Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[Subduction Zone]

The same observation that distinguishes a pattern of rocks spelling 'HELP' on a deserted island beach, from the rest that convey no information.

Arguably the random action of the waves is capable, and even just as likely to spell a 4 letter word as any particular meaningless pattern right?- it's just not the best explanation unless we can utterly rule out intelligent agency to a practically impossible degree.

As above, that's why God must be presumed to not exist by default, if he's allowed on the playing field, there's not much competition!

It looks like Guy is ignoring the role that natural selection has when it comes to evolution

Creationists appear to have only a single eye that can only look at natural selection or variation at one time. When they look at one they forget about the other.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

OK, but we can only distinguish when there is intelligent action by knowing what the range is of natural action, right? It's a process of elimination based on probabilities?

Yes, we can argue all day whether the world to us seems intuitively, subjectively, natural or designed, right?

But mathematics is the most objective measure we have, if a gambler plays 4 royal flushes in a row- chance is not impossible, it's just not most probable as an explanation

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, we can argue all day whether the world to us seems intuitively, subjectively, natural or designed, right?

But mathematics is the most objective measure we have, if a gambler plays 4 royal flushes in a row- chance is not impossible, it's just not most probable as an explanation

And once again the obvious ignorance of natural selection and trying to argue that evolution is random. Since evolution is based on populations a better example would be how if one could keep throwing bad cards back into the deck that every deck would deal out 4 royal flushes within a relatively short amount of time.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, we can argue all day whether the world to us seems intuitively, subjectively, natural or designed, right?

But mathematics is the most objective measure we have, if a gambler plays 4 royal flushes in a row- chance is not impossible, it's just not most probable as an explanation

Right, but natural laws are not the same as chance. And, given that natural laws do allow for increased structure and complex interaction, the complexity alone isn't enough to say something else is operative. Even as a probability.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Right, but natural laws are not the same as chance. And, given that natural laws do allow for increased structure and complex interaction..

natural laws are your royal flushes, though that would be selling them short. Nature is the executor of God's laws (Galileo)

A watch runs on it's own built in natural laws also, it requires no intelligence to function. automated function ≠ automated origin, the opposite argument can be made at least as well

complexity alone isn't enough to say something else is operative. Even as a probability.

We agree here; bricks dumped in a random pile represent a far more complex pattern than a perfect brick wall, don't they?

i.e. it's not complexity in itself that reveals the fingerprint of ID, but the functionality, the specified information required to build the wall, the purpose the function serves..

 

[Polymath257]

natural laws are your royal flushes, though that would be selling them short. Nature is the executor of God's laws (Galileo)

A watch runs on it's own built in natural laws also, it requires no intelligence to function. automated function ≠ automated origin, the opposite argument can be made at least as well

So you argue a deist deity? Get the process going and let it run? If the deity is only involved in the making of the laws and setting the initial conditions, then we can still use the natural laws to explain everything else, right?

We agree here; bricks dumped in a random pile represent a far more complex pattern than a perfect brick wall, don't they?

In this case, the detailed description would be more complex, but natural laws operating alone are far more likely to make the pile of bricks than a brick wall because the attraction between the separated bricks isn't enough to counteract gravity.

i.e. it's not complexity in itself that reveals the fingerprint of ID, but the functionality, the specified information required to build the wall, the purpose the function serves..

No, it is that a structure of the type of a brick wall is unlikely to be made by natural forces. The bricks do not attract themselves in a way that promotes such structure.

 

[ecco]

Lol.

Actually, the Bible states regarding it's position:

God is "suspending the Earth upon nothing"! -- Job 26:7

If this statement wasn't divinely inspired, how could the writer say something so outrageous (for those times,) yet be so accurate??

Let's look at some more of J:26
Bible Quote
ecco Comment

5“The dead tremble,
Those under the waters and those inhabiting them.

Dead people who inhabit the waters are trembling?​

6(Ps. 139:8); Prov. 15:11; (Heb. 4:13)Sheol is naked before Him,
And Destruction has no covering.

That's profoundly meaningless​

8Job 37:11; Prov. 30:4He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
Yet the clouds are not broken under it.

OK, there's water in the clouds. People knew that for about 100,000 years.
​

9He covers the face of His throne,
And spreads His cloud over it.

More meaningless drivel.
​

His hand pierced Is. 27:1the fleeing serpent.

Care to translate this?

​

But let's get back to your original snippet:

God is "suspending the Earth upon nothing"! -- Job 26:7
​

Point of fact: the earth is not suspended nor is it hanging as in some translations. Perhaps you need to look up the definitions of hanging and suspended. The fact that you have to try to make such a stretch speaks volumes about the utter lack of anything credible in the bible.

 

[ecco]

As I previously stated, If science allows gods into the picture, then LastThursdayism is as good an explanation as...[turtles]...so why bother doing any research?

It did not inhibit Newton, or Galileo, or Boyle, or_____(insert Bible-believer here). In fact, as has been pointed out to you, it would increase their curiosity: understanding a superior intelligence was behind it, gives them added ingucement to discover their purpose, the why.

Darwin! You neglected to mention Darwin. Why? Didn't Darwin set out to figure out how god did it?

In any case, people like Darwin and Galileo didn't believe the simplistic biblical interpretations - that's what inspired them.

On the other hand, people like you blindly accept the simplistic biblical interpretations of your religion. Since there were a lot more people like you than people like Galileo, science progressed very slowly.

 

[ecco]

But it [science] is not very helpful for understanding many other aspects of human experience.

What "other aspects of human experience"?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So you argue a deist deity? Get the process going and let it run? If the deity is only involved in the making of the laws and setting the initial conditions, then we can still use the natural laws to explain everything else, right?

Well time as we understand it would be one of God's creations, he is not restrained by his own laws. He created the future along with the past- So I think the distinction between theism and deism is something of a false dichotomy

In this case, the detailed description would be more complex, but natural laws operating alone are far more likely to make the pile of bricks than a brick wall because the attraction between the separated bricks isn't enough to counteract gravity.

No, it is that a structure of the type of a brick wall is unlikely to be made by natural forces. The bricks do not attract themselves in a way that promotes such structure.

Agreed, but if they did, again this automation of functionality would not particularly suggest, far less prove, automated origin would it?

 

[exchemist]

What "other aspects of human experience"?

Love, loss, fulfilment, desolation, appreciation of music, art and literature, humour, anger, hate, despair.....those sorts of of things.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Darwin! You neglected to mention Darwin. Why? Didn't Darwin set out to figure out how god did it?

Because he didn't, that's the problem. he tried to figure out a way for it to happen without God, which is what led to all the problems, failed predictions, false assumptions

Ultimately, the problem here with materialism is as always- that it inherently seeks the neatest simplest 'God refuting' explanation for anything and everything, and so is inherently shy about opening new cans of worms, finding ever deeper layers of sophistication with their unsettling implications.

A skeptic of atheism has no such reservations

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Because he didn't, he tried to figure out a way for it to happen without God, which is what led to all the problems, failed predictions, false assumptions

This is a flat-out lie. Darwin was raised a Unitarian and started studying to be a clergyman. He went on the voyage of the Beagle with the express intent of looking for "centres of creation". His mind was changed by what he observed in the natural world. He went out looking for further understanding of what he saw as God's creation and came away questioning the Bible.

SOURCES:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1925&pageseq=388
Darwin Online: 'Coccatoos & Crows': An introduction to the Sydney Notebook
Religious views of Charles Darwin - Wikipedia

Ultimately, the problem here with materialism is as always- that it inherently seeks the neatest simplest 'God refuting' explanation for anything and everything, and so is inherently shy about opening new cans of worms, finding ever deeper layers of sophistication with their unsettling implications.

A skeptic of atheism has no such reservations

This is pure projection. A religious, traditionally monotheistic viewpoint has an inherent bias to not allow questioning, doubt, reservation or skepticism. You can see it in your own post here: you are having to lie to prop up a false notion of history to construct a narrative that paints opposing views to yours in a negative light, when the truth is that all of your criticisms of atheism apply far more exclusively to the beliefs you hold.

 

[exchemist]

Because he didn't, he tried to figure out a way for it to happen without God, which is what led to all the problems, failed predictions, false assumptions

Ultimately, the problem here with materialism is as always- that it inherently seeks the neatest simplest 'God refuting' explanation for anything and everything, and so is inherently shy about opening new cans of worms, finding ever deeper layers of sophistication with their unsettling implications.

A skeptic of atheism has no such reservations

With you, that now makes a tally of three people on this forum who confuse the exclusion of the supernatural from science with refutations of God. The two things are quite separate.

Nothing in science precludes God. But science is short for "natural science" i.e. not supernatural science. The procedure of seeking explanations of nature in terms of nature itself is core to the brilliant success of science since the Renaissance. The scientists for the past 300 years were not all atheists. Many were in fact monks or clergymen. Newton himself trained for Holy Orders at Cambridge, though by the end of his life was a Unitarian. Copernicus was a doctor of canon law. Buckland, one of the founders of geology, was a Church of England priest (eventually Dean of Westminster). And plenty of scientists today are believers (Ken Miller is one well-known one).

But the fact that science lessons do not include theology should not surprise anyone. That is not how the scientific method works, that's all.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

With you, that now makes a tally of three people on this forum who confuse the exclusion of the supernatural from science with refutations of God. The two things are quite separate.

Again, It was quite explicitly, unambiguously, refutation of God that caused Hoyle and other atheists to reject and mock the primeval atom as 'Big Bang' and 'religious psuedoscience'

They preferred static/eternal models for the opposite rationale (no creation = no creator)

Hawking claimed the failed 'Big Crunch' made God redundant

Dawkins' best selling book is called 'The God Delusion' not 'Objective Evidence for Darwinian Evolution'

Nothing in science precludes God. But science is short for "natural science" i.e. not supernatural science. The procedure of seeking explanations of nature in terms of nature itself is core to the brilliant success of science since the Renaissance. The scientists for the past 300 years were not all atheists. Many were in fact monks or clergymen. Newton himself trained for Holy Orders at Cambridge, though by the end of his life was a Unitarian. Copernicus was a doctor of canon law. Buckland, one of the founders of geology, was a Church of England priest (eventually Dean of Westminster). And plenty of scientists today are believers (Ken Miller is one well-known one).

But the fact that science lessons do not include theology should not surprise anyone. That is not how the scientific method works, that's all.

agreed, science is not the problem here, atheism is. Belief in God is as should be, a matter of personal faith- and Lemaitre made clear that his theory was about science, not God one way or another, that's how it should be on both sides don't you think?

 

[exchemist]

Again, It was quite explicitly, unambiguously, refutation of God that caused Hoyle and other atheists to reject and mock the primeval atom as 'Big Bang' and 'religious psuedoscience'

They preferred static/eternal models for the opposite rationale (no creation = no creator)

Hawking claimed the failed 'Big Crunch' made God redundant

Dawkins' best selling book is called 'The God Delusion' not 'Objective Evidence for Darwinian Evolution'




agreed, science is not the problem here, atheism is. Belief in God is as should be, a matter of personal faith- and Lemaitre made clear that his theory was about science, not God one way or another, that's how it should be on both sides don't you think?

Well yes I do agree science is not the "problem".

There is, in my opinion, a problem created by militant atheists such as Dawkins on the one hand and by militant creationists, such the ID movement, on the other. Both do a huge disservice to reasonable people by fomenting a war between science and religion based on false caricatures of both, which is very damaging as people feel impelled to take "sides" and then behave tribally about it.

I am unclear however whether you will be prepared to agree with me that consideration of the potential influence of God in the world is quite properly not the subject of science. Lemaitre would agree to that like a shot, as you clearly acknowledge.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again, It was quite explicitly, unambiguously, refutation of God that caused Hoyle and other atheists to reject and mock the primeval atom as 'Big Bang' and 'religious psuedoscience'
They preferred static/eternal models for the opposite rationale (no creation = no creator)

Hawking claimed the failed 'Big Crunch' made God redundant

Once again, it was EVIDENCE that led them to accept the BB. I don't know why you are still repeating the above over and over and over again after all this time.

Dawkins' best selling book is called 'The God Delusion' not 'Objective Evidence for Darwinian Evolution'

Except he did actually write a bestselling book about the objective evidence for evolution. It's called The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. I pointed this out to you about a week ago; the last time you tried with this claim. And now you're repeating the exact same thing again. And as I pointed out the last time, if you're actually trying to be honest here, you would have cited that book instead of the one you did (especially now that you've been made aware of it) which is not about evolution.

agreed, science is not the problem here, atheism is. Belief in God is as should be, a matter of personal faith- and Lemaitre made clear that his theory was about science, not God one way or another, that's how it should be on both sides don't you think?

Atheism is a response to the claim that god(s) exist. What is problematic about that?
Do you believe in Bigfoot? Is it somehow problematic for a person to withhold belief in Bigfoot until proper evidence is produced to support it's existence?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well yes I do agree science is not the "problem".

There is, in my opinion, a problem created by militant atheists such as Dawkins on the one hand and by militant creationists, such the ID movement, on the other. Both do a huge disservice to reasonable people by fomenting a war between science and religion based on false caricatures of both, which is very damaging as people feel impelled to take "sides" and then behave tribally about it.

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).” Dawkins

^ that is a very dangerous and hateful thing to say, especially from the world's most prominent Darwinist about the majority of free thinking humanity.

You would not find Stephen Meyer being anything like this venomous, he questions Dawkins interpretation of the scientific evidence, not his worth as a human being

Likewise I think people who believe in Darwinian evolution are generally intelligent, thoughtful, well meaning people, capable of critical thought. I know and love many of them, I would never even suggest otherwise

I am unclear however whether you will be prepared to agree with me that consideration of the potential influence of God in the world is quite properly not the subject of science. Lemaitre would agree to that like a shot, as you clearly acknowledge.

Intelligent design explicitly examines the evidence for an intelligent designer. Concluding that the Rosetta Stone involved ID is not a religious or supernatural conclusion.

Andre Linde (principle in modern inflationary theory) considers it possible that our universe was created by scientists in another universe. I think that's possible also.

I think 'God' as most understand it is the most probable explanation yes, but that's a matter of personal faith, as you, I and Lemaitre would agree?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Once again, it was EVIDENCE that led them to accept the BB. I don't know why you are still repeating the above over and over and over again after all this time.

I do not point this out any more often than somebody makes the claim; that atheist scientists never let their personal beliefs interfere with their scientific conclusions

It is unfortunate that it needs to be brought up so often yes. There are other examples, but this one is particularly stark, involving arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time.

Except he did actually write a bestselling book about the objective evidence for evolution. It's called The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. I pointed this out to you about a week ago; the last time you tried with this claim. And now you're repeating the exact same thing again. And as I pointed out the last time, if you're actually trying to be honest here, you would have cited that book instead of the one you did (especially now that you've been made aware of it) which is not about evolution.

his BEST selling book, his book that sold the most- correct me if I am wrong- was 'the God Delusion', the numbers may have changed for all I know- but the substance of the point is the same- don't lapse into ad hom of calling people dishonest here, I know you are capable of decent substantive arguments, those are far more interesting

Atheism is a response to the claim that god(s) exist. What is problematic about that?
Do you believe in Bigfoot? Is it somehow problematic for a person to withhold belief in Bigfoot until proper evidence is produced to support it's existence?

I don't believe in naturalistic mechanisms explaining our universe until proper evidence is produced

 

[exchemist]

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).” Dawkins

^ that is a very dangerous and hateful thing to say, especially from the world's most prominent Darwinist about the majority of free thinking humanity.

You would not find Stephen Meyer being anything like this venomous, he questions Dawkins interpretation of the scientific evidence, not his worth as a human being

Likewise I think people who believe in Darwinian evolution are generally intelligent, thoughtful, well meaning people, capable of critical thought. I know and love many of them, I would never even suggest otherwise



Intelligent design explicitly examines the evidence for an intelligent designer. Concluding that the Rosetta Stone involved ID is not a religious or supernatural conclusion.

Andre Linde (principle in modern inflationary theory) considers it possible that our universe was created by scientists in another universe. I think that's possible also.

I think 'God' as most understand it is the most probable explanation yes, but that's a matter of personal faith, as Lemaitre would agree I think

Still not sure what you are saying here.

If seeing God in the physical world is a matter of personal faith (to which I wholeheartedly agree), do you then agree with Lemaitre that science is right to continue to exclude supernatural hypotheses?