Creationist Error #5: Evolution = Religion

[leibowde84]

quite the opposite, the universe has clearly validated several fundamental theistic predictions and refuted the opposite atheist ones.

Had the universe been static, eternal, uncreated, teaming with intelligent life, and physics was simple self explanatory- I'd accept the atheist implications of all those predictions

I'm also willing to accept the opposite ones, observed reality

We don't know that any of these things are false beyond the universe being static. We don't know nearly enough to say that the Universe is not "enternal, uncreated, and/or teaming with life". Those are still unanswered questions.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That has nothing to do with the scientific theory of Evolution itself. Maybe it says to take what these men say about God with a grain of salt, but it doesn't speak to the inaccuracies of modern evolution theory whatsoever.

Nothing to do with it?!

Are you saying it's complete coincidence that today's most prominent evolutionist's best selling book was called 'The God Delusion'!? evolution nothing at all to do with disproving God?

I don't think scientists should try to prove or disprove God. it's inherently unscientific to base science on either pre-supposition is it not? Lemaitre never wrote a book called 'The fluke delusion' because he had no interest in mixing his personal faith with science. He went out of his way to separate them, because he could- he acknowledged his ultimate beliefs were ultimately beliefs. In stark contrast to atheist pop-scientists like Dawkins

 

[viole]

Well I agree, the assumption that the universe ought to be eternal (explicitly to contradict a creator God) was not a productive one. Nor that the laws of physics should be extremely simple and self explanatory for the same rationale of making God redundant.

In the history of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time, it's often been a case of science v the atheism assumption. To seek to make God redundant rather than to seek the truth

Unfortunately for you, this paradigm to exclude the supernatural when studying things seems to be very effective.

So, either God likes to make things so that they can be effectively explained without Him, or He does not exist.

Your call.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

Nothing to do with it?!

Are you saying it's complete coincidence that today's most prominent evolutionist's best selling book was called 'The God Delusion'!? evolution nothing at all to do with disproving God?

I don't think scientists should try to prove or disprove God. it's inherently unscientific to base science on either pre-supposition is it not? Lemaitre never wrote a book called 'The fluke delusion' because he had no interest in mixing his personal faith with science. He went out of his way to separate them, because he could- he acknowledged his ultimate beliefs were ultimately beliefs. In stark contrast to atheist pop-scientists like Dawkins

lol. Richard Dawkins is not an expert in evolution, he is an Ethologist. I'm sure there are plenty of people who take his word on evolution as fact, but that is merely showing of their own ignorance. He has valid opinions that I agree with on the subject, and he has others that I don't. He is not an "evolutionist", unless you merely mean those that believe that the theory of evolution is accurate.

My argument is that the scientists who are furthering the study of evolution in laboratories and such have no reason to falsify information or disprove God. They are merely making inferences based on the evidence that they find. To throw Dawkins into the mix is ludicrous. Is Ken Hamm the spokesman for your position?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nothing to do with it?!

Are you saying it's complete coincidence that today's most prominent evolutionist's best selling book was called 'The God Delusion'!? evolution nothing at all to do with disproving God?

I don't think scientists should try to prove or disprove God. it's inherently unscientific to base science on either pre-supposition is it not? Lemaitre never wrote a book called 'The fluke delusion' because he had no interest in mixing his personal faith with science. He went out of his way to separate them, because he could- he acknowledged his ultimate beliefs were ultimately beliefs. In stark contrast to atheist pop-scientists like Dawkins

I would say it has no bearing on the actual evidence.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

For the record I was raised a staunch atheist, studied computer science at institution historically renowned for proponents of evolution, my first seeds of doubt were sown trying to simulate/demonstrate the power of natural selection. This despite any feelings of skepticism being overtly condemned as the worst kind of heresy.

And I've told you I don't really believe your claims. Its not really that way or the other really. I just know that from what you have showcased about evolution you have proven yourself very uneducated on the matter. Also your story about trying to write a program to prove evolution correct and not being able to shows me that you have issues with both the subjects of computer programming or at least its proper applications and the theory of evolution itself.

Skepticism is nice. Skepticism is great. I am glad you are skeptical about certain things. But when you say things like "I'm skeptical of atheism" I can't take you seriously.

So even if you can write computer programs you clearly don't know enough about evolution to program a simulation in any kind of meaningful way. I would urge you to look into models and simulations that have been made in the last five years. I don't personally know of any but I'm sure they are there. Just for fun you should do it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

We agree the on method itself that we both know and love. And again Lemaitre and Planck were notable skeptics of atheism

But come off it! I'm talking about how people like Hoyle, Hawking, Krauss, Dawkins approach(ed) it, Sagan and Tyson for that matter, people who very much influence popular beliefs. they can barely describe how to make a cup of tea without claiming it disproves God in the process. Absolutely it's been the Holy Grail for many atheist scientists for a long time.

Tyson attempts greatly to not get involved with the debate of god. Sagan had some things to say on the matter but was mostly for educating people. Hawking has said a few things in recent years about god but its hardly any kind of focus of his work. Krauss and Dawkins are the only two that are actually people who intentionally promote atheism and skepticism of religion.

Lemaitre and Planck were not skeptics of atheism because that is a nonsensical statement. They were theists.

None of the people above have any "authority" in science. Dawkins has done some work that has proved his worth as a scientist far before he wrote the God Delusion. Hawking has done a lot in theoretical science and is well respected in his field for it but none of his works had anything to do with religion or god at all. None of his topics. Unless something about his work on black holes was inspired about his lack of belief in god I don't see how any of their personal opinions no the matter has anything to do with what we consider scientific fact.

 

[leibowde84]

Tyson attempts greatly to not get involved with the debate of god. Sagan had some things to say on the matter but was mostly for educating people. Hawking has said a few things in recent years about god but its hardly any kind of focus of his work. Krauss and Dawkins are the only two that are actually people who intentionally promote atheism and skepticism of religion.

Lemaitre and Planck were not skeptics of atheism because that is a nonsensical statement. They were theists.

None of the people above have any "authority" in science. Dawkins has done some work that has proved his worth as a scientist far before he wrote the God Delusion. Hawking has done a lot in theoretical science and is well respected in his field for it but none of his works had anything to do with religion or god at all. None of his topics. Unless something about his work on black holes was inspired about his lack of belief in god I don't see how any of their personal opinions no the matter has anything to do with what we consider scientific fact.

Exactly. Dawkins does not represent the theory of Evolution in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And I've told you I don't really believe your claims. Its not really that way or the other really. I just know that from what you have showcased about evolution you have proven yourself very uneducated on the matter. Also your story about trying to write a program to prove evolution correct and not being able to shows me that you have issues with both the subjects of computer programming or at least its proper applications and the theory of evolution itself.

Skepticism is nice. Skepticism is great. I am glad you are skeptical about certain things. But when you say things like "I'm skeptical of atheism" I can't take you seriously.

So even if you can write computer programs you clearly don't know enough about evolution to program a simulation in any kind of meaningful way. I would urge you to look into models and simulations that have been made in the last five years. I don't personally know of any but I'm sure they are there. Just for fun you should do it.

Just telling you my background in good faith, I don't think it makes me Yoda. I've worked on mostly boring commercial applications, some fun things like chess games and flight sims. - the ones that require a degree of artificial intelligence, learning are the most interesting.
But there's something about coding that is utterly unique, it's ability to expose flaws in your own logic- that you probably would not accept from another person.
I don't claim to have debunked evolution- I just proved to myself that random mutation and natural selection is not the simple mechanism for progress I'd been taught to believe, as many have

Again like classical physics, the devil is in the details, you can describe the superficial observations with nice clean simple intuitive rules, which work beautifully in theory- not so much in practice.

Simulations of life are created by ID, specifically to try to generate interesting results- Yet how often will one produce sentience, intelligence, free will? Even simulating trillions of generations and trying to prod them to do so-

One self extracting archive of information was composed in such a way as to achieve just this- the singularity, by chance? not impossible, certainly not a default answer though. That's why i'm skeptical of atheism.

 

[leibowde84]

Simulations of life are created by ID, specifically to try to generate interesting results- Yet how often will one produce sentience, intelligence, free will? Even simulating trillions of generations and trying to prod them to do so-

But, this merely points out our own limitations as human beings, not a fault with the theory. It is absurd to demand such things when inferences can be made in other ways.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But, this merely points out our own limitations as human beings, not a fault with the theory. It is absurd to demand such things when inferences can be made in other ways.

Perhaps, but did the ultraviolet catastrophe demonstrate our limitations as human beings? or the limitations of classical physics itself? inferences to classical physics can also still be made other ways today, apples still fall from trees- literally, and figuratively in terms of our offspring carrying our genes with small changes.. i.e. of course the superficial observations supporting evolution will always be there either way.

It points out that the core process as often touted- random change + selection of superior changes, does in itself not inherently= diverse, complex far less sentient life.
just as matter and gravity do not inherently assemble themselves into fusion reactors diversifying the chemistry of our world (including elements for life). Without specific instructions towards those ends, they'd create nothing at all.

And when the difficulties with the system are pointed out- the fossil record is touted- and vice versa- as Monk said

" If fossils were the end all to evolution then we would be stumped. However the fossils are a neat little diagram at best in many cases. Evolution itself as a process is undeniable"

But as it turns out, the process is as yet utterly unfathomable to us, we have no idea how to replicate such productive results in sims or we certainly would- I'm talking about the process that self improves a molecule into a human being with no specific instructions, blueprint of that specific result- merely natural selection + random changes- given any number of generations, far less the geological blinks of an eye that are emerging from the fossil record. It's a mystery we simply have not solved yet. Way too early to close the book.

 

[leibowde84]

Perhaps, but did the ultraviolet catastrophe demonstrate our limitations as human beings? or the limitations of classical physics itself? inferences to classical physics can also still be made other ways today, apples still fall from trees- literally, and figuratively in terms of our offspring carrying our genes with small changes.. i.e. of course the superficial observations supporting evolution will always be there either way.

It points out that the core process as often touted- random change + selection of superior changes, does in itself not inherently= diverse, complex far less sentient life.
just as matter and gravity do not inherently assemble themselves into fusion reactors diversifying the chemistry of our world (including elements for life). Without specific instructions towards those ends, they'd create nothing at all.

And when the difficulties with the system are pointed out- the fossil record is touted- and vice versa- as Monk said

" If fossils were the end all to evolution then we would be stumped. However the fossils are a neat little diagram at best in many cases. Evolution itself as a process is undeniable"

But as it turns out, the process is as yet utterly unfathomable to us, we have no idea how to replicate such productive results in sims or we certainly would- I'm talking about the process that self improves a molecule into a human being with no specific instructions, blueprint of that specific result- merely natural selection + random changes- given any number of generations, far less the geological blinks of an eye that are emerging from the fossil record. It's a mystery we simply have not solved yet. Way too early to close the book.

That is my point. Evolution is the best explanation according to the evidence. Nothing else comes close.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Just telling you my background in good faith, I don't think it makes me Yoda. I've worked on mostly boring commercial applications, some fun things like chess games and flight sims. - the ones that require a degree of artificial intelligence, learning are the most interesting.
But there's something about coding that is utterly unique, it's ability to expose flaws in your own logic- that you probably would not accept from another person.
I don't claim to have debunked evolution- I just proved to myself that random mutation and natural selection is not the simple mechanism for progress I'd been taught to believe, as many have

I can agree it isn't "simple". The basic concept is simple. Its actuality is incredibly complex. Thus is the nature of such things.

Again like classical physics, the devil is in the details, you can describe the superficial observations with nice clean simple intuitive rules, which work beautifully in theory- not so much in practice.

Simulations of life are created by ID, specifically to try to generate interesting results- Yet how often will one produce sentience, intelligence, free will? Even simulating trillions of generations and trying to prod them to do so-

One self extracting archive of information was composed in such a way as to achieve just this- the singularity, by chance? not impossible, certainly not a default answer though. That's why i'm skeptical of atheism.

That doesn't make you skeptical of atheism. It makes you skeptical of naturalism. Its like saying your are being skeptical of being skeptical. You can take it to the next level and say you are skeptical of naturalism, strong atheism, anti-theism or any other number of other stances. But not atheism in general.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That is my point. Evolution is the best explanation according to the evidence. Nothing else comes close.

well most of us think ID is a better explanation, but it's obviously debatable- hence this site!

 

[leibowde84]

well most of us think ID is a better explanation, but it's obviously debatable- hence this site!

"Most of" who? And, you seem to think that Intelligent Design and Evolution are mutually exclusive. Why is that? I feel like most people educated on the topic believe that Evolution is the way that life forms changed over vast amounts of time, but that doesn't mean that God did not have a part in it.

 

[McBell]

I do believe you missed the whole point.

I suspect it was done so intentionally.

 

[leibowde84]

well most of us think ID is a better explanation, but it's obviously debatable- hence this site!

I would argue that the vast majority of people educated on the subject and aware of the scientific evidence discovered thus far would claim evolution (whether directed by some kind of intelligence or not) is the best explanation we have thus far.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I can agree it isn't "simple". The basic concept is simple. Its actuality is incredibly complex. Thus is the nature of such things.

That doesn't make you skeptical of atheism. It makes you skeptical of naturalism. Its like saying your are being skeptical of being skeptical. You can take it to the next level and say you are skeptical of naturalism, strong atheism, anti-theism or any other number of other stances. But not atheism in general.

what's the difference, atheists don't believe in a natural origin for life and the universe?

 

[leibowde84]

what's the difference, atheists don't believe in a natural origin for life and the universe?

No, they merely haven't been convinced that there is any reason to think that a supernatural entity must be the cause. Hard to blame them. They aren't claiming that they have the answer. They are merely of the opinion that we don't have sufficient reason to jump to the conclusion of "God" or any kind of supernatural intelligent entity.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I would argue that the vast majority of people educated on the subject and aware of the scientific evidence discovered thus far would claim evolution (whether directed by some kind of intelligence or not) is the best explanation we have thus far.

I'd call directed by intelligence ID not evolution, but getting into semantics- belief in fundamentalist evolution (chance only) is <20% in U.S.