What bewilders me is why you take the IDers seriously enough to even consider the above.
Why is the concept of theistic evolution unacceptable to you?
- Thread starter Rav
- Start date
What bewilders me is why you take the IDers seriously enough to even consider the above.
Gregg Schaffter
Registered Member
It is possible, but probably no one would get anything out of it.
If they make the effort to fight the battle on scientific terms, it is only fair to assess their arguments from a scientific viewpoint.
To dismiss them without such consideration would be to argue against the person rather than their arguments: i.e. a classic ad hominem logical fallacy.
No.
If someone suggested "I can prove that there is X, but for you to understand the proof, you need to accept my terms" - would you take that seriously, or would you dismiss it right away as circular?
And secondly, the very idea that suggests there is an "experimental procedure that's capable of determining whether or not intelligent design is present" is atheistic to begin with. Namely, if God created the Universe, then everything in it is intelligently designed, and there are no unintelligently designed items in it to begin with - so there is no way to distinguish between intelligently designed or non-designed items, as there aren't any un-designed ones.
Intelligent design only makes sense in relation to some kind of god, and not per se, as IDers would have it.
Just because IDers may pretend that they aren't out to prove God's existence, that doesn't mean that everyone who talks to them needs to go along with their mistaken notions.
I think Christian ID suffers from the same vice that so many other Christian arguments do: it's partial and doesn't fit in with the rest of their picture.
Typically, mainstream Christianity has arguments for resolving individual problems, but those arguments then don't fit together as a whole often enough to make the whole thing suspicious. For example, mainstream Christianity will provide an argument for God's love for His children (that God sacrificed His only Son); and it will provide arguments for God's omnipotence. But the two clash when put side by side: if God is omnipotent, then nothing was really sacrificed in the Crucifiction ...
Really, it seems Christian ID has got so much attention and stirred up so much debate precisely because some (many?) of the people who talk to the IDers go along with the IDers atheistic notions.
wynn,
Put it how you like, as far as I'm concerned, you don't get to have these kind of discussion in the ''real world'', so I come here. It's good fun.
Well at least argue from the words that are on the page.
I'm begining to realise that doing that is alot harder than I seem to give it credit for.
jan.
Put it how you like, as far as I'm concerned, you don't get to have these kind of discussion in the ''real world'', so I come here. It's good fun.
Well at least argue from the words that are on the page.
I'm begining to realise that doing that is alot harder than I seem to give it credit for.
jan.
LIGHTBEING
Registered Senior Member
Jan -
Like Rav pointed out, you must not understand the basis behind the irreducible complexity argument. Either that or you are being intellectually dishonest. Please go back and familiarize yourself with irreducible complexity then re-watch the Ken Miller videos. If it doesn't sink in then perhaps you should not be debating the subject.....
Aqueous Id,
I believe this grand fact can receive no sort of explanation on the ordinary view of independent creation.
The "grand fact" was that islands are inhabited by species evolved from mainland species.
The most striking and important fact for us in regard to the inhabitants of islands, is their affinity to those of the nearest mainland, without being actually the same species.
Not the same species, but not independently created. This is what gets religious people wrapped around the axle.
There are twenty-six land birds, and twenty-five of these are ranked by Mr. Gould as distinct species, supposed to have been created here; yet the close affinity of most of these birds to American species in every character, in their habits, gestures, and tones of voice, was manifest.
I have never heard or read any scientist disputing this idea, but creationists are up in arms about them being distinct species, unless God put them there. Now let's examine the required Creationist response. They would be discussing the fact that:
God rested on the seventh day, then 4,534 million years later He commanded the volcanoes to rise out of the Pacific, then He commanded them to cool down, then He drizzled sand and soil on them, then He planted vegetation on them, then He reached over to South America and took 26 specific birds He had previously designed for that habitat tens of millions of years earlier, and fiddled with 23 of them just before placing them on His new islands, and He did this mostly just with a certain genera of finch. He then allowed and/or caused a lot of stuff to happen for 6 million years - the prehensile toe, a dozen or so experiments with humanoid skull and skeleton, the invention of fire, Neanderthals, issues like foreskin and yeasty bread, the pillars of salt, Daniel and the lion's den, the crucifixion, the rise of popes, the Crusades, Marco Polo and the quest for the route to get tea and spices from India, Columbus, and finally the HMS Beagle, making it around the treacherous waters off Tierra del Fuego, and miraculously being delivered to Galapagos by the Providence of the Lord, puffing into the sails and steering the currents, only so that an unknown and inexperienced nature-lover named Charles Darwin could set foot there, wide-eyed and exuberant, yet manic to devise a means to tempt mankind with the Devil's blasphemy against creation with the most innocuous of creation facts, such as the discovery that certain finches evolved under natural selection.
I suppose it could be told more reverently, but not with out even more absurdity.
I doubt there is a single scientist in history who subscribes to this explanation for independent creation. I expect most would simply go: "Huh :bugeye: ?"
Of course there are creationists who erase Darwin's question from the board, by declaring that the islands were created in those first 7 days, and that methods of geology such as radioactive dating (and geology and all of science in general), are conspiracies. I'm guessing you don't agree with them 100% although your author essentially raises these kinds of claims.
But as far as our discussion is concerned, you could simply say you agree or disagree with Darwin on this one point. If anything this would add clarity.
Do you think Creationists understand evolution? I don't think fundamentalists do. How does a Creationist answer Darwin's issue with independent creation of new species on Galapagos, other than the absurd scenario above in red? In the OP it was mentioned that many religious people have given in to the idea that evolution is "allowed" or "caused" by God. Those would be folks who don't bother conjuring up the absurd scenario, yet they don't resort to atheism either.
All of Creationism vs Darwin can be reduced to this one simple question: were the species on Galapagos especially created by God just recently, or not? That eliminates all the middle men. Every other aspect of evolution, even "goo-to-man", hinges on this principal question. What do you think? How did the species get to Galapagos, if they did not evolve there as Darwin theorized?
One of the common themes among creationists is that Darwin invented an atheistic interpretation of how life originated. Here in his own words is the closest thing to atheism:Jan Ardena said:
I believe this grand fact can receive no sort of explanation on the ordinary view of independent creation.
The "grand fact" was that islands are inhabited by species evolved from mainland species.
Galapagos has no adjoining islands, it's a cluster (archipelago) of volcanoes that rose out of the Pacific sea floor 500 miles west of Ecuador. You are almost correct about the animals coming from the mainland. Note the important difference in the way Darwin tells it:
The most striking and important fact for us in regard to the inhabitants of islands, is their affinity to those of the nearest mainland, without being actually the same species.
Not the same species, but not independently created. This is what gets religious people wrapped around the axle.
Let's look at the only important idea from a creationist's point of view, that Darwin opposes independent creation. Let's take this very dry idea from the scientist himself:
There are twenty-six land birds, and twenty-five of these are ranked by Mr. Gould as distinct species, supposed to have been created here; yet the close affinity of most of these birds to American species in every character, in their habits, gestures, and tones of voice, was manifest.
I have never heard or read any scientist disputing this idea, but creationists are up in arms about them being distinct species, unless God put them there. Now let's examine the required Creationist response. They would be discussing the fact that:
God rested on the seventh day, then 4,534 million years later He commanded the volcanoes to rise out of the Pacific, then He commanded them to cool down, then He drizzled sand and soil on them, then He planted vegetation on them, then He reached over to South America and took 26 specific birds He had previously designed for that habitat tens of millions of years earlier, and fiddled with 23 of them just before placing them on His new islands, and He did this mostly just with a certain genera of finch. He then allowed and/or caused a lot of stuff to happen for 6 million years - the prehensile toe, a dozen or so experiments with humanoid skull and skeleton, the invention of fire, Neanderthals, issues like foreskin and yeasty bread, the pillars of salt, Daniel and the lion's den, the crucifixion, the rise of popes, the Crusades, Marco Polo and the quest for the route to get tea and spices from India, Columbus, and finally the HMS Beagle, making it around the treacherous waters off Tierra del Fuego, and miraculously being delivered to Galapagos by the Providence of the Lord, puffing into the sails and steering the currents, only so that an unknown and inexperienced nature-lover named Charles Darwin could set foot there, wide-eyed and exuberant, yet manic to devise a means to tempt mankind with the Devil's blasphemy against creation with the most innocuous of creation facts, such as the discovery that certain finches evolved under natural selection.
I suppose it could be told more reverently, but not with out even more absurdity.
I doubt there is a single scientist in history who subscribes to this explanation for independent creation. I expect most would simply go: "Huh :bugeye: ?"
Of course there are creationists who erase Darwin's question from the board, by declaring that the islands were created in those first 7 days, and that methods of geology such as radioactive dating (and geology and all of science in general), are conspiracies. I'm guessing you don't agree with them 100% although your author essentially raises these kinds of claims.
But as far as our discussion is concerned, you could simply say you agree or disagree with Darwin on this one point. If anything this would add clarity.
Do you think Creationists understand evolution? I don't think fundamentalists do. How does a Creationist answer Darwin's issue with independent creation of new species on Galapagos, other than the absurd scenario above in red? In the OP it was mentioned that many religious people have given in to the idea that evolution is "allowed" or "caused" by God. Those would be folks who don't bother conjuring up the absurd scenario, yet they don't resort to atheism either.
I'm not sure I understand your meaning. The evidence itself couldn't be suppressed unless Ecuador mined the area and set up a naval blockade. Of course there's ample evidence of the same phenomena on other islands around the word (as Darwin noted). On the other hand a more realistic example of suppressing Darwin is the way Creationists oppose textbooks on biology, simply because of a chapter on evolution.
Is teaching about the evolution of finches on Galapagos a matter of force and controlling power, or is it as simple as teaching any other fact that belongs in the educational curriculum?
Nothing can contradict the evidence on Galapagos. The animals evolved there. None of the subterfuge he alludes to has anything to do with this. The people he is attacking have read Darwin and agree that the species were not independently created. His whole thesis dissolves under this analysis. How did the animals get put on the Galapagos? That's the bottom line. That's all any naysayer needs to answer.
Initially through basic education, then by further reading and study. I mentioned the fossil record, which is compelling enough, since the fossils are laid down in this order. The Genome Project corroborates this in the DNA. But above all, the animals in the fossil record were not specially created for the same reason that God didn't play silly games on Galapagos.
I understood you were linking Darwin and/or the teaching of Darwin's work as an expression of atheism, and your reference above to lies, deception and conspiracy. If you were to clarify that the species on Galapagos were not independently created, that they evolved there by natural selection, then you would be congruent with Darwin, and with science in general.
No damage has been sustained except for the kids and impressionable people who've been misled by Creationist fundamentalists. In all other respects the world has profited from Darwin's work. People are alive today because Darwin precipitated the study of evolving bacteria and the rationale for producing ever better antibiotics. I don't think many scientists think of him as a figure head since he was a hard-scrabble man in the field, digging the dirt and plying the oceans for life forms, fossils and rock specimens, and then went on to become a thinker and writer who earned respect by raising serious issues, resolving them, and backing them up with proof.
I think that the only fact suppressed is the scenario in red. Until your author addresses this, he is thrashing at windmills.
That would be plausible if he were actually trying to explain the scenario in red, or actually quoting Darwin and bringing some evidence that Darwin is wrong. I see none of that in his essay. All I see is an end-around, using hyperbole, rumor and anecdote. Why not just confront the issue head on? Did God get busy at 7 days plus 4,534 million years and fiddle with nature on the Galapagos or not? That's all that's needed to take the bull by the horns.
All of Creationism vs Darwin can be reduced to this one simple question: were the species on Galapagos especially created by God just recently, or not? That eliminates all the middle men. Every other aspect of evolution, even "goo-to-man", hinges on this principal question. What do you think? How did the species get to Galapagos, if they did not evolve there as Darwin theorized?
Science is entirely falsifiable. "goo to man" doesn't exactly fit into any conventional tenet of science, but we could certainly treat human evolution as a topic that's equally falsifiable. No telling how many theories have been falsified leading up to the present theory linking us and Ardipithecus:
A lot of successive theories would have to be covered in order to work your way back to whichever goo you mean. The geologic eras, fossils, DNA, and a lot of paleonotology and zoology would come into play.
To your side's benefit, only one link in this chain of complexity would need to be broken to falsify "goo to man".
To our side's benefit, the "independent creation" Darwin referred to, and the absurdity I offered in my previous post (in red) would need to be supported.
Human evolution is falsifiable, it's just that it can't be done through absurdity.
But that's not the situation: the IDers have said "I can prove that there is X, and to prove X I will do so on your terms" - i.e. they have moved themselves into the realm of science in order to try and prove their claim.
It is only fair that science then accepts their challenge and looks at their claims scientifically.
This is what happens.
And it can quickly be shown that the means of measurement are unscientific.
From a scientific standpoint this is end of story.
I don't disagree - but my point stands that if someone brings an argument to you on what they claim is your own terms (i.e. in this case they dress it up as science) it is only fair to look at it as a genuine scientific argument - and argue against it as you would any other scientific paper.
That is not to say you accept their terms... rather you scrutinise it exactly as you would any other science claim... and if the assumptions or premises are unscientific to begin with then the paper falls down at the first hurdle - and this should be highlighted and the discussion end... as is usually the case.
Duh. Of course they say that. It's also clear within seconds that they don't mean it.
Sure. My point is simply that (atheist) scientists seem to give IDers much more attention than I think they deserve - and this is what seems so awkward to me.
Perhaps you in particular don't get to have this kind of discussions IRL, but many others do.
In my experience, IRL, these discussions are much more salient, relevant and require much more skill.
The forums are simply an easy, and, lazy and relatively safe version of it all.
I dare you to regularly participate, IRL, on at least a weekly basis in the religious organization that the acharya that you so appreciate founded.
It's easy to be a lone-ranger theist, esp. among vocal atheists.
Try actually living with like-minded people and people who at least nominally share your beliefs.
That is the real challenge, and so far, you have apparently avoided it.
I have tried - and failed, and admitted defeat.
You, on the other hand, conveniently hide out here.
Oh yes.
Admitting to some measure of atheism as you yourself have, can be a convenient way to avoid the challenge of actually living up to what one professes to believe or appreciate.
Well, my view would be that if you wish to be treated in a certain way yourself then you should try to treat others the same way - and this goes for all things.
If you wish people to argue your points rather than a label you might have (e.g. atheist, theist etc) then one should also argue the points others make rather than adress their labels.
That they might not mean what they intend, or that you don't feel they deserve the attention, would be to treat them unscientifically while still trying to claim a scientific
position.
The key is to minimise the attention and effort where it is not warranted - but to do so one needs to at least identify and point out what makes their claims unscientific - as it is this quality that makes the claims unwarranting of the effort used to counter them.
Oh, they very much mean it. They can't actually do it, but they present their beliefs as if they can, and indeed as if they already have.
They don't, actually. In the scientific community, there is virtually no discussion of ID or IDers, because ID papers are rarely submitted to peer-reviewed scientific journals. It should come as no surprise that IDers prefer to have the debate in the public sphere, where the strength of their arguments are entirely based on the strength of their rhetoric rather than their science.
wynn
Perhaps! Perhaps not!
But I doubt it.
In my experience interacting with others in cyberspace is part of real life.
How do you know that I haven't been doing that for years?
And you'd know how exactly?
How do you know I don't, and haven't been for years?
''Apparently avoided it''? Tell me more.
What did you try exactly?
Hide out?
What are you talking about?
jan.
Perhaps! Perhaps not!
But I doubt it.
In my experience interacting with others in cyberspace is part of real life.
How do you know that I haven't been doing that for years?
And you'd know how exactly?
How do you know I don't, and haven't been for years?
''Apparently avoided it''? Tell me more.
What did you try exactly?
Hide out?
What are you talking about?
jan.
A few posts ago, it wasn't -
You've said so at least once.
And recently, when I mentioned that you are not a member of the religious organization founded by the acharya you appreciate and that you are not initiated, you didn't correct me.
To get along with devotees, to become a member of the above-metioned organization.
You yourself have noted that while you consider yourself a theist, you do not have 100% belief, so in some ways, you are still atheistic.
wynn,
Do you really, honestly, not get the distinction between ''world'' and ''life''?
Said what at least once?
Huh! So what if I'm not a member, or initiated?
How does that make you correct in your judgement?
You've probably no idea why you failed do you?
So...........?
jan.
Do you really, honestly, not get the distinction between ''world'' and ''life''?
Said what at least once?
Huh! So what if I'm not a member, or initiated?
How does that make you correct in your judgement?
You've probably no idea why you failed do you?
So...........?
jan.
The phrases "IRL," "in real life," "in the real world" can be used interachngeably, that is how I understand them.
Rather telling how you focus on this ... almost as if you are making a deliberate effort to misunderstand me and to paint me as stupid ...
That you are not a member and not initiated.
You disobey the instructions of the acharya that you claim to appreciate.
My judgment? My judgment?
As if you would care about what I think ...
I'm sure you have every idea why I failed.
Oh, wait. You are just a "normal guy" who wants to talk about spirituality and religion and who definitely does not want to be seen as any kind of a model for what he is talking about ...
wynn,
You interchanging them doesn't mean everyone else does.
You're best going from the words that are used, rather than use interpretation.
As far as I know he hasn't ordered me (while he was alive) to become a member of his organisation, so i don't know
what you're talking about.
I don't get you.
I don't know about that, but I have a theory which I shall keep to myself.
Why should I ''be seen as any kind of model''?
More importantly, why would I wand to be a model.
Do you want to by a model for something?
jan.
You interchanging them doesn't mean everyone else does.
You're best going from the words that are used, rather than use interpretation.
I've said how I focus on them by using them.
As far as I know he hasn't ordered me (while he was alive) to become a member of his organisation, so i don't know
what you're talking about.
I don't get you.
I don't know about that, but I have a theory which I shall keep to myself.
Why should I ''be seen as any kind of model''?
More importantly, why would I wand to be a model.
Do you want to by a model for something?
jan.