Creationist Error #5: Evolution = Religion

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm sorry, but if you think that evolution is a denial of intelligent design, you are using an incorrect meaning, as that would not be logically possible. Materialism and naturalism, however, do this.

I purposefully avoided the term evolution- which belief do you hold?

 

[leibowde84]

So do you think the specific results themselves were not ever directly intended? You don't think God was actively shooting for a sentient being capable of morality, knowing creation, loving it's creator? This was an unplanned accident?

I wouldn't attempt to guess at such things. I have no reason to believe either way. And, frankly, it doesn't matter to me. I am more interested in learning about the natural process that we can understand a great deal about.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I wouldn't attempt to guess at such things. I have no reason to believe either way. And, frankly, it doesn't matter to me. I am more interested in learning about the natural process that we can understand a great deal about.

So after all that I assumed correctly the first time, you believe in evolution as most understand it, a natural process of random mutation and natural selection capable of creating humanity without following any divine blueprint.

I believe in ID, that species were designed, not the result of a natural process of random mutation and natural selection-

two completely distinct beliefs any way you look at it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Then feel free to go out and actually demonstrate it, as many, many others have been able to do for evolution.

Then ID can be taken seriously.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

What is "fundamentalist evolution?"

 

[SkepticThinker]

So after all that I assumed correctly the first time, you believe in evolution as most understand it, a natural process of random mutation and natural selection capable of creating humanity without following any divine blueprint.

I believe in ID, that species were designed, not the result of a natural process of random mutation and natural selection-

two completely distinct beliefs any way you look at it.

Most Christians I know would say that evolution is a natural process designed by god.

 

[leibowde84]

So after all that I assumed correctly the first time, you believe in evolution as most understand it, a natural process of random mutation and natural selection capable of creating humanity without following any divine blueprint.

I believe in ID, that species were designed, not the result of a natural process of random mutation and natural selection-

two completely distinct beliefs any way you look at it.

What evidence do you have that supports ID over ToE? I understand that you think it "unbelievable" that random mutations and natural selection could have gotten us here, but do you have any actual objective evidence that supports ID? It just seems that you are basing your belief in ID merely on your not being willing to buy into evolution, but that would be flawed logic. It is assuming that there are only two options, and is an argument from ignorance. In other words, "if evolution is too far-out to buy into, it must be God that had something to do with it". That is flawed, as you must support outside evidence, not proving evolution's flaws, but showing why ID is accurate.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

like multiverses? M theory? String theory? I guess that makes me a Pragmatic theist!

This is pragmatic materialism. Would you walk off of a cliff because you just believe there is an invisible bridge? Or do you assume that there isn't anything there to stop your fall? If you trust that there isn't anything but thin air over the edge of a cliff then that makes you a pragmatic materialist in that situation. All of science must be studied under scrutiny. There is no luxury of baseless assumptions in which non-material concepts could be tested or based for theories.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What evidence do you have that supports ID over ToE? I understand that you think it "unbelievable" that random mutations and natural selection could have gotten us here, but do you have any actual objective evidence that supports ID? It just seems that you are basing your belief in ID merely on your not being willing to buy into evolution, but that would be flawed logic. It is assuming that there are only two options, and is an argument from ignorance. In other words, "if evolution is too far-out to buy into, it must be God that had something to do with it". That is flawed, as you must support outside evidence, not proving evolution's flaws, but showing why ID is accurate.

well classical physics was first red flagged for what it failed to account for, rather than anything quantum physics objectively provided as an alternative.

But
ToE made a clear prediction that natural history would show smooth steady incremental improvements
ID predicted sudden jumps, explosions of life 'as if planted there with no evolutionary history' you might say?

Other than objective observation, we can also test the process, repeat the experiment, the algorithm of random change and selection, and it does not cause continual improvements and emergent properties that are not explicitly selected for , let alone cause computers to spontaneously develop sentience and ponder their own existence, ever.

it ultimately gets back to power of explanation

In a casino where a guy plays 10 royal flushes in a row, we only have evidence of a random card generator, which we know is capable of producing that result with the same probability as any other sequence of the same number of cards. We have no evidence of cheating, in fact the situation actively seeks to prevent it.

Yet we'd both determine that in this case 'fluke is too far out to buy into, so 'ID' must have something to do with it'

Because the tiny odds of fluke are easily overcome by the tiniest possibility of cheating. That's the power of explanation purpose has over nature, it does not need to rely on staggeringly remote chance to play strings of winning hands.

 

[SkepticThinker]

well classical physics was first red flagged for what it failed to account for, rather than anything quantum physics objectively provided as an alternative.

But
ToE made a clear prediction that natural history would show smooth steady incremental improvements
ID predicted sudden jumps, explosions of life 'as if planted there with no evolutionary history' you might say?

Other than objective observation, we can also test the process, repeat the experiment, the algorithm of random change and selection, and it does not cause continual improvements and emergent properties that are not explicitly selected for , let alone cause computers to spontaneously develop sentience and ponder their own existence, ever.

it ultimately gets back to power of explanation

In a casino where a guy plays 10 royal flushes in a row, we only have evidence of a random card generator, which we know is capable of producing that result with the same probability as any other sequence of the same number of cards. We have no evidence of cheating, in fact the situation actively seeks to prevent it.

Yet we'd both determine that in this case 'fluke is too far out to buy into, so 'ID' must have something to do with it'

Because the tiny odds of fluke are easily overcome by the tiniest possibility of cheating. That's the power of explanation purpose has over nature, it does not need to rely on staggeringly remote chance to play strings of winning hands.

Can you demonstrate ID the same way scientists are able to demonstrate evolution? Evidence is what I'm looking for.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

That couldn't be further from the truth. Actually, many of the great discoveries happen by accident, things that show a hypothesis to be wrong, things found by accident, and things that happened in ways that weren't predicted. And one thing you are doing, that surprises me, is overlooking that many scientists have been theist, and motivated by the believe that to understand the earth and the universe, in entirely material terms, is to understand god's creation.
It may be hard for you to believe, but there is no atheist prerequisite in science (and idea that annoys and irritates many real scientists because they know it's not true and that it drives people away from science), nor is there any atheist conspiracy (again, something that annoys and irritates real scientists because they know that is bad science).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In a casino where a guy plays 10 royal flushes in a row, we only have evidence of a random card generator, which we know is capable of producing that result with the same probability as any other sequence of the same number of cards. We have no evidence of cheating, in fact the situation actively seeks to prevent it.

Yet we'd both determine that in this case 'fluke is too far out to buy into, so 'ID' must have something to do with it'

If the cards are randomly shuffled in a machine and someone gets 10 royal flushes in a row, there is no reason to speculate there is any design behind it. It would be extremely rare and unlikely, but not a statistical or theoretical impossibility, and assuming the cards are truly randomly shuffled, the odds of hitting the 10th royal flush was just as high as the first, so it's easy to perceive the even as an "odd stroke of luck," a "statistical anomaly," or however you want to put it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That couldn't be further from the truth. Actually, many of the great discoveries happen by accident, things that show a hypothesis to be wrong, things found by accident, and things that happened in ways that weren't predicted. And one thing you are doing, that surprises me, is overlooking that many scientists have been theist, and motivated by the believe that to understand the earth and the universe, in entirely material terms, is to understand god's creation.
It may be hard for you to believe, but there is no atheist prerequisite in science (and idea that annoys and irritates many real scientists because they know it's not true and that it drives people away from science), nor is there any atheist conspiracy (again, something that annoys and irritates real scientists because they know that is bad science).

You must have read my mind. I was about to write something along these lines.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Interesting conversations. It appears that Guy is completely convinced that evolution -- and science as a whole -- is, indeed, a "religion".

Well, Guy ... It's not.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If the cards are randomly shuffled in a machine and someone gets 10 royal flushes in a row, there is no reason to speculate there is any design behind it. It would be extremely rare and unlikely, but not a statistical or theoretical impossibility, and assuming the cards are truly randomly shuffled, the odds of hitting the 10th royal flush was just as high as the first, so it's easy to perceive the even as an "odd stroke of luck," a "statistical anomaly," or however you want to put it.

exactly then, in order to conclude chance, we'd have to utterly rule out the possibility of cheating (ID) - because even a billion to one possibility of cheating would make that explanation far more probable.
We have no basis to utterly rule out God.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And one thing you are doing, that surprises me, is overlooking that many scientists have been theist, and motivated by the believe that to understand the earth and the universe, in entirely material terms, is to understand god's creation.

We agree here, Lemaitre was a Catholic priest, and his 'primeval atom' was mocked and rejected by atheists like Hoyle as 'Big Bang' & 'psuedoscience' for what they complained of as the overt theistic implications of a creation event. They all preferred static models for the exact opposite rationale; no creation = no creator.

that's the science v atheism I'm referring to

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Can you demonstrate ID the same way scientists are able to demonstrate evolution? Evidence is what I'm looking for.

Me too!

'it's as though they [fossils] were just planted there with no evolutionary history' (Dawkins)
'Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent...'(Gould)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What is "fundamentalist evolution?"

the belief that humans evolved purely by chance with no guidance from God- Darwinism in effect- 19% in US

Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design | Gallup Historical Trends

 

[Ultimatum]

the belief

Stopped reading...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Stopped reading...

superstition?