Evidence of God-Guided Evolution vs Scientific Evolution

[JLives]

Amen Katts

Undaunted by the general collapse of the Intelligent Design campaign, the theists are attempting to insert into the realm of evolutionary science the view that the theory is incomplete and does not explain everything and in particular the idea that evolutionary change MUST have some purpose. If there is a purpose then there must be a god.

There is a purpose. Prepetuation of the species. Everything in life comes down to that at it's most basic. Humans like to think we are special and must be here for a greater purpose than other species but really it's all about eating, not getting killed and making babies. So chill out and enjoy life while you're here.

[zzontar]

Eating, not getting killed, and making babies is all the lowest forms of life do... personally I like to think there's more to myself than that.

[NAB]

Eating, not getting killed, and making babies is all the lowest forms of life do... personally I like to think there's more to myself than that.

Interesting concept that our species thinks there is more to itself than that. Perhaps therein is the root of many of its problems?

Nab

[steven lloyd]

Amen Katts

Undaunted by the general collapse of the Intelligent Design campaign, the theists are attempting to insert into the realm of evolutionary science the view that the theory is incomplete and does not explain everything and in particular the idea that evolutionary change MUST have some purpose. If there is a purpose then there must be a god.

There is a purpose. Prepetuation of the species. Everything in life comes down to that at it's most basic. Humans like to think we are special and must be here for a greater purpose than other species but really it's all about eating, not getting killed and making babies. So chill out and enjoy life while you're here.

That certainly is one possibility jenny. It could be just as simple as that (although that would still not explain how it first started). Real scientists continue to explore alternative theories through scientific method, and good ones (ie. the creative and imaginative ones who are responsible for most of our scientific and technological progress and advancement) consider many possibilities - even those that seem "out there" at first. Whether you believe in the existence of something unexplainable or not, if you settle for absolutes you’ve stopped thinking.

Sorry katts that this article was posted twice and that both times you missed the point.

[JLives]

That certainly is one possibility jenny. It could be just as simple as that (although that would still not explain how it first started).

Evolution has nothing to do with how it all started. That is the Big Bang theory. I was watching a show on Hawkings' The Theory of Everything on TV the other night, he has some interesting things to say about the beginning of it all.

[katzenjammer]

Perhaps, on the other hand, Steven, I didn't miss the point.

[zzontar]

Eating, not getting killed, and making babies is all the lowest forms of life do... personally I like to think there's more to myself than that.

Interesting concept that our species thinks there is more to itself than that. Perhaps therein is the root of many of its problems?

Nab

It would be a pretty easy life if that was the case... you wouldn't have to hang anything on your walls as art would be pointless, why have a stereo or go to concerts when you can't eat music? Don't worry about what you wear, may as well all wear the same thing, with no color because color is pointless, no use discussing anything more than what to eat... and so on. I don't know Nab, you have to have a pretty sedate lifestyle to think that's all there is. If eating and procreating and not getting killed were all there was to it, evolution could have stopped a loooooooooong time ago.

[Tumult]

... the theists are attempting to insert into the realm of evolutionary science the view that the theory [of evolution] is incomplete and does not explain everything and in particular the idea that evolutionary change MUST have some purpose.

Actually, science already contains the idea that evolutionary change has a purpose.
There have been published, peer reviewed, repeated experiments (using the scientific method)that show (beneficial) adaptive mutation (not random) in bacterium under environmental stress. The bacterium alter their genes to adapt to the environment. This is basically evolutionary change with a purpose, which challenges a central dogma of evolution (that all mutation is random).

I start with the a priori assumption that there is only one reality...

Science however doesn't support that position, for quantum mechanics tells us that reality consists of probability waves and quanta only appear as particles under observation (subjective reality), otherwise they are waves (of energy). Reality is both particle and wave, it has a dual nature.

I am not a theist and I did not perceive the article as trying to express ideas about God but rather as questioning dogmatic adherence to singular viewpoints in scientific fields such as evolution. Your suggestion that the article is merely an attempt to insert ID or God into evolution is a straw man.

[steven lloyd]

Perhaps, on the other hand, Steven, I didn't miss the point.

Or, that you still miss that you've missed the point

[katzenjammer]

The holy grail of theoretical physicists is to find one set of equations to describe everything. They haven’t done that yet but there is a large consensus that it will happen soon. In other words they operate on the assumption that there is only one reality even if it is complex and difficult to understand. We could all be wrong, of course. I wonder if you think magic is at the heart the apparent “duel” nature of matter at the quantum level?

I do understand the meaning of the word scientism and have already agreed that not every intellectual approach needs to undergo the rigours of the scientific method.
But if you are doing science such as evolutionary theory, then please do so with every bit of rigour you can muster. That’s not scientism; that’s science. If you believe in creationism and that god has a PURPOSE in whatever he is doing that’s fine but please don’t call it science. That is the jist of my response to that article which in my opinion is an attempt by theists to muddy the waters around this issue. Evolution=science----Creationism=religion. There is a long history of the religious to degrade what science is and does and this is a heavily veiled attempt at the same. If I am the only one that sees that then there are at least three possible explanations: 1 I’m right. 2 I’m delusional. 3 God loves me and has gifted me with special magical senses.

[zzontar]

You don't have to be religious to believe in creationism, you have to believe there's a creator. I don't know why you don't believe a creator could be scientifically proven eventually... just because something appears magical doesn't mean it is.

On Stephen Hawking's "The theory of everything" on Discovery yesterday, they mentioned how particles with a positive and negative charge appear "out of nowhere" around a black hole... the negative gets sucked into the black hole and the positive goes away from the black hole in the form of radiation (something like that) ... because it's science, nobody doubts this could be true. If someone said there was a God who could make these things appear out of nowhere then it would be all magical?

[JLives]

It all comes down to evidence. If there is evidence that proves the existance of a creator I'll be the first to admit it. Saying thier MUST be a creator or god because we cannot explain something may have worked for more primative cultures but it doesn't cut it in the present day. An absence of evidence showing how those particles work is not proof of a creator, it just means we have more information to discover. We've only had computers for 50 or so years, there's alot of ground to cover out there. I know we live in an instant gratification kind of society but science takes time.

[zzontar]

It all comes down to evidence. If there is evidence that proves the existance of a creator I'll be the first to admit it. Saying thier MUST be a creator or god because we cannot explain something may have worked for more primative cultures but it doesn't cut it in the present day. An absence of evidence showing how those particles work is not proof of a creator, it just means we have more information to discover. We've only had computers for 50 or so years, there's alot of ground to cover out there. I know we live in an instant gratification kind of society but science takes time.

There are hypothetical theories as to why God exists, and none for how those particles that appear out of nowhere, yet I'm guessing you believe there will eventually only be evidence for the particles. I believe both can be explained scientifically, but as you mentioned, it will just take time.

[steven lloyd]

You don't have to be religious to believe in creationism, ...

And just as true, you don’t have to be an atheist to believe in both evolution and the Big bang theory. It is even possible to be both a theist and a scientist at the same time. Wow.

Further to the theories of Stephen Hawking. He postulated that “time” did not exist until the Big Bang and has only existed since then. He is said as admitting to a science colleague (who also happened to be a theist) that this idea supports the notion that an infinite God could have always existed, exists now, and will continue to exist even after the universe falls back into itself. Wow.


One formula to explain everything eh? Wow.

[steven lloyd]

On a lighter note, here’s Eve’ perspective:

After three weeks in the Garden of Eden, God came to visit Eve. 'So, how is everything going?' inquired God.

'It is all so beautiful, God,' she replied. 'The sunrises and sunsets are breathtaking, the smells, the sights, everything is wonderful, but I have just one problem. It's these breasts you have given me. The middle one pushes the other two out and I am constantly knocking them with my arms, catching them on branches and snagging them on bushes. They're a real pain.'

And Eve went on to tell God that since many other parts of her body came in pairs, such as her limbs, eyes, ears, etc. She felt that having only two breasts might leave her body more 'symmetrically balanced'.

'That's a fair point,' replied God, 'But it was my first shot at this, you know.
I gave the animals six breasts, so I figured that you needed only half of those, but I see that you are right. I will fix it up right away.'

And God reached down, removed the middle breast and tossed it into the bushes.

Three weeks passed and God once again visited Eve in the Garden of Eden.

'Well, Eve, how is my favorite creation?'

'Just fantastic,' she replied, 'But for one oversight. You see, all the animals are paired off. The ewe has a ram and the cow has her bull. All the animals have a mate except me. I feel so alone.'

God thought for a moment and said, 'You know, Eve, you are right. How could I have overlooked this? You do need a mate and I will immediately create a man from a part of you.
Let's see. Where did I put that useless *bleep*?'


Now doesn't THAT make more sense than all that crap about the rib?