Thestic Design, what think ye?

Fanny Cradock

One of the largest challenges to my faith would have to centre on the old chestnut: evolution. Now, I realise there is a massive thread devoted to this topic already, but I am hoping for some specific opinions to a theory which may be new to some people. This is the theory of Theistic Evolution.

As someone who has studied biology – specifically plant biology – I would have been aware - to a degree - of the massive complexity involved in even the simplest organisms. I would have been of the opinion that my faith was at odds with the body of scientific evidence that rubbishes the young earth theory and ID.

Because of the apparent irreconcilable conflict between Science and Faith I would have skirted around the issue of evolution. Basically, it boiled down to my understanding of the matter – one perpetuated by the extreme fringes on both side of the debate: you could only choose one of two possible theories: young earth or atheistic evolution. One was the acceptance of faith and the rejection of science; the other was the acceptance of scientific fact and the inevitable rejection of there being a God. IMO, one side of the debate is as bad as the other.

However, in a book I read recently, “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” by Dr. Francis S. Collins, I encountered a very satisfying and synergistic theory, both in terms of a scientific and a faith based viewpoint. As mentioned, this is the theory of Theistic Evolution, or BioLogos as coined by the good Dr. Collins, who, incidentally, is the director of the Human Genome Project. Incidentally, he categorically rubbishes the claim made by some (including people on this forum) that the sciences are devoid of people with faith. Again, removing the apparent conflict between science and God that is perpetuated by some.

I’m not going to transpose whole chapters of his book to explain his views on the matter, but my understanding (and I confess that as I am only new to this theory, and I may not have grasped full understanding) is that in the beginning there was God, and he went about the business of creating the universe. The universe grew and developed over the 14 or so billion years in line with our current scientific understanding of such events. It should be noted that this includes and embraces Darwinian theory (Dt). So, form the outset, the notion of a young earth is dispelled by Te (Theistic evolution) but so too the idea that Dt is only applicable in an atheistic theory.

Obviously enough, adopting TE/ BioLogos calls for Genesis 1 and 2 to be thought of as allegorical and not literal truth. Dr Collins uses the example of Galileo and the heavens revolving around the Earth to highlight the fact that something once thought of as Biblical fact is now recognised as figurative speech. Added to this, the notion that we humans, in our current biological form, are somehow special (in the image of God) is rejected. The idea here is that if the die were cast again, evolution would take the universe (and all within) on a completely different path. We could end up with 7 arms, 18 legs and 4 heads (I understand that this most likely wouldn’t be the case if adhering to Dt principles). The image of which the Bible speaks of is a spiritual image, the point at which our ancestors turned from intelligent beasts into something more.

Anyway, I would like to know both Christian and Atheistic thoughts on this specific theory.

A brief interview with Dr Collins about aspects covered in his book

The American Scientific Affiliation - A Website populated by Christian Scientists Link to discussion on Creation, including Te

Wiki overview on Theistic Evolution

Scofflaw

That evolution requires the absence of God is not a scientific position. Science is entirely silent on the matter of God.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Anyway, I would like to know both Christian and Atheistic thoughts on this specific theory.

Theory in the colloquial or scientific sense? Seems to be the former

In any case it looks like the catholic stance of evolution with a little deity-guidance...?

The Mad Hatter

Frankly I'm amazed that so many christians reject what seems like a perfectly obvious idea, in favour of ID, which is frankly hideous and inelegant.

As scofflaw said, evolution neither accepts nor rejects the idea of a god.

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote:

That evolution requires the absence of God is not a scientific position. Science is entirely silent on the matter of God.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, I get that. This is why it can be readily incorporated into theistic evolution. But the mere fact that evolution has been tagged by so very many as either a proof of there being no God, or a massive hoax, would seem to suggest that this is not understood by many people. This apparent black and white standpoint (held by many a Christian and Atheist alike) was the crux of my post.

bluewolf wrote:

Theory in the colloquial or scientific sense? Seems to be the former

In any case it looks like the catholic stance of evolution with a little deity-guidance...?

This would be 'theory' in the casual sense. The actual scientific theory, i.e. the testable part, comes from evolutionary science.

AFAIK, this would have been mentioned by JPII, however, I'm unsure as to the current official Catholic standpoint.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Yes, I get that. This is why it can be readily incorporated into theistic evolution. But the mere fact that evolution has been tagged by so very many as either a proof of there being no God, or a massive hoax, would seem to suggest that this is not understood by many people. This apparent black and white standpoint (held by many a Christian and Atheist alike) was the crux of my post.

Evolution is incompatible with a particular interpretation of Scripture, namely that the opening chapters of Genesis are using factual descriptive language rather than poetic or figurative language.

All Christians, including the strictest literalists, believe that some biblical verses are poetic and symbolic rather than descriptive. For example, I know of no-one who has argued that Jesus is literally a tree and that we are literally his branches. Therefore, if someone genuinely believes that the creation accounts in Genesis are figurative, and that their first hearers were intended to understand them as such, then I see no reason why that should be incompatible with any theory of biblical inerrancy or literalism.

Unfortunately there are always a fanatical few within Christianity who are prepared to argue that you are not really a Christian unless you agree with their particular interpretation of creation, the Second Coming, baptism, spiritual gifts, bible translation etc. (We used to call this "majoring on minors", but that phrase has an unfortunate double entendre since all the priestly paedophile scandals.) So it is easy to see why some Christians (sadly often the most vocal ones) seem to see the theory of evolution as an assault on the Christian faith.

Some, but not all, atheists like to publicise the most obscurantist Christians they can find. By ignoring intelligent thoughtful believers, and focusing on the antics of a Fred Phelps or Ken Hamm, it's easy to score a few cheap shots. Therefore we have vocal groups of both Christians and atheists who turn every discussion of evolution into a battleground.

I understand that BB Warfield (author of the classic defence of biblical inerrancy), CS Lewis, and Billy Graham have all indicated support of the concept of theistic evolution.

Son Goku

I think you can bring God and evolution together very easily, so I'll push past that to an area where theistic might have a problem which is early cosmology.
As I explained in a previous post, if you use quantum mechanics and general relativity in tandem, the universe is capable of emerging out of nothing by itself.

At first it might seem like a hurdle for theistic evolution, but the only reason the universe can emerge out of nothing is because of the mathematical laws it obeys. They're still around when there is no universe. So the only way I can see theistic evolution working is if you say God created the laws, rather than creating the universe itself. The reason being that once you have the laws nothing can easily turn into a universe.

It's kind of interesting to think of God creating the abstract principles of existence.

MooseJam

So this new theory in a nutshell is the evolution of the Universe and life on earth as science sees it is correct and god did it, wow thats brilliant, now can I have my ball back

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Yes, I get that. This is why it can be readily incorporated into theistic evolution. But the mere fact that evolution has been tagged by so very many as either a proof of there being no God, or a massive hoax, would seem to suggest that this is not understood by many people. This apparent black and white standpoint (held by many a Christian and Atheist alike) was the crux of my post.

I would say that the vast majority of atheists would go no further than saying that evolution proves there is no need for God. This is, of course, a viewpoint directly opposed to most of the 'factual' Creationist/semi-Creationist arguments - that a designer is necessary, because of specified complexity or whatever.

In general, the theory of evolution is very badly understood, even by many who have 'covered' it in science classes. The classic problems are agency and teleology - the erroneous ideas that evolution must be directed by an agent (specifically, that intelligence input is required to make evolution work), and that evolution is directed towards specific aims (such as evolving an eye) - out of every 100 students who cover evolution, perhaps less than half do not fall into these errors.

Added to this is a deep bias in the human psyche - that we are special, not like anything else, sui generis, and absolutely not some kind of jumped-up monkey. Possibly the 'jumped-up monkey' problem is what explains the strong co-incidence of left-wing views with acceptance of evolution, that in turn gives the battleground a political as well as religious dimension.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

MooseJam wrote:

So this new theory in a nutshell is the evolution of the Universe and life on earth as science sees it is correct and god did it, wow thats brilliant, now can I have my ball back

I wish there was a FireFox extension to ignore your posts. This would prevent me from having to read the needlessly hostile twaddle that you spew. You add nothing to what I find to be an interesting debate, and only confirm my suspicion that your responses are largely driven by anger towards Christianity and nothing more.

Scofflaw wrote:

Added to this is a deep bias in the human psyche - that we are special, not like anything else, sui generis, and absolutely not some kind of jumped-up monkey.

Sui generis, indeed! C.S. Lewis speaks of the existence of 'The Moral Law' which separates us from all other animals. According to Lewis in his book Mere Christianity' (I've just begun reading it), this is a unique facet of the human species, which in itself points towards a higher power. Maybe that is for another debate, though.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote:

Evolution is incompatible with a particular interpretation of Scripture, namely that the opening chapters of Genesis are using factual descriptive language rather than poetic or figurative language.

Quite true! However, I do think it odd that so much energy is given over to the Creationist theory. The answer to this would seem to be two fold:

1) because so many believe it (especially in the US), but without widespread discussion to enlighten folks, they will find themselves arguing from a very weak position. Ultimately this does Christianity no good.

2) Creationists are an easy target. Therefore, it's makes hound someone if they are arguing from a weakened position.

If you don't mind me asking, PDN, do you ever approach the topic of Creationism and the alternatives to it in your sermons?

MooseJam

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I wish there was a FireFox extension to ignore your posts. This would prevent me from having to read the needlessly hostile twaddle that you spew. You add nothing to what I find to be an interesting debate, and only confirm my suspicion that your responses are largely driven by anger towards Christianity and nothing more.

Dude you've hurt my feelings how very unchristian of you, as regards the debate, your theistic evolution theory is from what I can grasp science is right but god done it, what's there to debate, i prefer the marshmallow evolution theory it goes like this - science is right but the marshmallow man done it, it's funny how close it actually comes to your theistic evolution theory, it's a lot more fun however and everybody gets marshmallows instead of original sin.

The Mad Hatter

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I wish there was a FireFox extension to ignore your posts. This would prevent me from having to read the needlessly hostile twaddle that you spew. You add nothing to what I find to be an interesting debate, and only confirm my suspicion that your responses are largely driven by anger towards Christianity and nothing more.

OT, but I think there is one.

Fanny Cradock

MooseJam wrote:

Dude you've hurt my feelings how very unchristian of you, as regards the debate, your theistic evolution theory is from what I can grasp science is right but god done it, what's there to debate, i prefer the marshmallow evolution theory it goes like this - science is right but the marshmallow man done it, it's funny how close it actually comes to your theistic evolution theory, it's a lot more fun however and everybody gets marshmallows instead of original sin.

My intention was not to hurt you feelings, MooseJam. I was merely trying to point out that you add nothing to the debate with your hostile responses. In fact, those type of replies detract from the otherwise rational discourse in this thread. I've got an idea, why not have a marshmallow and go sit in the corner like a good chap! Work on removing that chip of your shoulder

MooseJam

Fanny Cradock wrote:

My intention was not to hurt you feelings, MooseJam. I was merely trying to point out that you add nothing to the debate with your hostile responses. In fact, those type of replies detract from the otherwise rational discourse in this thread. I've got an idea, why not have a marshmallow and go sit in the corner like a good chap! Work on removing that chip of your shoulder

yes hostile responses add nothing to the debate, I shall sit this one out

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Sui generis, indeed! C.S. Lewis speaks of the existence of 'The Moral Law' which separates us from all other animals. According to Lewis in his book Mere Christianity' (I've just begun reading it), this is a unique facet of the human species, which in itself points towards a higher power. Maybe that is for another debate, though.

Hi FC,
Yes there are many Scientists who believe in both evolution and God.
Kenneth Millar is another famous one who wrote Finding Darwin's God. John Hughton (Big name on the IPCC) is another. Robert Winston, the excellant scientist with the big moustache you regularly see on the BBC (author of "The Story of God") also believes and is a practising Jew. Alistar McGrath (author of Dawkins Delusion) also has some Scientific background.

I would have far more respect for this viewpoint and find it far more challenging than the more extreme viewpoints PDN described.

I would also have more respect for the likes of Miller than CS Lewis. Lewis' arguments are riddled with logical fallacies. His arguments on morals you refer to can be refuted quite easily by any decent philosopher. There has also been far more research and analysis into the exisitence and evolution of them.

This book here isn't bad.
Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong (Hardcover)
by Marc Hauser (Author)

It contains a really detailed analysis of what morals actually are and then details some experiments on other animals, Rhesus monkeys for example, trying to examine if they have a moral framework also.

The theistic Scientists seem to have a much better grasp on logic than Lewis. They argue more about faith being outside the domain of logic rather than faith being a logical conclusion as Lewis tries to do.

Interesting post and keep reading.

Cheers

MooseJam

An honest question if I may, the God in Theistic Design seems to have no interest in us, we are just a happenstance ?, also as we are merely biologically evolved animals we have no souls ? souls being supernatural things that would need to have been put there by a God such as the God in intelligent design. The God in theistic evolution would appear to be a totally different God than the one in intelligent design, not the same God using different methods but a totally different and unknown God and as we don't have souls there would be no afterlife so He would remain an unknown entity, there would never be any communication ?

pH

It seems to me that after the fact you can invent a new set of religious beliefs to suit any set of facts, but I fail to see why you'd bother, after all you admit in the OP it's something that a human just thought up, this is a much much weaker claim than 'God told us this'.

Moosejam may be blunt but he does make some interesting points

In what way is theistic evolution different from plain science except for tagging on ' ... and God did it' to the end.

Where does it leave the bible? There are lots of texts all over the world that people claim are divinely inspired (or even written/dictated by God). I take it that you probably don't believe that an angel provided Joseph Smith the Book on Mormon on gold sheets? How do we know which of these texts (if any) were actually provided to us by God?

Where does it leave much of Christine Doctrine? Did the soul evolve? Remember evolution is extremely slow, children at any step in the past were as like their parents as you are to yours, did God just give 2 souls?

Where does theistic evolution leave the fall and original sin?

bonkey

Fanny Cradock wrote:

One of the largest challenges to my faith would have to centre on the old chestnut: evolution.

Can you explain why?

I'm not being smart, but from my perspective, there's only a very narrow viewpoint where evolution is the problem, rather than modern science in general.

For example, I find it difficult to envisage a challenge to faith that evolution poses that quantum theory wouldn't also post. Indeed, I'd go further and say that its more likely to be the opposite - that quantum theory poses more of a challenge than evolution.

Of course, I'd also accept that the average punter is more likely to have a basic grasp of what evolution is roughly about then they would about quantum theory.

Because of the apparent irreconcilable conflict between Science and Faith I would have skirted around the issue of evolution.

As has been pointed out by others already, the conflict is only irreconcilable when Faith is defined in certain terms, such as the acceptance of the absolute literal truth of Genesis.

Anyway, I would like to know both Christian and Atheistic thoughts on this specific theory.

I've read a little bit on it before and I tend to side with the "God of the Gaps" criticism. Also...as I've pointed out...I don't see evolution as the real stumbling block for Christianity / Theism at all. Therefore, I'm somewhat suspicious of an explanation which has been crafted to argue that Faith and evolution are not at odds.

I would be far more interested in an argum,ent which explained why Faith and science are not at odds, which dealt with the (somewhat thorny) issue of divine intervention. That, for me, is the real stickler.

philologos

I ordered this book a few weeks ago. Haven't got down to reading it but I will soon. Thanks for your opinion on it Fanny Cradock.

Hivemind187

Intelligent Design by any other name is still Intelligent Design.

Intelligent design is merely creationism with a better vocabulary.

Science has no real opinion on the existance of God one way or the other because it isnt looking for god, it is simple looking to explain correctly the universe in which we live.

Theology vies to sbvert science because science, through its dispassionate research and comprehension is slowly eroding the old beliefs that support the philosophical and theological belief in a deity in favor of atheism. Science is not TRYING t do this, it is merely a side effect of enlightenment.

mossieh

To be honest, I think that the idea of theistic evolution (and it is a popular one) is a sign of people who are beginning to lose their faith in god.

A lot of people nowadays whilst still nominally religious, are beginning too see as scofflaw pointed out, that the theory of evolution removes the need for a creator god. People who engage their critical faculties can see that evolutionary theory makes sense and is an elegant answer to so many questions.

Shoehorning this realisation into a worldview that embraces religion gives rise to notions like theistic evolution. It's the thin end of the wedge though Fanny, be careful you don't end up hellbound like the rest of us atheist chancers!

pH

Hivemind187 wrote:

Science has no real opinion on the existance of God one way or the other because it isnt looking for god, it is simple looking to explain correctly the universe in which we live.

I really can't follow this logic at all - if God has any interaction at all with this universe, then in theory science should have an opinion.

The Christian God *is* an interfering God, he created us, he answers prayers (and if the old testament is to be believed he used to be a whole lot more active with his smiting and interventions).

The only God that science has no opinion on is a God 'defined' purposely to be undetectable by science, but to me that's just a silly word game, and diametrically opposed to how God is really thought to be by billions of Christians/Muslims/Jews etc. If you consciously sit down and redefine God to be undetectable by modern science then you have to admit you have just invented that God in your head. I cannot see how that is any more real than any fictional character you could also postulate.

Imagine a world where God did exist, and there was a good chance that taking his name in vain could result in your being smited by lightning. I can't see why science couldn't try and understand at least part of this phenomenon. Even if the 'source' of the magic bolt of lightning was beyond science's remit, surely the power, duration, likelihood, colour and frequency of these bolts could be studied.

I cannot see why in this world you could not scientifically establish that "If you blaspheme you have a 78% chance of being hit by a bluish-yellow bolt of lightning, at 500,000v approximately 20 seconds after you utter the blasphemy"

So what's the difference between that world and ours?

Zombrex

Well the problem is that God, by definition of the theists themselves, is untestable. As such it doesn't really concern science.

Of course a cynic like myself would say that this was done on purpose because deep down the theists know God doesn't actually exist, and as such they know that there is actually nothing to find if one goes looking for God in any scientific way. Unable to face this fact they simply keep shifting God further and further out of reach.

So God has been moved to a position where science cannot touch him, and is therefore safe from scientific falsifiability, from science demonstrating that it isn't God (it is impossible to demonstrate that the Christian God doesn't exist)

Evolution has been met by the theists with simply another step in the hiding of God. We used to think that only a god like being could have made something as complex as life. We now know that that isn't true, that life can develop naturally. What was once attributed as demonstrating God now does nothing of the sort. But of course instead of this being interpreted as "ok, so really there is no God is there", the concept of a "god" has shifted once again by ideas such as Thestic Evolution, pushing God further out of "harms way" of science. Everything looks natural, but really it was God who started it all off. I'm sure if it was demonstrated that this wasn't true, God would be shifted by the theists even further, he didn't start life off, but he started off the thing that started off life.

No one seems to notice that humans through out history have been wrong about pretty much every single thing they used to thing God did.

And now we are left with only a small handful of things that humans think God actually did (started the universe, made life). I'm not sure what happens when these too fall away to natural phenomena. God probably shifts once again, even further out of reach.

Things were easier when God lived in the clouds and caused Earthquakes.

Fanny Cradock

Jakkass wrote:

I ordered this book a few weeks ago. Haven't got down to reading it but I will soon. Thanks for your opinion on it Fanny Cradock.

My pleasure, Jackass. I think you'll find it an enjoyable read. Much like C.S. Lewis, it is intriguing to read the thoughts of a person (and a very intelligent person at that) who was once a 'devout' atheist. But that goes both ways, no doubt.

MooseJam wrote:

An honest question if I may, the God in Theistic Design seems to have no interest in us, we are just a happenstance ?, also as we are merely biologically evolved animals we have no souls ? souls being supernatural things that would need to have been put there by a God such as the God in intelligent design. The God in theistic evolution would appear to be a totally different God than the one in intelligent design, not the same God using different methods but a totally different and unknown God and as we don't have souls there would be no afterlife so He would remain an unknown entity, there would never be any communication ?

There are a great deal of assumptions there, MJ. I'm unsure where you derive them from.

mossieh wrote:

To be honest, I think that the idea of theistic evolution (and it is a popular one) is a sign of people who are beginning to lose their faith in god.

So, for example, someone who has believed in theistic evolution for 20 years has been slowly losing their faith for two decades? And Christians are criticised for holding onto unproven beliefs!

Wicknight wrote:

We used to think that only a god like being could have made something as complex as life. We now know that that isn't true, that life can develop naturally. What was once attributed as demonstrating God now does nothing of the sort. But of course instead of this being interpreted as "ok, so really there is no God is there", the concept of a "god" has shifted once again by ideas such as Thestic Evolution, pushing God further out of "harms way" of science.

Got to love the skewed nature of your argument, Wicknight. People in their ignorance (however well intentioned) made a claim about the God and the universe, which science subsequently has since proved to be untrue. Therefore, belief in God is proved to be false. I wonder would you be so quick to apply the same logic towards science after an incorrect scientific theory was uncovered?

I don't believe many Christians would make the claim that their understanding of God and the universe is whole. God didn't see fit to reveal a great many things about him nature to us, but I would think he gave us the ability to investigate and debate such things. It is, therefore, quite a let-down to be informed by your good self, Wicknight, that people of faith are now to be denied the opportunity to advance our understanding of God and the universe without compromising our belief. Why, the earth is flat, I tell you!

The Mad Hatter

Fanny, I suggest you fix the quotes in the first two parts of your last post. Otherwise it looks like you're calling MooseJam a jackass.

Son Goku

bonkey wrote:

For example, I find it difficult to envisage a challenge to faith that evolution poses that quantum theory wouldn't also post. Indeed, I'd go further and say that its more likely to be the opposite - that quantum theory poses more of a challenge than evolution.

I've never really seen any theological books that take on quantum theory. I'd imagine maybe stuff like the EPR paradox would be the biggest issue. Possibly also the loss of cause and effect.
I've seen some take issue would spontaneous creation from QFT.

The Mad Hatter

Son Goku wrote:

I've never really seen any theological books that take on quantum theory. I'd imagine maybe stuff like the EPR paradox would be the biggest issue. Possibly also the loss of cause and effect.
I've seen some take issue would spontaneous creation from QFT.

Probably because quantum science is very difficult to understand for non-scientists, and can't be summarised easily. So a book taking it on would have to be a great deal more technical than, say, one taking on evolution, and would have a much smaller target market.

Son Goku

The Mad Hatter wrote:

Probably because quantum science is very difficult to understand for non-scientists, and can't be summarised easily. So a book taking it on would have to be a great deal more technical than, say, one taking on evolution, and would have a much smaller target market.

Yeah, I've only seen two. One of them was by an Irish author and was pretty good, it was written as a semi-counter arguement to a Quantum Computing theorist called David Deutsch.

Fanny Cradock

The Mad Hatter wrote:

Fanny, I suggest you fix the quotes in the first two parts of your last post. Otherwise it looks like you're calling MooseJam a jackass.

LOL - that wouldn't do!

Fanny Cradock

Son Goku wrote:

I've never really seen any theological books that take on quantum theory. I'd imagine maybe stuff like the EPR paradox would be the biggest issue. Possibly also the loss of cause and effect.
I've seen some take issue would spontaneous creation from QFT.

The field is beyond me, but you may find a Christian perspective on the link I provided in my first post.

http://www.asa3.org/


::Edit::

There are number of articles about quantum mechanics. I shall forgo the pleasure of reading them, however.

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

I really can't follow this logic at all - if God has any interaction at all with this universe, then in theory science should have an opinion.

The Christian God *is* an interfering God, he created us, he answers prayers (and if the old testament is to be believed he used to be a whole lot more active with his smiting and interventions).

The only God that science has no opinion on is a God 'defined' purposely to be undetectable by science, but to me that's just a silly word game, and diametrically opposed to how God is really thought to be by billions of Christians/Muslims/Jews etc. If you consciously sit down and redefine God to be undetectable by modern science then you have to admit you have just invented that God in your head. I cannot see how that is any more real than any fictional character you could also postulate.

I'm not sure this is quite true. We have no alternate Universe to compare ours with, so we do not know that God doesn't operate by what appears to us to be quantum randomness.

However, I agree that any of the gods actually worshipped by people are pretty easily proven to lack evidence, to contradict the available evidence, or to be self-contradictory.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Got to love the skewed nature of your argument, Wicknight. People in their ignorance (however well intentioned) made a claim about the God and the universe, which science subsequently has since proved to be untrue. Therefore, belief in God is proved to be false. I wonder would you be so quick to apply the same logic towards science after an incorrect scientific theory was uncovered?

Well of course it doesn't "prove" God doesn't exist, that is the point.

Doing so is impossible because you guys simply change the definition of what God is and what he is supposed to have done, and continue on from there. God becomes untestable, yet you continue to work from the position that he must exist and must have done something

Put it this way, do you have any reason to believe that theistic evolution is any more accurate a theory of what God is supposed to have done than literal Creationism turned out to be?

Why would you assume that God had anything to do with evolution of life in the first place? It works perfectly well without a god doing anything.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

It is, therefore, quite a let-down to be informed by your good self, Wicknight, that people of faith are now to be denied the opportunity to advance our understanding of God and the universe without compromising our belief.

Well that is the ultimate problem right there.

Since you will never consider the possibility that God doesn't actually exist, you will always simply keep coming up with things that you attribute to God, because you believe God must exists and must have some interaction in the universe.

You therefore spend your time (theists in general I mean) trying to find the things in nature that God must be doing or have done.

And you will keep having these things come back as being simply natural phenomena. Over and over.

Its why an atheists such as myself doesn't have a whole lot of time for entertaining ideas such as Theistic Evolution.

It is simply another attempt to fit the concept of God into a perfectly natural phenomena, by people who just cannot accept that God had nothing to do with it. This has been going on for hundreds of years. Unfortunately it looks like it will continue for a while as well

One does wonder though at what point you guys stop doing this and simply say "This had nothing at all to do with a god", or even better "Everything we ever though God did turns out he doesn't do. Why exactly do we believe in God again?"

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Well of course it doesn't "prove" God doesn't exist, that is the point.

Doing so is impossible because you guys simply change the definition of what God is and what he is supposed to have done, and continue on from there. God becomes untestable, yet you continue to work from the position that he must exist and must have done something

Put it this way, do you have any reason to believe that theistic evolution is any more accurate a theory of what God is supposed to have done than literal Creationism turned out to be?

Why would you assume that God had anything to do with evolution of life in the first place? It works perfectly well without a god doing anything.



Well that is the ultimate problem right there.

Since you will never consider the possibility that God doesn't actually exist, you will always simply keep coming up with things that you attribute to God, because you believe God must exists and must have some interaction in the universe.

You therefore spend your time (theists in general I mean) trying to find the things in nature that God must be doing or have done.

And you will keep having these things come back as being simply natural phenomena. Over and over.

Its why an atheists such as myself doesn't have a whole lot of time for entertaining ideas such as Theistic Evolution.

It is simply another attempt to fit the concept of God into a perfectly natural phenomena, by people who just cannot accept that God had nothing to do with it. This has been going on for hundreds of years. Unfortunately it looks like it will continue for a while as well

One does wonder though at what point you guys stop doing this and simply say "This had nothing at all to do with a god", or even better "Everything we ever though God did turns out he doesn't do. Why exactly do we believe in God again?"

Personally i don't believe in Evolution theistic or otherwise. Its not actually a question that troubles me though. TBH, i think the 'it takes billions of years' is not exactly ideal for believing scientists neither. Its just taking their word for it. the difference is, that you have people who are respected as the most clever people around, which makes that statement true to alot of people. Its like, 'look what we've done, this proves life can start from inanimation' Ehh, but there's not even a cell there. 'But we have the basis for for simple life, it just takes a billion years'. So in many ways, the theories of evolution that are 'fact', are in themselves untestable. You have faith in something that hasn't really been proven in the way you say it has.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Personally i don't believe in Evolution theistic or otherwise. Its not actually a question that troubles me though. TBH, i think the 'it takes billions of years' is not exactly ideal for believing scientists neither. Its just taking their word for it.

You don't have to believe scientists, that is the entire point of science.

I you want to (and I seriously doubt you do) you can go and test and examine everything yourself.

JimiTime wrote:

You have faith in something that hasn't really been proven in the way you say it has.

No, actually I don't. What you believe scientists claim to have "proven" they have actually done nothing of the sort.

Though at least I appreciate that you would think that is the way science works, as a lot of people seem to.

Science is not about proving things. Science is about creating working models of natural phenomena (theories) and then seeing how accurate these models fit with observations of reality. And as I said above you don't have to put faith in the scientists, you can examine these models yourself.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

You don't have to believe scientists, that is the entire point of science.

I you want to (and I seriously doubt you do) you can go and test and examine everything yourself.



No, actually I don't. What you believe scientists claim to have "proven" they have actually done nothing of the sort.

Though at least I appreciate that you would think that is the way science works, as a lot of people seem to.

Science is not about proving things. Science is about creating working models of natural phenomena (theories) and then seeing how accurate these models fit with observations of reality. And as I said above you don't have to put faith in the scientists, you can examine these models yourself.

Yeh, I've seen alot of this 'no proof in science'. Well then how can it be called factual? Its a bit, nod and wink IMO. Well, its scientific fact but its always open to new knowledge. But where do you draw the line, or maybe you don't. Science cannot say I actually exist? Or it can, but they can't proove it? It seems that there are alot of acrobatics of language. And you say Christianity moves the goalposts. At least Christianity stands up for itself.

bonkey

JimiTime wrote:

Its just taking their word for it.

No, its not.

the difference is, that you have people who are respected as the most clever people around, which makes that statement true to alot of people.

That may indeed be correct, but its irrelevant. That a lot of scientifically ignorant people accept a scientist's words at face value is neither a positive nor negative comment on the quality of that scientist's work.

Its like, 'look what we've done, this proves life can start from inanimation'

Rather than making up something that you claim its like (which it isn't), why don't you show you know what they actually say and show what specific claim these scientists have made that you just have to take their word for.

So in many ways, the theories of evolution that are 'fact', are in themselves untestable.

It depends on what you understand by testing. If I were to smash your kneecaps* with a baseball bat, how can you prove I've done it? You can't go back in time and actually see that I did it. You can't directly test that it was me. So does this mean that you can't prove it was me in any meaningful sense?

*I wouldn't, of course....its a reference to the following: http://abstractfactory.blogspot.com/2005_10_16_archive.html

You have faith in something that hasn't really been proven in the way you say it has.

Almost every single minute of your life, you will put faith in something that science has equally not proven in the way you mean. It has been established to sufficient certainty in the sense that scientists would mean when they say something is proven (although in the strictest sense, science can only disprove, not prove).

The science that says a building will stay up, that a car will not explode, that your PC will not electrocute you.....none of it has been proven. In all of those cases, you are - in your own words - taking their word for it. And in all of those cases, you not only do so, but you do so without thinking.

But when it comes to evolution....all of a sudden, taking someone's word for it is supposed to be a credible counter-argument? A reasonable basis on which to reject the vast, vast number of falsifiable tests which it has successfully passed?

If it is, its only to those who think that science is only "taking someones word for it".

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Yeh, I've seen alot of this 'no proof in science'. Well then how can it be called factual?

Its not called factual. It is called accurate.

It is not about "facts", it is about accuracy of models

Saying something like "Newtonian theories of physics are a fact" doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Its not a "fact", nor does it claim to be.

The correct way so stating it is that Newtonian theories "model observed phenomena to a high level of accuracy". Quantum Mechanics "models observed phenomena to an even higher level of accuracy"

Neo-Darwinian evolution models observed biological phenomena to such a high level of accuracy that scientists are as certain as they can be, that the theories themselves are an accurate representation of what is happening.

Can it be more accurate? Certainly.

Can it be completely wrong (inaccurate)? Possibly but highly unlikely. If evolution is not an accurate model then something really weird must be going on that it can still manage to predict observations.

JimiTime wrote:

Its a bit, nod and wink IMO.

The scientific community and scientific philosophers, have spend over 200 years making sure that it is exactly the opposite of "nod and wink".

That is where principles such as testability, repeatability and falsifiability come from. All these principles are designed exactly so science doesn't take the word of individuals that such and such actually happened. Which is why science ignores someone who claims to talk to God in their own head, or sees ghosts/aliens but only when no one else is in the room.

Unlike religion, scientific theories and ideas are designed to be independent of the scientists themselves who come up with them.

JimiTime wrote:

Well, its scientific fact but its always open to new knowledge.

That is why it isn't scientific fact. A fact in science means something different to how it is used in lay language. Theories are the important components, and all theories are, by definition, open to new knowledge. All theories can be more accurate than they currently are.

JimiTime wrote:

Science cannot say I actually exist?

Science can say that we have models of how we think you work and these models appear to accurately reflect the observations of you.

JimiTime wrote:

Or it can, but they can't proove it? It seems that there are alot of acrobatics of language. And you say Christianity moves the goalposts. At least Christianity stands up for itself.

I think your problem Jimi is that you view science as simply another form of religion.

Religion says "This is true! This is a fact! We know this is correct! This can never change!"

It says this not for an particular practical purpose (when as anyone ever constructed a machine or useful device based on a religious proclamation of nature), but as an expression of its authority. The purpose of religious proclamations of the natural world is to simply demonstrate that the religion knows what is happening, and is therefore the true religion.

But in doing so religion is constantly running into problems when it turns out that what they original proclaimed isn't true, it isn't a fact, it is incorrect and it does change.

How many times have human religions proclaimed with authority that something was an absolute truth (the sun goes around the Earth!) only to get it completely wrong. In doing so they undermine the original purpose of the proclamation, that being an expression of authority. Which is why so many scientists have faced persecution from religions when they get egg on their faces for being wrong. The authority of the religion is the important bit, and religions have been willing to persecute and kill in order to hold on to that sense of authority.

Science doesn't work anything like that at all, nor does it want to (though you seem to think it does)

Science isn't about proclaiming universal truths so people can feel better about themselves and the world they live in, in the same way religion is. It isn't about proclaiming truths about nature for the expression of its own authority.

The purpose of science is not to compete with religion for the authority of telling you the truth about nature (the absolute truth of nature is recognized by science as being unknowable)

Religion long ago lost any real authority to do this, when it became painfully clear that it was just making stuff up as it went along and getting it wrong over and over. Science has replaced the role of religion in understanding the world around us, but that doesn't mean it is following the same methods of universal proclamation that religion once used.

Science is about trying to model, as accurately as possible, what appears to have happened, what is happening, and what will happen in nature, so that this knowledge can be put to some productive end (or simply to improve our understanding of the world).

It is nothing like religion, and does not do this for the same reasons that religion once did.

mossieh

Wicknight wrote:

Its not called factual. It is called accurate.

It is not about "facts", it is about accuracy of models

Saying something like "Newtonian theories of physics are a fact" doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Its not a "fact", nor does it claim to be.

The correct way so stating it is that Newtonian theories "model observed phenomena to a high level of accuracy". Quantum Mechanics "models observed phenomena to an even higher level of accuracy"

Neo-Darwinian evolution models observed biological phenomena to such a high level of accuracy that scientists are as certain as they can be, that the theories themselves are an accurate representation of what is happening.

Can it be more accurate? Certainly.

Can it be completely wrong (inaccurate)? Possibly but highly unlikely. If evolution is not an accurate model then something really weird must be going on that it can still manage to predict observations.


The scientific community and scientific philosophers, have spend over 200 years making sure that it is exactly the opposite of "nod and wink".

That is where principles such as testability, repeatability and falsifiability come from. All these principles are designed exactly so science doesn't take the word of individuals that such and such actually happened. Which is why science ignores someone who claims to talk to God in their own head, or sees ghosts/aliens but only when no one else is in the room.

Unlike religion, scientific theories and ideas are designed to be independent of the scientists themselves who come up with them.


That is why it isn't scientific fact. A fact in science means something different to how it is used in lay language. Theories are the important components, and all theories are, by definition, open to new knowledge. All theories can be more accurate than they currently are.


Science can say that we have models of how we think you work and these models appear to accurately reflect the observations of you.



I think your problem Jimi is that you view science as simply another form of religion.

Religion says "This is true! This is a fact! We know this is correct! This can never change!"

It says this not for an particular practical purpose (when as anyone ever constructed a machine or useful device based on a religious proclamation of nature), but as an expression of its authority. The purpose of religious proclamations of the natural world is to simply demonstrate that the religion knows what is happening, and is therefore the true religion.

But in doing so religion is constantly running into problems when it turns out that what they original proclaimed isn't true, it isn't a fact, it is incorrect and it does change.

How many times have human religions proclaimed with authority that something was an absolute truth (the sun goes around the Earth!) only to get it completely wrong. In doing so they undermine the original purpose of the proclamation, that being an expression of authority. Which is why so many scientists have faced persecution from religions when they get egg on their faces for being wrong. The authority of the religion is the important bit, and religions have been willing to persecute and kill in order to hold on to that sense of authority.

Science doesn't work anything like that at all, nor does it want to (though you seem to think it does)

Science isn't about proclaiming universal truths so people can feel better about themselves and the world they live in, in the same way religion is. It isn't about proclaiming truths about nature for the expression of its own authority.

The purpose of science is not to compete with religion for the authority of telling you the truth about nature (the absolute truth of nature is recognized by science as being unknowable)

Religion long ago lost any real authority to do this, when it became painfully clear that it was just making stuff up as it went along and getting it wrong over and over. Science has replaced the role of religion in understanding the world around us, but that doesn't mean it is following the same methods of universal proclamation that religion once used.

Science is about trying to model, as accurately as possible, what appears to have happened, what is happening, and what will happen in nature, so that this knowledge can be put to some predictive end. It is nothing like religion, and does not do this for the same reasons that religion once did.

Excellent post, well said.

JimiTime

bonkey wrote:

The science that says a building will stay up, that a car will not explode, that your PC will not electrocute you.....none of it has been proven. In all of those cases, you are - in your own words - taking their word for it. And in all of those cases, you not only do so, but you do so without thinking.

Well actually, thats not true. I don't think about a building not falling down, because I have grown up seeing buildings stand and I've walked their corridors so I have no reason to believe they are to crumble. Likewise with my car etc. I use a mobile phone, but I don't have the same degree of sureness that its not doing me harm. So its not a thoughtless process, its more that I witness that these things work.

But when it comes to evolution....all of a sudden, taking someone's word for it is supposed to be a credible counter-argument? A reasonable basis on which to reject the vast, vast number of falsifiable tests which it has successfully passed?

I know what you are saying, however there is a difference. There may be a basis for the theory and many tests (The one I referred to was the amino acids coming into existence as a basis for how life can come into existence by chance), but they can't be viewed as the same as what I see and witness and interact with daily. It has never been shown that the various amino acids can come together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules. If the amino acids are not in the proper sequence the protein molecules will not function! Then even the simplest cell is composed of millions of protein molecules. So as far as I can see, this is a long way off from my car.

If it is, its only to those who think that science is only "taking someones word for it".

As I said, life coming into existence from non life by chance is taking someones word for it. Seeing my car and using it, is actually witnessing it, and not just taking someones word for it.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

but they can't be viewed as the same as what I see and witness and interact with daily.

Come on Jimi, its nothing to do with what you see and witness. It is to do with what you want (or don't want) to be true.

You don't see and witness and consciously interact with electrons or silicon daily (I imagine), but that doesn't stop you from using your computer. I would imagine that you don't have a clue how the CPU in your computer actually works, nor do most people.

You just take it that scientists somewhere who are into this type of thing do know how it works, do have accurate theories on electricity and chemistry and have used this knowledge to construct a computer that you are now using.

Ask bonkey asks, why do you suddenly throw your arms up in the air over evolution and the scientists who study that?

Do you think evolutionary theories has never been used to construct something that you use in every day life (you would be wrong BTW), or do you just have something against biologists who use these theories, when physicists and chemists who construct computers are ok?

JimiTime wrote:

It has never been shown that the various amino acids can come together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules.

That is because amino acides don't come together by chance, they come together through evolution and natural selection.

The evolution of proteins is one thing that biologists spend and awful lot of time on, and has produced a lot of useful research in areas such as medicine (the equivalent of the physicist producing a computer from theories of electromagnetism)

JimiTime wrote:

As I said, life coming into existence from non life by chance is taking someones word for it.

No actually its not (who's word would you take?)

You can repeat all the experiments that have been done, assuming you now how. You can critically analysis all the research and data that has been collected, if you like.

You can do this for your computer as well if you like. But using a computer doesn't throw you into a period of religious doubt, so you don't, you just accept that the scientists have accurate models of electromagnetisms.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Its not called factual. It is called accurate.

It is not about "facts", it is about accuracy of models

Ok. So there are no proofs or facts in science then. These words are merely used to show how much faith one has in the current knowledge sciece has of a particular subject. Would that be correct? They are not actually holding to the English language definitions of the words?

Neo-Darwinian evolution models observed biological phenomena to such a high level of accuracy that scientists are as certain as they can be, that the theories themselves are an accurate representation of what is happening.

So it is faith in current understanding. Presently, even saying things like 'unlikely' really means nothing. Back in the day, scientists would have said its 'unlikely' that they are wrong about things that were later shown to be wrong? Its giving an opinion based on current understanding, but on the basis that you really think you got it. Really saying something like that is going against the scientific principles you promote?

Can it be more accurate? Certainly.

Fair enough.

The scientific community and scientific philosophers, have spend over 200 years making sure that it is exactly the opposite of "nod and wink".

But you use english terms that you know will decieve the layman. Like, 'proof' and 'fact'. Science doesn't, its merely a name given to the study of the natural world, but some scientists certainly do use these terms. They may use them to state how strongly they believe in a theory, but at the end of the day, on what you have said, this is against scientific principles. No matter how strong you feel you are right, there is no proof or fact? The is no such thing as 'current truth', I'm sure you'd agree. Something is either true or it isn't. Likewise, something is either 'factual', 'based on current understanding' or 'fiction'.

That is where principles such as testability, repeatability and falsifiability come from. All these principles are designed exactly so science doesn't take the word of individuals that such and such actually happened. Which is why science ignores someone who claims to talk to God in their own head, or sees ghosts/aliens but only when no one else is in the room.

Fair enough. The field of sciences was set up by men to study the physical world/universe. It doesn't concern itself with the spiritual. It should have no opinion on the matter. But then respected scientists say things like 'unlikely' etc in relation to God. Which is, IMO, not their field. However, because they are the ones that show great signs of intelligence on the earth through their inventions etc, their opinion is held in huge esteem, even outside their field of excellence.

That is why it isn't scientific fact. A fact in science means something different to how it is used in lay language. Theories are the important components, and all theories are, by definition, open to new knowledge. All theories can be more accurate than they currently are.

Which is why, outside the laboratory, the word 'fact' should not be used if thats the case.

I think your problem Jimi is that you view science as simply another form of religion.

No, I don't actually. As I've said, science is the study of the physical world. However, it is used by many to 'show' how a belief in The Living God is a crock.

Religion says "This is true! This is a fact! We know this is correct! This can never change!"

I apply the same principal as previously mentioned. As a christian we can have truth, current understanding and falsehood. Most of it is based on testimony, so a degree of Cavaet Emptor is required. Understandings can change, the truth will always be the truth though. God has said we only have partial knowledge. So much is hidden from us.

It says this not for an particular practical purpose (when as anyone ever constructed a machine or useful device based on a religious proclamation of nature), but as an expression of its authority. The purpose of religious proclamations of the natural world is to simply demonstrate that the religion knows what is happening, and is therefore the true religion.

Religious people can get carried away with this kind of thing I agree. They can go beyond the scpe of the revealed knowledge usually believing they are zealously defending their faith.

But in doing so religion is constantly running into problems when it turns out that what they original proclaimed isn't true, it isn't a fact, it is incorrect and it does change.

How many times have human religions proclaimed with authority that something was an absolute truth (the sun goes around the Earth!) only to get it completely wrong. In doing so they undermine the original purpose of the proclamation, that being an expression of authority. Which is why so many scientists have faced persecution from religions when they get egg on their faces for being wrong. The authority of the religion is the important bit, and religions have been willing to persecute and kill in order to hold on to that sense of authority.

I don't speak for religion, i speak for my Christianity. If your reference about the Sun has anything to do with Joshua, I think its obviously a perspective thing. If it was misused to 'prove' the sun goes round the earth, then the people who did were wrong. They created a 'fact' out of something that obviously wasn't there in the first place. I also agree that religion has been about governance for centuries. Those very people who misuse scripture etc, then attack like a cornered dog. Hold them up as examples of bad religion by all means. Not too sure if that says anything about the existence of God or Jesus Christ though.

Science doesn't work anything like that at all, nor does it want to (though you seem to think it does)

Science doesn't, some scientists do though IMO. Science 'cannot' have a view on the spiritual realm. Its impossible by its very definition. However, some scientists use their knowledge of the physical world to rule out the possiblity of a spiritual one. And that is where my problem lies.

Science isn't about proclaiming universal truths so people can feel better about themselves and the world they live in, in the same way religion is. It isn't about proclaiming truths about nature for the expression of its own authority.

If there is no fact or proof, then it can't proclaim anything truth neither. It may well be true, but it certainly can't say it is with your scientific model anyway.

The purpose of science is not to compete with religion for the authority of telling you the truth about nature (the absolute truth of nature is recognized by science as being unknowable)

'truth', 'absolute truth', Hmmmm. Is this more lab talk. Truth is truth. If its not truth, its either false or 'current understanding'.

Religion long ago lost any real authority to do this, when it became painfully clear that it was just making stuff up as it went along and getting it wrong over and over. Science has replaced the role of religion in understanding the world around us, but that doesn't mean it is following the same methods of universal proclamation that religion once used.

Science has replaced nothing as far as God is concerned. Religious bodies might have declared themselves all knowing etc, and tbh, this served the faithful when it was shown to be false. It showed that these guys are just men like everyone else and in some cases showed such corruption in certain organisations. Anything that reveals such truth I welcome. A faithful person should always be vigilant about getting ahead of themselves.

Science is about trying to model, as accurately as possible, what appears to have happened, what is happening, and what will happen in nature, so that this knowledge can be put to some productive end (or simply to improve our understanding of the world).

Ok, but as I said originally, something like using the amino acids theory to show how life can come to be by chance requires faith.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

You can repeat all the experiments that have been done, assuming you now how. You can critically analysis all the research and data that has been collected, if you like.

You can do this for your computer as well if you like. But using a computer doesn't throw you into a period of religious doubt, so you don't, you just accept that the scientists have accurate models of electromagnetisms.

The difference is, all the science that is required to make my PC has an end product of ehh my PC. If the idea of a PC was knocking around for 200 years but there was no end product, I would probably be dubious that such a thing could happen, if I cared enough that is. However, with life, there is no end product. You can have faith that there will be someday, if you wish. There is the theory (the amino acids) but scientists have 'never' showed how amino acids can randomly come together in correct sequence to make a protein and then in turn all the other 'random' proteins came together to make a living cell. I think I've heard someone say before that the chances of amino acids forming into a protein randomly would be the equivilent of a tornado going though an airplane parts yard and making a 747. So there really is a difference.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Ok. So there are no proofs or facts in science then.

"Proof" is a element of logic and maths. If you hear a scientists talking about proof he/she is using it in the same way a lay person would ("prove to your wife you love her"), not in the sense of an absolute true value as in maths.

There are "facts" in science, but they are to do with evidence and experimentation. For example "The water was heated to 84 degrees before the bicker was placed into it" is a fact of the experiment.

JimiTime wrote:

These words are merely used to show how much faith one has in the current knowledge sciece has of a particular subject. Would that be correct?

They are often used in lay mans terms to express levels of certainty, and in popular science is no difference.

For example, saying "evolution is a fact" is a bit more snappy for a book cover on popular biology than saying "neo-darwinian evolutionary theory is a set of scientific theories that model and predict, to a very high level of observed accuracy, the natural phenomena of change and development in biological systems on Earth with relation to their natural environment"

To a lay man both are equally acceptable, but if one gets into the nitty gritty of science then only the later is actually acceptable.

JimiTime wrote:

So it is faith in current understanding.

It isn't faith in anything. As I keep telling you you can go and do all these experiments as well and see if you come up with the same result.

You can, if you like, have faith that the entire scientific community is not lying to you. But if you don't have that faith you can go and do all the experiments yourself and see what results you come up with.

JimiTime wrote:

Back in the day, scientists would have said its 'unlikely' that they are wrong about things that were later shown to be wrong?

You keep talking about right or wrong. As I keep explaining to you it is not about true or false, it is about accuracy.

Take Newtonian physics.

Newton developed the modern day (pre-quantum mechanics) theories of things like motion, heat, gravity etc. These were used to accurately model everything from steam engines to the planets.

Now in the late 19th and early 20th century people started exploring the nature of light, the nature of time, and the pieces that make up the atom. They discovered that the previous theories based on Newtons work no longer appeared to accurately match observation. Scientists discovered that Newtons theories, and those based on them, were inaccurate at the atomic level, or levels of high gravity.

So newer, more accurate theories, such as General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, replaced Newtons theories.

Now, answer me this. Was Newtonian physics wrong?

This is a very important question for you to consider, because you seem to be viewing since in terms of correct or incorrect answer in some grand universal exam.

To say that Newtonian physics was "wrong" is to miss understand what science attempts to do. It was used for 200 years to construct machines and predict movement, and you can still use it today to model most things.

But it is just a model of what we believe is happening. And as it turned out what we believed was happening was not totally accurate. There were areas where Newtonian physics did not model accurately what actually happens in reality. So the theories were updated to match observation.

JimiTime wrote:

Its giving an opinion based on current understanding, but on the basis that you really think you got it.

No one every things they have "got it" 100% correct. That is the entire point of the philosophy falsifiability. In fact falsifiability comes from the realisation that even if a scientists does actually have it 100% correct, they will never know they have it 100% correct and as such they cannot say they do.

Again it comes down to accuracy. Is neo-darwinian evolution an accurate theory? Yes, it is. It is accurate in the same way that quantum physics is accurate. But notice the "neo" bit. Darwins original theory of of evolution has been updated in the same way that Newtonian physics was updated to general relativity.

Science is ultimately the on going process of refining scientific models of the universe to make them more and more accurate to increasing observation. This is an on going and never ending process.

Think of it like a painter who cannot stop coming back to his painting to improve the painting. A scientific theory can always be more accurate than it currently is.

JimiTime wrote:

But you use english terms that you know will decieve the layman. Like, 'proof' and 'fact'.

No, that is the Creationists who do that

They say "Evolution is only a theory, it isn't a fact"

The scientists, rather bewildered, say "You are right, it is only a theory, it isn't a fact"

And then the Creationist go "Ha! Look they admitted it, look they admitted it, they said it isn't a fact it is only a theory!!"

JimiTime wrote:

They may use them to state how strongly they believe in a theory, but at the end of the day, on what you have said, this is against scientific principles.

You are right, it is. And it is difficult issue, and I understand how it can be confusing.

When I have seen this done it is in response to the Creationist nonsense mentioned above. Some scientists, I imagine in frustration, response to claims such as "Evolution is only a theory, not a fact" by swapping over to using the lay mans terms that the Creationists are themselves using. So they will say "Well it is a fact"

Personally I think this is a mistake, it simply falls into the trap that the Creationists have set up for the scientists to fall into. But I can understand why some scientists do this, how this is easier to do that than trying to explain all of the above every time someone says "Evolution is only a theory"

JimiTime wrote:

No matter how strong you feel you are right, there is no proof or fact?

Correct, but ultimately being right or wrong is irrelevant. Aside from a Nobel prize being right won't get you anything.

Being accurate is the only goal.

The ultimately purpose of science is the application of theory to the real world. This can be done to actually do something (ie make a computer, design an antibiotic) or simply to further our understand of the natural world, the idea being that this understanding can eventually lead to some practical down the line.

As such an inaccurate theory is useless, as you cannot do either with it.

Which is why, despite the Creationists claims of atheists conspiracies, evolutionary theories would have been discarded long ago if they weren't accurate. Despite what the Creationists think the purpose of neo-darwinian evolution is not to disprove God, it is to do useful things in the realms of medicine and biology. If the theory was quite inaccurate it would be useless for this purpose, and people won't use it. People only continue to use it because it has turned out to be quite accurate, and as such it can be used to do useful things

JimiTime wrote:

The is no such thing as 'current truth', I'm sure you'd agree. Something is either true or it isn't.

I agree 100%

But the point you have to understand is that science doesn't claim these things are true, they claim that they are accurate

JimiTime wrote:

The field of sciences was set up by men to study the physical world/universe. It doesn't concern itself with the spiritual. It should have no opinion on the matter. But then respected scientists say things like 'unlikely' etc in relation to God. Which is, IMO, not their field.

It is unlike that there is a God. That doesn't mean that there isn't one, but it is a rational and reasonable conclusion to come to.

That is a reflection of our current understanding of nature, from human biology (ie why we would invent the concept in the first place) to our current understand of the universe (ie everything we thought needed a god to do it turns out to work perfectly well under natural processes).

It is impossible to prove that there isn't a God. But that doesn't stop people looking around and saying that the most likely conclusion is that we simply made the idea up to explain things we didn't understand.

I'm sorry if that upsets you. You don't have to agree with them (or me).

JimiTime wrote:

No, I don't actually. As I've said, science is the study of the physical world. However, it is used by many to 'show' how a belief in The Living God is a crock.

If "belief in The Living God" is a crock then it is a product of the natural world (a product of human psychology and biology).

And by studying the natural world one can see how likely this is. And the conclusion that more and more people (scientist or otherwise) are coming to, based on this study of the natural world, is that it is rather likely that it is a "crock".

JimiTime wrote:

As a christian we can have truth, current understanding and falsehood. Most of it is based on testimony, so a degree of Cavaet Emptor is required.

That is the difference between religion and science.

You guys think you can know something for certain, that you can know something is 100% true. And you aren't afraid to proclaim it

Science at least recognizes that this isn't actually possible.

JimiTime wrote:

Understandings can change, the truth will always be the truth though.

Yes but how do you actually know or demonstrate that something is true.

You think (I imagine) that God talking to you in your head/heart is "true".

What if you are actually having a funny psychological effect? How would you know? More importantly, how would anyone else know?

JimiTime wrote:

I don't speak for religion, i speak for my Christianity.

All religions work in pretty much the same way, so it doesn't really matter. What applies to Christianity applies to other religions and vice versa.

JimiTime wrote:

Hold them up as examples of bad religion by all means. Not too sure if that says anything about the existence of God or Jesus Christ though.

Well yes but why do you think that these people are any different to the people who wrote the Bible, or the Qu'ran, or any other religion? If the medieval bishops got the sun goes around the Earth bit wrong, why would anyone think that the middle eastern priests who wrote the Old Testament had any better luck? They were, after all, wrong about the creation of the Earth, the first humans, the flood, etc etc

JimiTime wrote:

Science 'cannot' have a view on the spiritual realm.

But Jimi you are working under the assumption that the "spiritual realm" actually exists in the first place.

Science can, and does, have a view on the likelihood of the idea that the "spiritual realm" (religion, mystacisim, paranormal etc) is simply an invention of the human imagination triggered by certain peculiar ways the brain processes information. This is looking more and more likely.

JimiTime wrote:

Science has replaced nothing as far as God is concerned.

Yes it has. People no longer turn to "revelations from God" in attempts to understand the natural world. "God did it" is no longer an acceptable answer to most people as to how something happens.

What science has done is removed God as the agency in nature. God, for a lot of people, is no longer viewed as the cause of things in the universe, because science has discovered (slowly and painfully) that things work without the need for a deity to do anything.

JimiTime wrote:

A faithful person should always be vigilant about getting ahead of themselves.

The faithful person should ask themselves why do they have faith in the first place? If so many others have been wrong in what they believed why are they so certain about what they believe.

JimiTime wrote:

Ok, but as I said originally, something like using the amino acids theory to show how life can come to be by chance requires faith.

There is no biological theory in existence today that I am aware of that says amino acids form into proteins by chance. That certainly isn't in the theories of evolution.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

The difference is, all the science that is required to make my PC has an end product of ehh my PC. If the idea of a PC was knocking around for 200 years but there was no end product, I would probably be dubious that such a thing could happen, if I cared enough that is.

You think there is no "end product" of Neo-Darwinian evolution??

JimiTime meet modern medicine, modern medicine meet JimiTime.

Right, now that the introductions are out of the way ...

JimiTime wrote:

I think I've heard someone say before that the chances of amino acids forming into a protein randomly would be the equivilent of a tornado going though an airplane parts yard and making a 747. So there really is a difference.

Hence the theory of Darwinian evolution. That is exactly what Neo-Darwinian evolution explains, how this happens, how it works, how complex systems can develop from simple, primitive, ones.

And (as you have been told) it certainly isn't random. Natural Selection, the key process in evolution, is not a random process. If it was it would no doubt be called something different :rolleyes:

JimiTime

Heres something I came across while Googling. It even has the same reference to the amino acids and the 747 jet:) I think its a good read, but I would wouldn't I:)

http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=5513

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Heres something I came across while Googling. It even has the same reference to the amino acids and the 747 jet:) I think its a good read, but I would wouldn't I:)

http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=5513

Do you know who Babu G. Ranganathan is?

http://www.geocities.com/athens/oracle/5862/

btw, not that I imagine you care, but the article is full of misinformation, inaccuracies and down right lies. Whether Mr. Ranganathan realizes this I'm not sure. I've no idea where this guy got is B.A in theology/biology (that is a subject?) but he seems to know nothing about evolutionary biology.

[EDIT]

Seemingly he got his B.A from "Bob Jones University" in South Carolina. Which kinda explains why he knows nothing about evolution

http://www.bju.edu/academics/cas/undergrad/divns/biology.html

"While most secular biologists are committed to evolution as the basic principle of biology, Bob Jones University trains Christian biologists who see the living world indelibly marked with the fingerprints of a God of limitless wisdom and power."

Right .... :rolleyes:

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Do you know who Babu G. Ranganathan is?

http://www.geocities.com/athens/oracle/5862/

btw, not that I imagine you care, but the article is full of misinformation, inaccuracies and down right lies. Whether Mr. Ranganathan realizes this I'm not sure. I've no idea where this guy got is B.A in theology/biology (that is a subject?) but he seems to know nothing about evolutionary biology.

[EDIT]

Seemingly he got his B.A from "Bob Jones University" in South Carolina. Which kinda explains why he knows nothing about evolution

http://www.bju.edu/academics/cas/undergrad/divns/biology.html

"While most secular biologists are committed to evolution as the basic principle of biology, Bob Jones University trains Christian biologists who see the living world indelibly marked with the fingerprints of a God of limitless wisdom and power."

Right .... :rolleyes:

I don't know who he is TBH, as i said i just came across the article while Googling. Genuine question, which parts are lies and misinformation? I understand if u haven't the time to go into detail, but even if you point out some of the lies. If you are right it is once again a Zealous lier. I hate that. Its the irony, its real means to end thinking and completely unchristian. So for my own protection, could you point out the lies.
Thanks,
Jimi.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

I don't know who he is TBH, as i said i just came across the article while Googling. Genuine question, which parts are lies and misinformation? I understand if u haven't the time to go into detail, but even if you point out some of the lies. If you are right it is once again a Zealous lier. I hate that. Its the irony, its real means to end thinking and completely unchristian. So for my own protection, could you point out the lies.
Thanks,
Jimi.

In the interests of science ...

"Recent news reports suggest that scientists may be close to creating artificial (synthetic) life. None of this is happening by chance but by intelligent design and planning. Why, then, will many not give credit to God for the original DNA and life?"

Misinformation - The research the author is referring to is things like cloning. This certainly is "intelligent design" but it is completely different research being carried out into how life on earth developed where humans are not designing anything, they are simulating the conditions one would expect to find on an early earth and seeing what happens.

"In all forms of genetic engineering, including production of synthetic or artificial life, scientists have always begun with already existing forms of life or their parts."

Misinformation - Genetic engineering is not concerned with creating "artificial " or "synthetic" life, it is about manipulating the current biological processes to create new non-natural forms of life. There are areas of research that are interested in creating totally synthetic life and these do not start of with existing forms of life

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once.

Lie - In fact we know, and have known for a while, that it took life approx 1 to 2 billion years to evolve into the first modern idea of cells. It certainly did not happen "all at once", and nor does any evolutionary biologist think it did

Although it has been shown that the basic building blocks of life, amino acids, can come into existence by chance, it has never been shown that the various amino acids can come together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules.

Misinformation - Not only has it never been shown to happen, it has never been suggest that this did happen. Evolution is not a random process, and it does not suggest that the first proteins simply formed from random arrangements of amino acids.

It seems that the cell is irreducibly complex.

Lie - It has been demonstrated many times that a cell is not irreducibly complex.

Evolutionists generally believe that it took one billion years for the first life form or cell to have evolved. That belief, although still taught as gospel in many elementary and secondary schools, cannot be sustained by modern science.

Lie - It can be sustained by modern science. And this also contradicts the authors above assertion that evolution says a cell forms randomly at once.

The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!

Misinformation - The simplest cell didn't come into existence by chance, so the point is irrelevant. It is unknown if Hoyle realises this (he wasn't a biologist) at the time when he said this.

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of such order.

Lie - The can and do. That is the entire purpose of Darwin evolution.

Natural selection is simply another way of saying that if a biological variation occurs which is helpful to an animal or plant's survival then that that variation will be preserved and be passed on. Of course, nature does not do any active or conscious selecting.

Misinformation - I have no idea what the last sentence means. The author seems to explain exactly what natural selection does, but seems to dismiss that, apparently not understand that this is evolution. Nothing more is required.

In other words, natural selection is not involved in any pre-biotic, non-living interactions of chemicals.

Lie - Natural selection works with any system that replicates and competes for resources.

However, there is no evidence that random or chance mutations in the genetic code are capable of producing greater biological complexity (vertical evolution) among natural species.

Lie - I've no idea why Creationists continue to claim this since there are tons of research papers going back quite a few years that have observed just that.

Considering the enormous complexity of life, it is much more logical to believe that the genetic and biological similarities between all species are due to a common Designer rather than common evolutionary ancestry.

Misinformation - There are found in nature a huge amount of different "designs" that do basically the same thing. For example there are over 40 different, independent, designs for the eye ball found in nature, suggest that the eye has evolved independently at least 40 times in the history of the planet. It is rather illogical to suppose that a Common Designer decided to design things over and over when once would have done.

But, we also know from science that natural laws could not have brought the universe into being from nothing. The beginning of the universe, therefore, points to a supernatural origin!

Lies - "We" know nothing of the sort. We have no idea what process brought the universe into being.

Son Goku

JimiTime wrote:

The difference is, all the science that is required to make my PC has an end product of ehh my PC. If the idea of a PC was knocking around for 200 years but there was no end product, I would probably be dubious that such a thing could happen, if I cared enough that is. However, with life, there is no end product. You can have faith that there will be someday, if you wish. There is the theory (the amino acids) but scientists have 'never' showed how amino acids can randomly come together in correct sequence to make a protein and then in turn all the other 'random' proteins came together to make a living cell. I think I've heard someone say before that the chances of amino acids forming into a protein randomly would be the equivilent of a tornado going though an airplane parts yard and making a 747. So there really is a difference.

Modern medicine and a lot of articial intelligence is the result of evolutionary theory. There is no difference.

As for this whole proof thing in science, it is conceit to mathematicians and philosophers, it does not mean proof in the everyday sense. For instance I wouldn't say black holes are "proven", even though I know they're as real as grass.

bonkey

JimiTime wrote:

So its not a thoughtless process, its more that I witness that these things work.

You also witness a lot of things working which serve as falsifiable tests of evolution. The only difference is that you're not actually aware that they are falsifiable tests of evolutionary theory.

As Son Goku just mentioned - modern medicine and a lot of AI are as a result of evolutionary theory. The basis for our understanding of DNA came from evolutionary theory.

(The one I referred to was the amino acids coming into existence as a basis for how life can come into existence by chance)

Repeat after me : abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory.

Its uncanny how rare it is to see someone reject evolutionary theory who also shows an awareness of this.

It has never been shown that the various amino acids can come together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules.

It has never been shown that they can do so by design either. Can we conclude from this that abiogenesis could not occur by design?

And again...remember...abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory.

As I said, life coming into existence from non life by chance is taking someones word for it.

Life coming into existence from non-life by design is equally taking someone's word from it. However, if you can explain how it happened by design, you cannot rule out the same events occurring by chance. You can claim its unlikely, but then again...we're here!!!

And once more...(with feeling)...abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory.

So remind me again...on what grounds are you rejecting evolutionary theory?

Seeing my car and using it, is actually witnessing it, and not just taking someones word for it.

Lets take a different example.

Do you believe in gravity? If so, why? How can you tell its not "Intelligent Falling", other than just by taking someone's word for it?

It might seem like a ridiculous question, but thats partly the point. There is no way to distinguish between gravity and a properly-formulated 'theory of Intelligent Falling' which states that gravity is an illusion and that things behave the way they do because God designed them to move that way at that time.

Now...you can witness the effects of gravity. Perhaps in the future, you'll even be able to see someone show you what they claim to be gravitons (or however that all pans out). But you still will be taking someone's word for it, because you can't actually test that gravity exists. You can't observe gravity directly. You can only test and model the effects of gravity.

All you can do is show that a model exists which can explain the observed behaviour without resorting to an external intelligence.

So...is it reasonable to deny gravity on the grounds that we can't directly observe it or test it, but can only theorise its existence based on a model of its effects which we can observe???

If its not reasonable....once you can accept that about gravity...apply the same logic to evolutionary theory.

And remember while you do this....abiogenesis is not evolutionary theory.