EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[painted wolf]

You just answered your own question.Those are the "explanations" used for mutations . . . instead of "guided."

I have no problem with science's explanations that ARE explanations. I chafe at the use of non-explanations to default to an indifferent and purposeless universe instead of a guided and purposeful one.

Your god is a twisted one then isn't it?
If every single point mutation is guided by god, god is not only very busy but a real mess at his job. The vast majority of mutations don't do anything at all they are synonymous replacements. God just bored or what?

Down's syndrome is a real winner... or Cri du Chat, that's just a guided goof up inversion of a few base pairs on a single chromosome.

Personally I like to give god a little more credit than being a total bungler. Purposeful or not.

wa:do

 

[Magic Man]

You just answered your own question.Those are the "explanations" used for mutations . . . instead of "guided."

No. Science doesn't say "This mutation happened because it's all random" where some religion says "This mutation happened because God guided it". It says "Natural selection guided it", as an example.

I have no problem with science's explanations that ARE explanations. I chafe at the use of non-explanations to default to an indifferent and purposeless universe instead of a guided and purposeful one.

That's funny. I chafe at your desire to denigrate something of which you have no understanding.

 

[MysticPhD]

How so? Nature is the result of every interaction from the weak microscopic levels such as gravity to the macroscopic level such as predator-prey relationships. Each interaction builds on and from the rest in a tangled web.

In my view so is God . . . since it is God's consciousness that provides the universal field that establishes the parameters within which our inverse operates.

I don't know about scientific illiterates, I deal with a lot of scientists and they are quite capable, by and large to keep the two apart. Science is science and discussions of metaphysics are kept out of said discussions.

The scientists are not the primary problem (except for the Dawkins, et al.) . . .the general public is. They believe science has proven that the probability of God existing is miniscule. If this reduces the deleterious impact of some religions on society . . . that would not be bad . . . but the elimination of belief in God would be, IMO.

My philosophy professors have suggested I take it up as a minor... I think I'm doing ok on the philosophy front.

Then I can only suggest you return to your statement after more exposure and see what your reaction is.

If you don't want god plugging gaps then why are you angry about science "usurping" said gaps?

They are free to plug the gaps with valid science . . . not implications from probabilistic non-explanations . . . THAT is "usurping."

How exactly does science impinge on the unknowable? If it's truly unknowable then we wouldn't be examining it would we? Science explores the real world and uncovers the knowable. If it is part of reality then we can know it.

True . . . but we have current limitations which when exceeded use non-explanations AS IF they were scientific explanations. When they do that . . . they have overstepped the bounds of their data.

That's just silly. No scientist is going to study lightning and then attribute it to Zeus. Nor should they.

you are right that is a silly straw man interpretation of my concerns.

Science simply explains what is. It's not religion, it's purpose is not to peddle god (of any flavor) to the masses.

Agree . . . especially the "Non-God" flavor.

Scientist may feel they are exploring gods works but that is as far as it goes... They understand, and with good reason, that the line between personal faith and published science is a clear and needed one.
Science tangled with religion stagnates and runs blind alleys... free inquiry can not exist under the duress of dogma.
wa:do

Agree completely.

 

[MysticPhD]

Stop with this random bull... mutations are the result of the observable process of DNA replication errors. This isn't based on any "ebil maths" this is stuff we can see happen.

I'm sorry if you don't understand genetics but that is hardly an excuse for you talk nonsense about it.
wa:do

I understand it just fine. Observable process doesn't mean you know anything about why they occur or when.

 

[painted wolf]

In my view so is God . . . since it is God's consciousness that provides the universal field that establishes the parameters within which our inverse operates.

Not far from my personal view... but you need to understand that science can't address God as it only addresses what is testable.

They are free to plug the gaps with valid science . . . not implications from probabilistic non-explanations . . . THAT is "usurping."

Your view of genetics makes me wonder about your definition of "valid science".

True . . . but we have current limitations which when exceeded use non-explanations AS IF they were scienmtific explanations. When they do that . . . they have overstepped the bounds of their data.

very little in science oversteps the bounds of the data... except populist ideas published in pop. science books.

you are right that is a silly straw man interpretation of my concerns.

I'm having difficulty understanding your point otherwise. Perhaps you can rephrase it in a more understandable mannor?

Agree . . . especially the "Non-God" flavor.

Science peddles neither. Science officially has nothing to say on the existence or non-existence of god. Science only deals with the testable and observable.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

I understand it just fine. Observable process doesn't mean you know anything about why they occur or when.

yeah, it kind of does.
We can see when it happens and why it happens. Like crossing over during meiosis.

wa:do

 

[MysticPhD]

Well, at the beginning I thought there was a chance of a rational discussion, but you've now made it very clear that you're not interested in that. You're basically like the OP. You don't actually understand science, nor do you care to, and yet you feel qualified to insult it and spread lies about it. Have fun with your head in the sand.

I understand science extremely well in several fields . . . genetics, physics and neuroscience among them. I used science to develop the synthesis that made it possible to explain the existence of God adequately to myself after decades of atheism when I was faced with incontrovertible personal proof of a conscious universe. I reject NONE of the valid science in any field, including evolution . . . just the "indifferent and purposeless universe" that seems to permeate the underbelly of science assumptions. I spread no lies, I insult nothing, and I am equally critical of the religious jackasses that attack science for their ridiculous mythologies. For me personally . . . God is real and not remotely mythical . . . and my synthesis is not in violation of ANY known science. Religions should be kept out of science classrooms . . . but so should atheists and the "indifferent and purposeless universe" assumption.

 

[Valjean]

No. Science doesn't say "This mutation happened because it's all random" where some religion says "This mutation happened because God guided it". It says "Natural selection guided it", as an example.

No-one guided it. It wasn't guided. It happened by chance.
Natural selection does not explain individual mutations. Natural selection is a whole different process.

 

[YmirGF]

I understand it just fine. Observable process doesn't mean you know anything about why they occur or when.

I am genuinely curious where you get your thinking from.

My understanding of probability theory would gauge that it involves a tubular apparatus, a minute portion of crystalline matter, a heat source and a liberal amount of induction resulting in a state of entropy. :cover:

 

[Magic Man]

In my view so is God . . . since it is God's consciousness that provides the universal field that establishes the parameters within which our inverse operates.

That's fine. You're welcome to that view. However, that's simply your opinion. It cannot be tested or verified, and it doesn't matter whether or not you're right anyway.

The scientists are not the primary problem (except for the Dawkins, et al.) . . .the general public is. They believe science has proven that the probability of God existing is miniscule. If this reduces the deleterious impact of some religions on society . . . that would not be bad . . . but the elimination of belief in God would be, IMO.

Again, all you're saying here is that we need to improve science education, not actually improve anything about science.

Then I can only suggest you return to your statement after more exposure and see what your reaction is.

Or, a better idea might be for you to return to her statement after some exposure to science and philosophy and see what your reaction is.

They are free to plug the gaps with valid science . . . not implications from probabilistic non-explanations . . . THAT is "usurping."

Um...that's what the plug in, valid science. Sometimes valid science involves probabilities. I think what you need to do is learn about probabilities and definitely about science. Then you won't make these mistakes anymore.

True . . . but we have current limitations which when exceeded use non-explanations AS IF they were scienmtific explanations. When they do that . . . they have overstepped the bounds of their data.

What are those limitations?

you are right that is a silly straw man interpretation of my concerns.

That's basically what you're saying. That we can understand the particles that make up lightning and understand when and how it happens, but if we don't know that it comes from Zeus (or insert your god's name here) then we understand nothing about it. It is funny how silly your argument when put that way, isn't it?

 

[Magic Man]

I understand science extremely well in several fields . . . genetics, physics and neuroscience among them.

This completely contradicts several comments you've made here.

I used science to develop the synthesis that made it possible to explain the existence of God adequately to myself after decades of atheism when I was faced with incontrovertible personal proof of a conscious universe.

This definitely contradicts your previous comment. There's no way you used science proper to do that. As we've been saying, science doesn't deal with God.

I reject NONE of the valid science in any field, including evolution . . . just the "indifferent and purposeless universe" that seems to permeate the underbelly of science assumptions.

Well, that's no different than refusing to accept evolution. You don't understand it and yet you make wildly untrue claims about it.

Religions should be kept out of science classrooms . . . but so should atheists and the "indifferent and purposeless universe" assumption.

Why? Do you have scientific evidence that there's a purpose in the universe? I wasn't aware of any such thing, which is why I assumed scientists had chosen to ignore a purpose to the universe.

 

[Magic Man]

No-one guided it. It wasn't guided. It happened by chance.
Natural selection does not explain individual mutations. Natural selection is a whole different process.

Thanks, I was trying to make the point that natural selection is what guides the overall process. Specific mutations happen by chance, but chance is not used as an explanation. Scientists don't say "Well this happened because of randomness".

 

[MysticPhD]

I find this comment hilarious. Not content with simply parading your ignorance regarding science and scientific discovery, but you actually decided to share with us your delusion that god is somehow an explanatory mechanism?? And doing this while simultaneously berating science for being a non-explanation???


Given the above this comment manages to be both hilariously ironic and a stunning clear-cut example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Your resort to pure ad hominem instead of learned rebuttal using examples and actual knowledge instead of assertions . . . suggests the effect is an even more ironic self-illustration.

I do not believe, for a single moment based on your comments, that you know what a probabilistic prediction even is. You could prove me wrong by citing a few examples and why they are non-explanations, but I won’t be holding my breath.

How old are you, anyway? They are non-explanations at the philosophical level (are you familiar with that?) They explain nothing phenomenologically.

Well…if you have an explanation that works, makes predictions and accurately describes the phenomena in question that introducing god IS an additional explanation (one that adds absolutely nothing btw).

But philosophically, a non-explanation (using randomness and probabilities) "that works, makes predictions and accurately describes the outcome in question" says NOTHING about whether God was involved or not, period . . . so how could God be an additional explanation since it could be the ACTUAL one?

You want science to have a belief that the question of god’s existence is unknowable? Makes as much sense as your previous postings I suppose. Not as if the simpler reality that science, by being an explicitly evidence-based (and thus naturalistic) methodology, can TAKE NO POSITION ON THE NON-EXISTENCE/EXISTENCE OF THE SUPERNATURAL (which includes god(s)).

Not my God . . . there is no such thing as supernatural. So God is potentially (not any time soon) capable of being more fully described than we currently do by investigating God's "Nature" . . . perhaps in the future with better technology.

The funniest thing is that using god for an explanatory mechanism has NEVER once in history furthered the knowledge or technology of mankind. It is also depressing.

I agree and we shouldn't start now.

Find me one single peer-reviewed paper that argues for a purposeless/purposeful universe. Find me just one. Have a search and you might learn that *gasp* science doesn’t take a position one way or the other (and you are talking bullcrap).

Perhaps I just see the philosophical implications of the underlying assumptions more clearly than others . . . a distinct possibility given the responses here.

 

[MysticPhD]

No-one guided it. It wasn't guided. It happened by chance.
Natural selection does not explain individual mutations. Natural selection is a whole different process.

What is chance? Or who is chance? or . . . explain this agent.

 

[MysticPhD]

I am genuinely curious where you get your thinking from.

My understanding of probability theory would gauge that it involves a tubular apparatus, a minute portion of crystalline matter, a heat source and a liberal amount of induction resulting in a state of entropy. :cover:

No wonder you are confused. Probability has nothing to do with reality . . . it is a mathematical construct confined within the rubric constructed in our minds for the manipulation of "measurable" phenomena under logic constraints to predict their interactions and the likelihood of various outcomes. The computer would be a real world logic machine that is built to mimic our artificial mathematical rubric in silicone, etc. . . . which is why it will never achieve sentience or anything remotely approaching artificial intelligence. Neither our minds nor our reality ACTUALLY function mathematically just because we can mimic and model outcomes using it.

 

[MysticPhD]

Thanks, I was trying to make the point that natural selection is what guides the overall process. Specific mutations happen by chance, but chance is not used as an explanation. Scientists don't say "Well this happened because of randomness".

Are you even aware of the contradiction in the bolded sentence?

 

[MysticPhD]

This definitely contradicts your previous comment. There's no way you used science proper to do that. As we've been saying, science doesn't deal with God.

I never said I used science to determine that there was a God . . . I said I was made personally aware through deep meditation that the universe was conscious. I used science and philosophy and theology and mythology to try to find an explanation I could intellectually accept for . . . what was clearly (for ME) an absolute reality.

Well, that's no different than refusing to accept evolution. You don't understand it and yet you make wildly untrue claims about it.

Your confusion about chance, probabilities, and randomness clearly are at the root of your failure to see that evolution has no scientific basis for preferring "chance" as the ACTUAL agent of change (it is an abstraction) . . . merely our best estimator of its appearance pattern using probabilities.

Why? Do you have scientific evidence that there's a purpose in the universe? I wasn't aware of any such thing, which is why I assumed scientists had chosen to ignore a purpose to the universe.

They don't ignore it . . . they reject it . . . very different. Purpose . . . God . . . all the same bailiwick. Therefore they are NOT neutral.

 

[painted wolf]

They don't ignore it . . . they reject it . . . very different. Purpose . . . God . . . all the same bailiwick. Therefore they are NOT neutral.

How does one scientifically test for purpose?
We have already established that you can not test for God... since science only deals with what is testable and observable how do you propose we test for purpose?

Purpose is a philosophical postulate not a scientific one.

wa:do

 

[gnostic]

I've always thought disbelief in evolution as an American thing , not as a religious thing.

Evolution is not a American thing.

Darwin's himself was an Englishman, and Huxley expanded on the evolution with his biology, and H is also a pom.

And considering that the vast majority of American population are Christians, a great deal of them don't believe in evolution.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I've been out of pocket for the last 6 days, and upon my return, I would like to offer one observation:

There is something quite mystic about that PhD.