posted
The Daily Show is running a 5 day special examining Evolution and the current political debate surrounding it.
Edit to add: This is just an announcement, I'm not trying to start an argument on the issue. So, enter the thread at your own risk.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the matrix created God. The Internet created the matrix .`. AL GORE CREATED GOD, GUYS!
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a lot of issues they make fun of both sides pretty thoroughly. If the fanatics on either side could each have a good laugh at themselves and lighten up a bit, maybe the arguement would be less bitter.
posted
I don't see how that can be a statement of fact. You'd have to do two experiments: one with God guiding evolution and one without and see if evolution worked in one, both, or neither of the test samples. Since we can't prove or disprove the existence of God, such an experiment is just silly.
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Evolution did not, and does not require God's assistance in either being or working.
I don't mean this to be inflammatory, it is simply a statement of fact.
Science may be able to show that evolution could create complex life with out being guided by intelligence. But it will never show that it would have created this particular set of life if not so guided. Neither will it show that wouldn't have created this particular set of life if not so guided.
Your statement also ignores the possibilities that initial conditions were selected precisely so that they would lead to the evolution of life. It is clearly not a statement of fact to say evolution did not require God's assistance, because if the universe wouldn't have existed without God, then neither would evolution.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was suggesting that science is limited to providing explanations of observed phenomena in the real world and must involve the collection of data, i.e. things measured.
Questions that relate to God do not easily lend themselves to testing, primarily because questions about God are fundamentally about faith. It seems to me that God is the only one qualified to test faith.
Posts: 514 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Science may be able to show that evolution could create complex life with out being guided by intelligence. But it will never show that it would have created this particular set of life if not so guided. Neither will it show that wouldn't have created this particular set of life if not so guided.
Your statement also ignores the possibilities that initial conditions were selected precisely so that they would lead to the evolution of life. It is clearly not a statement of fact to say evolution did not require God's assistance, because if the universe wouldn't have existed without God, then neither would evolution.
The first part of this is absolutely correct. However, evolution can explain how we got here from the initial starting conditions. It won't ever be able to say that any current species was an inevitable outcome of the process. As for "guidance" that may not be necessary. What we know is the current condition and the path taken to get to it. Whether that path was a random walk or a guided trip, we can't know. But we know that the mechanism of evolution offers a sufficient explanation of the history that got us here.
The second part is wrong, I think, because it assumes that the initial conditions determined the final outcome. I believe this is demonstrably false and also leads to an anti-Christian deism in which God merely gave the world a kick start and then left it alone.
I'll have more to say on this in about a week. But I didn't want to just leave it laying there because I think it's an incredibly important point.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, evolution can explain how we got here from the initial starting conditions. It won't ever be able to say that any current species was an inevitable outcome of the process. As for "guidance" that may not be necessary. What we know is the current condition and the path taken to get to it. Whether that path was a random walk or a guided trip, we can't know. But we know that the mechanism of evolution offers a sufficient explanation of the history that got us here.
How does this make the second part wrong? Guidance may or may not be necessary. You say it yourself.
How, exactly, would science prove that evolution would or wouldn't have created this particular set of life without guidance from God?
quote:The second part is wrong, I think, because it assumes that the initial conditions determined the final outcome. I believe this is demonstrably false and also leads to an anti-Christian deism in which God merely gave the world a kick start and then left it alone.
It most certainly does not make that assumption. It allows the possibility that initial conditions were a necessary yet not sufficient condition. In either case, it is not proveable whether initial conditions were selected, and if that selection was necessary, then evolution needed the selector to occur.
Remember, I'm stating this as a possibility. I'm saying we don't know if it's true or not. If they are true, then johnson's statement that it is a fact that evolution does not require God's assistance in either being or working is wrong.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was reading the National Geographic about Africa and there was a statement that "those who question evolution question the whole enterprise of science."
Since when was science a singular enterprise? Makes it sound like the freemasons or something. "We must build the edifice of knowledge." as opposed to "I have to get published so I can win tenure."
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a possible explanation here, evolution does not require god to have created it or to watch over it. Nor, however, does evolution deny that god created evolution or watches over it. It is simple fact that evolution does not need god in order to be the mechanism by which things occur.
I look at the original statement, and see "require" as in "well, god doesn't have to exist for this to be true, because its a seperate question from the question of god. Both can be true, one can be true and not the other, or neither can be true."
Please note much shorthand in this post.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Paul, up until neither can be true. Since evolution is being promoted here as fact/very strong theory so in the minds of some we couldn't say evolution might not be true.
And isn't gravity still a mystery, when it comes right down to it? I mean, unified field theory vs. quantum mechanics and all that.
Even within evolution theory there is tension between punctuated equilibrists and uniformitarians.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said that I thought God watches over evolution, but I don't think he is interfering with its development much. Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, re the 2nd part, thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood where you were placing God in the process.
Re the first part, I think we're in agreement. It didn't follow from that that the 2nd part was wrong, IMO. Those were two disconnected thoughts.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, ok, Bob, I misunderstood which part you were referring to.
quote:As a possible explanation here, evolution does not require god to have created it or to watch over it. Nor, however, does evolution deny that god created evolution or watches over it. It is simple fact that evolution does not need god in order to be the mechanism by which things occur.
I look at the original statement, and see "require" as in "well, god doesn't have to exist for this to be true, because its a seperate question from the question of god. Both can be true, one can be true and not the other, or neither can be true."
The scientific theory of evolution does not require God to maintain it's explanatory power.
I interpreted johnson's original statement as "we know evolution would have occurred without God's assistance either at the start or during the process." I think it was the use of the word "fact" that made me interpret it that way.
When speaking of "fact," whether God created the universe is an important factor in determining whether evolution, as it happened, required God in some fashion. It's not part of the scientific inquiry, but it's certainly relevant to the inquiry into the overall truth.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I agree with Paul, up until neither can be true. Since evolution is being promoted here as fact/very strong theory so in the minds of some we couldn't say evolution might not be true."
Well, yes, evolution is a fact. Its also a theory. The truth of what happens may be something that doesn't look like the theory (although evolution is the most tested scientific theory ever, so this is a result that would be hard to imagine). But the theory of evolution may not be true. That doesn't mean that it not being true is of equal liklihood to it being true. It just means its within the realm of possibility that evolutionary theory is completely wrong.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ummm, I just laughed out loud at the scene where Jon cuts to the little monkey for an update and the monkey was banging the microphone on the desk. Jon said "We seem to be having some technical difficulties...." That was funny!
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
