Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[viole]

The human free will is the EXCEPTION to everything that has been pre-determined. Our actions are not pre-determined, they were written by our own hands.

I beg to dissent. Any action that we perform that involves a change of state of the physical Universe, for instance kicking a ball, was predetermined before our birth.

This is a consequence of the information preserving qualities of the laws of physics. And these laws do not make any exceptions.

Ciao

- viole

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I beg to dissent. Any action that we perform that involves a change of state of the physical Universe, for instance kicking a ball, was predetermined before our birth.

This is a consequence of the information preserving qualities of the laws of physics. And these laws do not make any exceptions.

Ciao

- viole

What about quantum events? I'm not an expert in quantum mechanics, but I think a central principle of it is that things happen without predetermination, but rather, are probabilistic at the quantum level. If so, maybe our choices are quantum mechanical in nature.

This is just pure conjecture on my part though. I might be misunderstanding something about quantum mechanics as well. It should also be noted that "probabilistic" still implies a degree of predictability. It's not completely random, but it's not completely determined either. It's predictable within a degree of probability, but not certainty. If nothing else, people do seem that way. People seem to make "choices" but within a degree of predetermination. People have habits, routines, preferences and such which are shaped by upbringing and life experience.

 

[viole]

What about quantum events? I'm not an expert in quantum mechanics, but I think a central principle of it is that things happen without predetermination, but rather, are probabilistic at the quantum level. If so, maybe our choices are quantum mechanical in nature.

This is just pure conjecture on my part though. I might be misunderstanding something about quantum mechanics as well.

I am not a physicist, just a poor mathematician, but I will give my two cents.

Classical physics is what quantum mechanics tend to when you have a lot of things, e.g particles, which are individually subject to quantum mechanics only. In other words, our reality is the actualization of expected values that the parts would assume when taken alone and subject to probability only. Since you have many of those, a lot of equal expected value will translate in the instance of that expected value (or mean value to be more exact). That is why macroscopic things seem to be deterministically determined.

To make an example. If you take a particle that can be randomly red or black, but its average value is towards black, then a lot of those partilces will be black when observed. And a body consisting of very many of them will look pitch black. With such a high probability to be indistinguishable from determinism.

So, I think that macroscopic determinism necessisates that quantum information is preserved. Therefore, believing that we can affect macroscopic determinism by means of free will, entails that we can affect the average values at quantum level for a multitude of particles at the same time. Ergo, that we break unitarity not for a ball, but for zillions of little random balls.

And this would make things even worse for whomever believes in free will changing the state of the Universe in such a way that is nor reducible to states prior to her decision.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Etritonakin]

It sounded like you were saying certain things (like intelligent life) aren't possible without an intelligent designer. Yet your so called "original" intelligence had no designer of his own. He/she is just there.

Sounds like a contradiction.

That is why it seems logical to me that ORIGINALLY, intelligence and design increased directly together -and are essentially the same thing -everything IS intelligent design.

Certain types or levels of intelligence are made possible by their design.
Certain types or levels of design are made possible by intelligence.

We are not original. We are a product of some sort of designer -simply because we are of some sort of design by some sort of process we did not originate -but we do not understand our designer. An intelligence similar to ours is not immediately apparent -so it seems that one was not necessary.

For the original designer -that which designated everything would be as it is now -to not require a designer, it must have been self-designing.
That is essentially what is believed about the Big Bang -but the specific nature, complexity and potential of the Big Bang indicates that it was not the very beginning of all things -not the most simple state possible.
It indicates that it was designed somehow -designated to produce what is from that which was.
That seems logical to me, anyway.

An original intelligence would have "always" existed -but not in its present state.
Intelligence is something that develops -as is design.
The most simple state of everything must have been somewhat complex -a most simple intelligence capable of design -and a most simple design capable of intelligence -being one in the same and increasing in complexity, capability, definition, etc...

Technically, that which we are made of has always existed -though not in its present state -but we are not original. The original is everything -and we are only a part of everything. The original first became that which came before us -and we are part of what the original became. We are made in the image and likeness of the original. He is spirit -(pre- or non-elemental) and we are presently flesh (elemental).

(While -in some respects -the elements allow for OUR capabilities, they are also the source of our limitations. Though they are somewhat subject to us, we are also made of them and are more subject to them. They will exist when we no longer exist as an arrangement of them -or within an arrangement of them.)

If it seems that I am saying that God could have "evolved", that is correct -but not the sort of evolution based on the elements. Design and intelligence evolve.

Direct scriptural quotes from God actually support the idea.

God says that he is all that was -and all that will be -THE beginning AND the end.

God says "I AM THAT I AM" -but also says.....

Isaiah 33:10 Now will I rise, saith the LORD; now will I be exalted; now will I lift up myself

 

[NoorNoor]

What's meant by "intelligence?"
If I take a bucket of sand and pour it on the ground it will form a cone. Is that intelligence? Is it design?

that would be kids playing on the beach not really a good example of intelligence.

Let me give you an example of intelligence. If words are codes that represent a meaning, then your ability to intentionally organize these codes in a specific structure to convey a specific meaning is an example of intelligence.
In another word "a design for a purpose". You design your sentence as an intentional organized structure for the purpose of conveying a specific meaning.

Human Intelligence is not only the ability of intentional design for a purpose but also is the external reference (embedded in our self-aware creation), against which any data within our environment can be measured/evaluated.

I'll give you an example of an external reference. a "2 inch" distance would have absolutely no meaning in isolation unless compared to a reference of a predetermined measurement. Similarly, any data, theories, concepts of any sort would be undefined till processed/compared with an external logical model as a function of intelligence.

In general, any value (physical or mental) would """only""" have a meaning relative to an external reference (physical or mental) against which it would be measured. The reference itself is another value that depends on another reference to identify it. The dependency of relative references has to end at a single independent reference against which every thing in existence gets its meaning. In absence of this single original refrence or intelligence, every thing (if existed) would be a total undefined randomness

A puddle conforms in every minute detail to the depression containing it; electricity takes the path of least resistance; natural selection weeds out ill adapted individuals; rocks in space accrete into spheres; gravity decreases by the square of distance -- Intelligence? Design? Blind, uncaring physics?

We can sure observe how things work. We can observe that opposite poles of magnets attract each other while similar poles repel. But why? Why this power is in effect? How? Why it works this way? Or why it's forced to work this way?

We can observe effects of laws of physics all around us but we don't know why these laws are in effect or what govern/force the physical elements of our world to follow these specific patterns or behaviors. We can observe fine tuned order in our entire physical world but we don't know what governs or controls this order.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We can observe fine tuned order in our entire physical world but we don't know what governs or controls this order.

How do you observe or measure "order"?

 

[NoorNoor]

How do you observe or measure "order"?

In a general sense, the elements of the physical world are not following random behavior but it functions in a rigid conformity to physical laws.

In a specific sense, the specific observations of the fine tuned universe confirming that a very slight change to the value of the very finely adjusted fundamental physical constants would make the universe radically different and would not allow for the establishment of astronomical structures, elemental diversity even life itself may not have a chance to exist

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In a general sense, the elements of the physical world are not following random behavior but it functions in a rigid conformity to physical laws.

In a specific sense, the specific observations of the fine tuned universe confirming that a very slight change to the value of the very finely adjusted fundamental physical constants would make the universe radically different and would not allow for the establishment of astronomical structures, elemental diversity even life itself may not have a chance to exist

So how does that make any of those things "ordered"? All you're essentially saying is "If things weren't how they are, they would be different". How is the way the are any more distinctly "ordered" than the way things would be otherwise? Why is life so particular that its existence indicates "order"?

 

[OurCreed]

That does not answer the question.

Do you accept the scientfic orthodoxy about evolution? Namely that we have a common biological ancestor with baboons, pigs, butterflies, spiders, trees and so on?

I insist on this because I noticed that many theists clam that their scriptures confirm science while, at the same time, they seem to be shy at accepting its consequences.

Ciao

- viole

Of course.

 

[OurCreed]

I beg to dissent. Any action that we perform that involves a change of state of the physical Universe, for instance kicking a ball, was predetermined before our birth.

This is a consequence of the information preserving qualities of the laws of physics. And these laws do not make any exceptions.

Ciao

- viole

The problem comes when you mix free agents into a world completely governed by natural laws. If there was no such thing as some being with autonomy and free will, and simply a universe with pre-determined laws, then the universe will always be going through one path, without any changes. As long as the initial laws remain the same as they always were, then every event that happens from there on out will be destined to happen.

But we are humans with autonomy and free choice, and we exist in this universe. So our actions, which are not determined by any physical laws of the universe, but something beyond that, are our own. The thing is, we cannot properly discuss this issue because we have now entered the realm of philosophy. Physics cannot answer things that go beyond the scope of the universe.

 

[NoorNoor]

So how does that make any of those things "ordered"? All you're essentially saying is "If things weren't how they are, they would be different". How is the way the are any more distinctly "ordered" than the way things would be otherwise? Why is life so particular that its existence indicates "order"?

In absence of reference, all would be undefined with absolutely no meaning as you discribed. The subject of our discussion was specifically whether our universe is an intelligent design precisely configured to allow life to exist. It that sense, “”yes”” life is the reference against which you make a judgment whether the configurations of our world are designed in order.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

This is a theory by Edward Witten. Joke or not, This definition was given by Edwards Witten himself (magic, mystify or membrane according to taste).

Your comparison is wrong. It's not M theory vs deity ex nihilo but the M theory vs the beginning of universe/time as understood by the big bang.

Multiverse theory is more philosophy or hypothesis than hard science. so far, it has remained in the realm of theory. It can't be tested or falsified and only accepted based on faith.

On the other hand, Science proved the remarkable fact that our universe is extremely fine tuned to an extent that a very minute change would make the universe radically different and would not allow for the existence of life.

Multiverse theory argues that our extremely fine tuned universe don't need a creator simply because its one of infinite numbers of other separate universes and being a fine tuned universe is a coincidence. This argument don't have any scientific merit since the multiverse itself is a hypothesis and even if it's some how gets proven in the future, then it needs also to prove that the other universes are not similarly fine tuned like our universe, which is impossible to prove.

In fact, believing in the creator based on solid confirmed observations of an extremely fine tuned universe and a creation point at the big bang, is far more scientific than believing in a hypothesis multiverse theory that invokes infinity of unseen universes based on mere faith

I'm thinking you need to actually read more about m-theory before calling it a philosophy or hypothesis. It's a theory for a reason. And theory is not synonymous with those terms.

Also, tye universe isn't fine-tuned in that it was created in such a way as life could exist in it. Life requires the specific set of criteria because that's how it evolved. In short, when looking at a puddle you must understand that the water conforms to the hole it's in, not the other way around.

But anyway, I'm not a physicist, I work in medicine with a biology background and came to talk about evolution, and why there is no such thing as a division between micro and macro evolution and other topical subjects.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In absence of reference, all would be undefined with absolutely no meaning as you discribed. The subject of our discussion was specifically whether our universe is an intelligent design precisely configured to allow life to exist. It that sense, “”yes”” life is the reference against which you make a judgment whether the configurations of our world are designed in order.

You've not really answered my question. How exactly have you determined that a Universe with life is any more intrinsically "ordered" than a Universe without life? Why should life be the reference against which you make a judgement as to whether or not the Universe was necessarily ordered? How do you know that the Universe was designed for life rather than, say, puddles? What's your evidence?

 

[NoorNoor]

I'm thinking you need to actually read more about m-theory before calling it a philosophy or hypothesis. It's a theory for a reason. And theory is not synonymous with those terms.

Let's not confuse M theory and Multiverse. Multiverse is a hypothesis that can't be tested or falsified. M theory is a "theory" but the proposed compactified extra dimensions model was not proven consistent with observations.

Also, tye universe isn't fine-tuned in that it was created in such a way as life could exist in it. Life requires the specific set of criteria because that's how it evolved. In short, when looking at a puddle you must understand that the water conforms to the hole it's in, not the other way around.

Absolutely false. Yes, life requires specific set of criteria to exist (at least from a scientific point of view). If your claim is true, you would end with life on every planet and also on every star or moon. Simply wherever you have some random process and long time. This how you want to believe it but its absolutely false

But anyway, I'm not a physicist, I work in medicine with a biology background and came to talk about evolution, and why there is no such thing as a division between micro and macro evolution and other topical subjects

The scale (small or large) in this case would be irrelevant. What matters is the concept itself. The facts are not made for us. We make it facts. However we want it to be. Yet the absolute fact stays external to the realm of our desires.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Let's not confuse M theory and Multiverse. Multiverse is a hypothesis that can't be tested or falsified. M theory is a "theory" but the proposed compactified extra dimensions model was not proven consistent with observations.

Unified M is the leading model and absolutely does have the most consistency with observations.

Absolutely false. Yes, life requires specific set of criteria to exist (at least from a scientific point of view). If your claim is true, you would end with life on every planet and also on every star or moon. Simply wherever you have some random process and long time. This how you want to believe it but its absolutely false

That's an reduction to extremes if I ever heard one. If I told you that blueberries evolved to be in more acidic soil, that does not mean that every bit of acidic soil should have blueberries.
Similarly, just because carbon-based life with DNA style self-replicators evolved to fit the environment does not mean other forms of life would evolve to fit every other environment.

The scale (small or large) in this case would be irrelevant. What matters is the concept itself. The facts are not made for us. We make it facts. However we want it to be. Yet the absolute fact stays external to the realm of our desires.

O-Kay....

 

[viole]

The problem comes when you mix free agents into a world completely governed by natural laws. If there was no such thing as some being with autonomy and free will, and simply a universe with pre-determined laws, then the universe will always be going through one path, without any changes. As long as the initial laws remain the same as they always were, then every event that happens from there on out will be destined to happen.

Yes. Time flow is an illusion, at least if relavity is true. The past is stll existing and the furure exists already. The Universe, as a whole, is unchanging. The good news is that I will exist forever. The bad news is that I am already dead

But we are humans with autonomy and free choice, and we exist in this universe. So our actions, which are not determined by any physical laws of the universe, but something beyond that, are our own. The thing is, we cannot properly discuss this issue because we have now entered the realm of philosophy. Physics cannot answer things that go beyond the scope of the universe.

I am not sure. If our current knwoledge of phyisics is correct, you cannot possibly add or remove information in the Universe. The simple act of me writing this post, and all the physical effects that it produces, could in principle be deduced by the physical state of the Universe, say, one billion years ago.

You might disagree, but this come at the cost of throwing current physics in the garbage bin of history. I think paying this price in order to salvage something as nebulous (and a bit egocentric) as free-will is very bad business.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Brian Schuh]

The Prophet Isaiah said that God stood at the end of time and spoke time backwards. Which I take to mean that the future already exists and was actually created first, from the end to the beginning.

Our free will is limited. No matter what we choose, ultimately it doesn't affect the big picture. Like it is believed that the Prophet Isaiah predicted the Temple would be rebuilt even before it was destroyed and said a man named Cyrus would decree it to be built. Assuming this is true for the sake of argument, (I doubt it myself) did Cyrus actually have a choice?

 

[NoorNoor]

Unified M is the leading model and absolutely does have the most consistency with observations.

I believe that is not true. The big bang model has been the mainstream scientific view.

That's an reduction to extremes if I ever heard one. If I told you that blueberries evolved to be in more acidic soil, that does not mean that every bit of acidic soil should have blueberries.
Similarly, just because carbon-based life with DNA style self-replicators evolved to fit the environment does not mean other forms of life would evolve to fit every other environment.

Your statement was "you must understand that the water conforms to the hole it's in, not the other way around." your "theory" does imply other (different) forms of physical life are possible ""regardless"" of the specific environment. In another word, life may evolve or exist in any environment. So far, this claim can't be considered scientific.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your statement was "you must understand that the water conforms to the hole it's in, not the other way around." your "theory" does imply other (different) forms of physical life are possible ""regardless"" of the specific environment. In another word, life may evolve or exist in any environment. So far, this claim can't be considered scientific.

It can be considered more scientific than any claim to the contrary. The fact is that we don't know under what conditions life CAN arise, we are only aware that life HAS arisen under earth's conditions. To assert that therefore earth's conditions are the ONLY conditions under which life can arise is completely baseless, and it is far more accurate to state that while life has been demonstrated to arise under earth's specific conditions, we cannot assume that life cannot arise under entirely different conditions. That is a separate claim which requires demonstration. The default position is simply not to assume either way.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

e. The big bang model has been the mainstream scientific view

The two aren't mutually exclusive. M-theory includes Big Bang.

Your statement was "you must understand that the water conforms to the hole it's in, not the other way around." your "theory" does imply other (different) forms of physical life are possible ""regardless"" of the specific environment. In another word, life may evolve or exist in any environment. So far, this claim can't be considered scientific.

Other forms of physical life are possible. Likely even according to Drake. But that wasn't at all what I was saying anyway, only that life appears to be confined to specific parameters because of the environment it evolved in, not because the environment was made to suit it.
Giraffes survived the mutations for elongated neck trait because there was a foliage food source to exploit. Not because the trees were made for them. If there hadn't have been trees, or the trees were nutrient poor or poisonous, giraffes would have died.