was doing the selecting.

If you consider just this point, Jan, you will find yourself in Darwin's predicament. Did God create these species especially for these islands? ("Special creation.") What alternative is there--besides evolution--to explain how they appeared on the islands after the volcanic eruptions and before Darwin got there in the 1840s?

This is the linchpin of the Theory of Evolution. A lot of stuff follows from it, but this, I would think, is where you would want to start in order to draw the issue closer to your field of view, in order to have your own informed opinion, without having to rely on someone else's explanation.

Can you actually convince yourself that Darwin was wrong? How?

 

[GeoffP]

If he existed FIRST, and had the ability to do it or cease it, then yes it is of him.

That doesn't mean He did it, only that He had the ability to do so. Your ball.

 

[wynn]

I'm going to disagree with that, because I'm not convinced that theistic evolution is typically put forward as a scientific theory.

Intelligent Design ("ID") is indeed promoted as if it was a scientific theory. That was the basis of my argument with Wynn on the "ID" thread. Wynn was arguing that a particular definition of "God" is axiomatic among "theists", and that this supposed axiom somehow eliminates the inconsistency that I had earlier been arguing is inherent in "ID" arguments. My response was that the "ID" arguments purport to be scientific arguments. They begin with naturalistic observations made in this world, observations that they insist reveal "irreducible complexity" or whatever it is, that somehow implies the existence of a "designer". So the whole idea of initial theistic axioms doesn't apply in these ostensibly-scientific arguments, and can't apply without circularity.

Theistic evolution, at least as I understand the idea, is something a little different than "ID" in this supposed-scientific sense. Theistic evolution doesn't typically purport to be a scientific theory. It can and does begin with religious presuppositions. Its purpose and goal isn't to produce a ostensibly-scientific argument for the existence of a theistic God that's suitable for teaching in school science classrooms. Its purpose and goal is instead to bring traditional religious ideas and modern scientific ideas into some kind of harmony, so that theistic scientists and others can simultaneously believe in science and whatever their theistic religion is, without big-time cognitive dissonance.

We've discussed this before -

A human cannot prove or disprove that God exists, this follows from the common definitions of "God."
Any line of reasoning that concludes "...therefore, God exists" or "...therefore, God does not exist" is thus misleading.

Yes, I believe this also means that when people who identify themselves as theists, directly or indirectly put forward "arguments for the existence of God," they are attempting the impossible. Any atheist should be able to see that and point it out to them.

IOW, as soon as someone who claims to be a theist starts talking about why they believe in God, they have moved into atheism. I think it is fair to point this out to them.

Intelligent Design ("ID") is indeed promoted as if it was a scientific theory. That was the basis of my argument with Wynn on the "ID" thread. Wynn was arguing that a particular definition of "God" is axiomatic among "theists", and that this supposed axiom somehow eliminates the inconsistency that I had earlier been arguing is inherent in "ID" arguments. My response was that the "ID" arguments purport to be scientific arguments. They begin with naturalistic observations made in this world, observations that they insist reveal "irreducible complexity" or whatever it is, that somehow implies the existence of a "designer". So the whole idea of initial theistic axioms doesn't apply in these ostensibly-scientific arguments, and can't apply without circularity.

The point I've been making is that (atheist) scientists only need to keep in line with the common theistic definitions - and they will be able to defeat the IDers in argument (sic!).
Reveal those presumed theists as atheistic.

If either side stubbornly persists, that suggests that something else is going on on one or both sides, esp. a political agenda - and that cannot be clarified without addressing said agenda directly.

Theistic evolution, at least as I understand the idea, is something a little different than "ID" in this supposed-scientific sense. Theistic evolution doesn't typically purport to be a scientific theory. It can and does begin with religious presuppositions. Its purpose and goal isn't to produce a ostensibly-scientific argument for the existence of a theistic God that's suitable for teaching in school science classrooms. Its purpose and goal is instead to bring traditional religious ideas and modern scientific ideas into some kind of harmony, so that theistic scientists and others can simultaneously believe in science and whatever their theistic religion is, without big-time cognitive dissonance.

But they do have cognitive dissonance. They are trying to be theistic but use atheistic means.

In general, Christianity is especially susceptible to this, because it has so many undefined or only vaguely defined concepts that are otherwise crucial, both in science as well as in religion (issues of free will, selfhood, human action - in comparison, these things are worked out with much more precision in some schools of Hinduism).

I was talking once to a Christian preacher; we reached an impasse and I asked him what he means by "self" - and he told me that this is the field of psychology and that this is where I should turn to.
Duh.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Aqueous Id,

I'm curious why you regard this question of evolution from such a distance. Rather than relying on the anecdotes of a person who is not a scientist, wouldn't you be more comfortable taking the bull by the horns and addressing it more directly, that is, in your own mind?

The book reveals an effort to suppress any information that contradicts Darwins ideas.
It would be ignorant to assume that Darwins ideas are the last in determining how we came to be. Don't you think?
So you needn't be curious about me, but rather you should ask yourself why information regarding his ideas are so vehemently suppressed, and more importantly, why you yourself cannot accept anything that challenges them.

The problem isn't hard to fomulate if you retrace Darwin's steps. He arrives at some uncharted islands and is quick to investigate (he's science officer on the good ship Beagle). His first observation is that these are volcanic formations. He rather accurately estimates their age at several million years. But when he goes exploring he finds some surprises. There are diving iguanas living on seaweed. There are 26 species of birds of which only 2 or 3 are found on the mainland. And then there are two versions of the same turtle, long and short necked--adapted for two heights of plants they eat. In other words, these species were "created" only within the last few millions of years.

So, how do you come to believe that everything evolved from one cell, to the diversity we see today. That's the question I want you to focus on, not actual evolution, which I think everybody on the planet accepts. Okay?

If you consider just this point, Jan, you will find yourself in Darwin's predicament. Did God create these species especially for these islands? ("Special creation.") What alternative is there--besides evolution--to explain how they appeared on the islands after the volcanic eruptions and before Darwin got there in the 1840s?

Why would Darwin ask such a question? He was already aware of small changes over time first hand, as were breeders all over the world, from time immemorial.

This is the linchpin of the Theory of Evolution. A lot of stuff follows from it, but this, I would think, is where you would want to start in order to draw the issue closer to your field of view, in order to have your own informed opinion, without having to rely on someone else's explanation.

Who said I ''rely on someone else's explanation''? Have you actually read that book?
If you have you'll realise it is full of data found by proffesional, and full-blown rejections and suppressions of the results that data, because it contradicts darwinism. If the authors do make their own comments, it is only on the basis of what they unearthed, and the attitudes, and quotes of the establishment, whose jobs seem to be gate keepers for the idea.

My questions to you is: why do you reject something you haven't read or investigated? And so what if Darwin's ideas are off-base?

Can you actually convince yourself that Darwin was wrong? How?

Why the need to convince oneself? If he is wrong, or mistaken, then so be it?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I'm going to disagree with that, because I'm not convinced that theistic evolution is typically put forward as a scientific theory.

Intelligent Design ("ID") is indeed promoted as if it was a scientific theory. That was the basis of my argument with Wynn on the "ID" thread. Wynn was arguing that a particular definition of "God" is axiomatic among "theists", and that this supposed axiom somehow eliminates the inconsistency that I had earlier been arguing is inherent in "ID" arguments. My response was that the "ID" arguments purport to be scientific arguments. They begin with naturalistic observations made in this world, observations that they insist reveal "irreducible complexity" or whatever it is, that somehow implies the existence of a "designer". So the whole idea of initial theistic axioms doesn't apply in these ostensibly-scientific arguments, and can't apply without circularity.

Theistic evolution, at least as I understand the idea, is something a little different than "ID" in this supposed-scientific sense. Theistic evolution doesn't typically purport to be a scientific theory. It can and does begin with religious presuppositions. Its purpose and goal isn't to produce a ostensibly-scientific argument for the existence of a theistic God that's suitable for teaching in school science classrooms. Its purpose and goal is instead to bring traditional religious ideas and modern scientific ideas into some kind of harmony, so that theistic scientists and others can simultaneously believe in science and whatever their theistic religion is, without big-time cognitive dissonance.

Scientific theory:

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.


Is Intelligent Design a scientific theory?:

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.


jan.

 

[GeoffP]

How can ID be a scientific theory when it's conclusion is that a supernatural being must account for biological complexity?

If it were a scientific theory, it has long since been refuted anyway.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena,

It would be ignorant to assume that Darwins ideas are the last in determining how we came to be. Don't you think?

Yes - if there's a better alternative. Is there? Intelligent design doesn't cut the mustard.

So you needn't be curious about me, but rather you should ask yourself why information regarding his ideas are so vehemently suppressed, and more importantly, why you yourself cannot accept anything that challenges them.

What has been suppressed, and by whom?

The internet is full of Intelligent Design proponents with their claims that evolution can't make human beings etc. They actually have a disproportionately loud voice in cyberspace, to the extent where an amateur may actually be misled into thinking there is a real argument to be had about the science.

So, how do you come to believe that everything evolved from one cell, to the diversity we see today. That's the question I want you to focus on, not actual evolution, which I think everybody on the planet accepts. Okay?

What exactly do you accept along with everybody on the planet, Jan? Evolution from one cell bad - ok I get that. So, evolution from 3 cells? Evolution from supernaturally created invertebrates? What does everybody on the planet accept, Jan? And what do you accept? What can be explained naturally, and what requires your God to step in?

If you tell me that speciation requires intervention by your God, then don't fool yourself that you accept evolution along with everybody else on the planet, because quite clearly you do not. I note that you have avoided expressing an opinion on speciation several times in this thread, by the way. Why so reticent?

Is Intelligent Design a scientific theory?:

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

The first thing to ask is what is "complex and specified information"? The next thing to ask is what evidence IDers have that "CSI" can't be produced in any way other than by an intelligent agent. For example, why can't CSI increase via the usual Darwinian processes?

Irreducible complexity is a fine idea, of course, but nobody has ever given an example of any lifeform that is irreducibly complex yet. So, it looks like IDers can't reach any conclusion at this point in time. Do you agree?

 

[Rav]

Have you actually read that book? If you have you'll realise it is full of data found by proffesional, and full-blown rejections and suppressions of the results that data, because it contradicts darwinism.

Cremo provided a selection of examples from his book in the pdf you linked to earlier. He obviously thought they were good ones or he would have included others instead. So basically they should serve as a good indicator of the calibre of his material.

So, pick one, and let's discuss it further. If you think we need to discuss many, let's do that too. We can do one at a time, and as many as you like.

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

Yes - if there's a better alternative. Is there? Intelligent design doesn't cut the mustard.

That's your opinion.
ID actually deals with the the question, and doesn't make stuff up.

What has been suppressed, and by whom?

Read the book.

The internet is full of Intelligent Design proponents with their claims that evolution can't make human beings etc. They actually have a disproportionately loud voice in cyberspace, to the extent where an amateur may actually be misled into thinking there is a real argument to be had about the science.

No it isn't.

What exactly do you accept along with everybody on the planet, Jan? Evolution from one cell bad - ok I get that. So, evolution from 3 cells? Evolution from supernaturally created invertebrates? What does everybody on the planet accept, Jan? And what do you accept? What can be explained naturally, and what requires your God to step in?

Everything accept goo to man.

If you tell me that speciation requires intervention by your God, then don't fool yourself that you accept evolution along with everybody else on the planet, because quite clearly you do not. I note that you have avoided expressing an opinion on speciation several times in this thread, by the way. Why so reticent?

Your making all kinds of assumptions and inferences, so much that I cannot keep up with you.
Deal with the things I have written, and take it from there.

The first thing to ask is what is "complex and specified information"? The next thing to ask is what evidence IDers have that "CSI" can't be produced in any way other than by an intelligent agent. For example, why can't CSI increase via the usual Darwinian processes?

Ask them then.

Irreducible complexity is a fine idea, of course, but nobody has ever given an example of any lifeform that is irreducibly complex yet. So, it looks like IDers can't reach any conclusion at this point in time. Do you agree?

I can see haw an incomplete mouse-trap used as a tie-clip, or a door-stop, can evolve into a complet mouse-trap, thereby rendering it
NOT irreducibly complex.


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Cremo provided a selection of examples from his book in the pdf you linked to earlier. He obviously thought they were good ones or he would have included others instead. So basically they should serve as a good indicator of the calibre of his material.

So, pick one, and let's discuss it further. If you think we need to discuss many, let's do that too. We can do one at a time, and as many as you like.

The whole book is full with discrepancies.
It is the sheer volume, that is remarkable.
I'm quite sure if you read the whole book, it would make you look at things differently,
if you were truly being objective.

jan.

 

[gmilam]

The whole book is full with discrepancies.
It is the sheer volume, that is remarkable.
I'm quite sure if you read the whole book, it would make you look at things differently,
if you were truly being objective.

jan.

Translation: If you don't look at things differently, then you aren't truly being objective... so says Jan.