Interesting video about evolution and origins.

[metis]

Just because we certainly don't know all or even most of the facts doesn't mean that we can get a general picture of what has happened. Also, there's "theistic evolution".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I see origins as something different.

They are the gaps where creator gods are presently found. Gods are not needed for the universe to have assembled itself from its initial hot, dense state, nor is intelligent oversight needed for reality to go about its daily activities, where the days turn into nights and the rain falls automatically. So, the faithful are left with the origins problem if they want a job for their gods - what started these off, and why are they just right for life and mind to evolve in them?

Of course, they create an origins problem of their own when they postulate a god as the answer. Where did this god come from? How is it even possible that one could exist? What laws maintain its structural integrity so that it doesn't evaporate like a cloud and forget everything it knows as it loses consciousness?

I meant, controlled by the laws of nature, which God Himself created.

And here is a god of the gaps argument. We don't need gods to explain how the world operates every day, nor to have assembled it, so the god is relegated to inventing those laws and setting it all of - an origins job.

And yes it is god of the gaps ideas but is backed up by reasoned arguments and is not to prove that God is real, just to make it reasonable to believe in God

Nothing makes a god belief reasonable except reason applied to evidence if it demonstrates a god.

Are you suggesting, as, presumably and atheist, that because spirits cannot be tested for by science , that they do not exist?

Spirits can be treated as nonexistent until they manifest to the senses. The test of something's existence is its ability to impact other existent things in space and time. Things that exist only as figments of the imagination don't do that.

Not finding a God in tests does not mean that the scientists involved think that God was not needed or in any way a factor.

Science has no need to hypothesize the existence of gods. To explain what? We have naturalistic hypotheses such as the multiverse and abiogenesis for the origins problems.

Are you aware of the recent hypothesis that the universe is filled with matter that generates a gravitational effect but doesn't radiate light (dark matter). The idea was useless until a physical finding was uncovered that couldn't be accounted for without some kind of dark gravitational source. Now, that idea is useful, but we still don't need an intelligent agent to explain anything.

IMO we learn about something by first believing it exists and then associating certain things and experiences to that thing

Assuming that you mean believing by faith, that's a flawed way to approach discerning what reality is and how it works. Evolution gifted us with the senses, reason, and memory because using them promotes fitness. You know this from your daily life. It's how we initially learn how our world works - what hurts and what feels good, and how to avoid the one and foster the other. It's how we know where to get a good Italian meal. We begin with experience and draw conclusions thereafter. Imagine using the method you suggested above to do that. Just first believe that you can get that good meal at McDonalds and begin associated all that entails with that belief. You're guaranteed to go wrong.

So it is always educated guesses that are based on the idea that it happened naturally.

The science works. It needs no more empirical confirmation that its foundational assumptions are valid. That a supernatural element exists or is needed is the guess, and not based in education, but wishful thinking.

that is another limitation of science, it cannot test for spirits and God and so ignores the existence of God and plods on regardless.

No, that is not a limitation of science (empiricism). It's a strength. Look at what an a priori god belief did to the Intelligent Design program. It made it into pseudoscience, wasted a lot of time and money, and sullied the reputations of those looking for that assumed god. Science goes to great pains to avoid that kind of observer bias, as with blinding the participants in a medical trial regarding who got the potential remedy and who got the placebo, because hopes and expectations influence judgment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I suppose what you say is correct but it is still educated guesswork when it comes to origins, and even in trying to work out how other things in the past happened.
Even if the science is spot on in how it would have had to have happened if it happened naturally, it cannot be said that the science could have happened naturally and it cannot be said to it did not happen another way.

What? You seem to be rambling at the end. It is rather amazing that you insist on calling science "guesswork" since that is what allows you to communicate here in the first place. You are accepting that guesswork when it is convenient and disputing it when it goes against what appears to be rather irrational beliefs. That is a bit hypocritical.

And once again, science does not disprove God. It may disprove false versions of God such as the Flat Earth version, or the YEC version and also the OEC version. But that does not mean that Christianity is wrong. And really you should be thankful. If you fully understood the myths of Genesis you would see that they paint God as an immoral and incompetent figure. Christians that insist that they myths of Genesis are true insult their own God.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

IMO we learn about something by first believing it exists and then associating certain things and experiences to that thing,,,,,,,,,,,, being.

A perfect example of confirmation bias……
Start with a presupposition and then interpret any data as confirming that presupposition while ignoring or mischaracterizing any contrary information.

The very first sentence from the link you apparently didn’t read…….

“Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.”

Thanks for demonstrating my point.

 

[Valjean]

How can a spirit be tested by science?
Are you suggesting, as, presumably and atheist, that because spirits cannot be tested for by science , that they do not exist?
You did say that we should be able to prove a positive and seemed to point to science as the way to do that.

Atheists don't withhold belief because spirits can't be proven. We withhold belief because there's no evidence they exist.
We withhold belief for the same reason we withhold belief in unicorns and gryphons.

Not finding a God in tests does not mean that the scientists involved think that God was not needed or in any way a factor. If those scientists are atheists, it would no doubt be a different matter of course.

What tests? Science can't test for God. Science tests evidence. If there's no evidence there's nothing to test.

A spirit is not detectable by science and so spirits are probably not part of the material universe. But maybe science just has not discovered a test for spirits.

As soon as there's evidence to test, science will jump on it. The same goes for unicorns, as well.

I suppose that might be a matter of how we define knowledge.
I think my faith remains a faith all through this life.

Wouldn't faith be the opposite of knowledge?
Knowledge is belief supported by evidence. Faith is belief without evidence, ie: fantasy.

IMO we learn about something by first believing it exists and then associating certain things and experiences to that thing,,,,,,,,,,,, being.

Are you serious? First believe, then look for evidence?
How is that in any way reasonable? How can any reliable knowledge come from such a topsy-turvy methodology?

I can see that people want good evidence before changing their whole life.

Changing one's life? That's a different issue. We're talking about ontologic truth. What we do with the truth is our own affair.

To limit that evidence to what science can test for, knowing God is not testable by science, does seem like just hiding from God however.

No. You're still seeing God as axiomatic. You're still beginning with the concept as a premise.

It is not testable by science because there's no evidence to test. It's not within the purview of science, or even epistomology.

We don't hide from things that don't exist, and the assumption of non-existence is the reasonable default. Do you hide from wyverns? Why not? -- because there's no evidence they exist? You've already stated that you begin with belief, and then look for evidence, so belief in wyverns has the same truth-value as belief in God, does it not?

It is true that faith in God can mean changes to ones life now and that shows reasonableness of wanting evidence, but faith in God can also have an effect on what, if anything, happens after we die.

OK, so belief without evidence -- fantasy -- can affect one's afterlife? I see two completely unsupported premises here.

You're accepting the Christian narrative as the starting point of your argument; as a premise. This is not reasonable. You seem to expect others to accept your apologetics based on a presupposed narrative.

Some people are more amenable to faith in God as they approach death, or get older at least, but I suppose there would have to be some doubt that atheism is correct, and rationally there should be some doubt about that imo.

"...atheism is correct?" You seem to think atheism is a truth claim.
You speak of rationality? Belief in that which is evidenced, and deferring belief in claims that are not -- that is rational.

The scientists that do that obviously think they are giving reasonable reasons in the sciences for what they say.
And yes it is god of the gaps ideas but is backed up by reasoned arguments and is not to prove that God is real, just to make it reasonable to believe in God, and that is in the face of science and especially atheists who want to say that there is no need for a God.

How is it ever "reasonable" to believe in something without evidence? I see no reasonable arguments for unevidenced belief. You have a bizarre understanding of "reasonable."
Lack of need is a criterion for scientific investigation. If A, B, and C explain a phenomenon, why would it be reasonable to propose D as an additional criterion?
Science will consider D when there's either evidence of or need for an additional cause, till then, there is not.

It is a defense of the faith and helps protect believers from the poor thinking that atheists seem to have when it comes to science and what it points to in relation to the existence of God.

It is the theists who seem to be exhibiting poor thinking.
Please explain this poor scientific thinking that atheists, logicians and scientists seem to exhibit. I see nothing pointing to the existence of God except the initial, unevidenced presumption you advocated above.

I would say that you are taking that "proving a negative" too literally and that wanting to show God is not needed is more the trying to "prove a negative".

OK. Explain the need. Explain why it's reasonable to propose a magical personage involved. Explain why your magical God is more likely than known, physical mechanisms.

Nobody was there to say whether the science hypothesese are correct. So it is always educated guesses that are based on the idea that it happened naturally.
It's just one of those limitations of science and is not verifiable or falsifiable, so is it even science?

That's why science tests hypotheses, so they become more than guesses.

Well I suppose what you say is correct but it is still educated guesswork when it comes to origins, and even in trying to work out how other things in the past happened.
Even if the science is spot on in how it would have had to have happened if it happened naturally, it cannot be said that the science could have happened naturally and it cannot be said to it did not happen another way.

Huh?

When it comes to origins, the thing that the Bible God has actually plainly said that He did, science is stepping into theology to an extent when saying that it happened naturally. But that is another limitation of science, it cannot test for spirits and God and so ignores the existence of God and plods on regardless.

You're presuming Christian mythology, again. God did not plainly say anything. You haven't even established He exists. You could just as well state that Vishnu plainly said something.
How is science stepping into theology? Science ignores theology, it investigates evidence of observable phenomena.

And it seems the unverifiable is acceptable in the case of origins even if it can never be anything but educated guesses.

Origin is a real, evidenced phenomenon.
Why do you say it can never b more than an educated guess? Haven't people been saying that about the cutting edge of science for centuries? Is heliocentrism an educated guess? the germ theory? techtonic plates?
Why do you insist in trying to wedge a magical personage into every current area of study?

I don't conflate science and atheists, I say science is neutral and just a dumb tool that humans use.

It's by far the most productive tool ever invented. Human knowledge has taken off like a rocket since science became the gold standard. Noting even compares. Certainly not religious mythology; that never got us anywhere.

Humans are the ones who conclude things one way or the other about what science,,,,,,,,,, with it's limitations,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, discovers about the universe, and atheist humans imply that science is showing that God is not needed, and when theist humans want to imply anything from what science shows, they are not being rational and are making logical fallacies and are involved in pseudoscience etc............ according to the atheists anyway.

Science knows its limitations. Religion, apparently, does not.
I challenge you: Explain how science is exceeding its limitations, being irrational, and making logical errors.. I think you're projecting.

 

[Valjean]

How was the flagellum motor shown not to be Irreducibly Complex?
I can imagine how it was theorised. While it is true that if we take away one part of the motor it is useless, what the ToE does is to suggest that something, anything will do, by chance appeared and sort of accidentally did the job that the flagellum motor does, but not very efficiently, but just enough to make a difference in fitness in the population that had this mutation. (1or 2 in billions initially presumably) and so they survived and passed the mutation on and eventually it turned into the flagellum motor.
IMO explanations like that just makes the ToE look less likely however.

 

[Brian2]

If you follow the Dover School (Kitzmiller) trial judgement in 2005, you will see there are several examples in which the notion of irreducible complexity has proven false. (From memory - it was a while ago - two examples were the eye and the bacterial flagellum.) These examples are sufficient to show the concept of irreducible complexity, developed by Dembski et. al. is flawed as a principle. There is no valid way to establish that a given biological structure cannot have evolved naturally, however unclear it may currently be how it could have done so.

What that means is the door is always open for science to find out how it developed. You cannot shut the door and say, definitively, "God did it, case closed, stop looking for a natural explanation".

Irreducible complexity was debunked in the Dover School trial. Dembski, interestingly, failed to show up to defend it. Scientifically speaking, it is dead. Though the notion may linger on in creationist circles among those with a poor level of understanding - which includes those who deliberately avoid researching the topic because it suits them to continue to believe in it.

I have a copy of the (very long) judgement in that trial. It makes quite interesting reading and the judge (John Jones, a Republican appointee) went to town on it. He obviously enjoyed himself.

Addendum: Here is one notable passage, referred to in the Wiki article on the trial, concerning Michael Behe, whose book "Darwin's Black Box" made the case for Irreducible Complexity:

As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that, "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."[27]

In short, it never had any scientific support at all.

If it could be shown scientifically that someone designed the universe or things in it then that would be proof of God. The believers who looks at stuff like the eye and flagellum motor etc etc etc (and there are many complex things) has to go down the path of incredulity to say it happened without a designer/maker. So that leaves the way open for atheists to say that irreducible complexity has been debunked,,,,,,,,,,, but really that is not true as evidence for God, it is just true as a subject for scientific acceptance.
As you say, the path is always left open for science to say how it thinks something evolved naturally.
But when we look at that, all it can ever be is educated guesses.
So it ends up in reality being scientific educated guesses versus believer's faith and incredulity.
In science the naturalistic way, the educated guesses, win because science cannot test for or find spirits or God in any verifiable way.
But also science cannot verify that any path they say was followed for the evolution of eyes or flagellum motor etc is true.
So really it only sounds as if the naturalistic path has won over faith when in fact they both require some degree of faith. Those who believe what science says (guesses) has to have faith (in the face of no verification) that the natural way is correct and that science has found the best of the naturalistic paths.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If it could be shown scientifically that someone designed the universe or things in it then that would be proof of God. The believers who looks at stuff like the eye and flagellum motor etc etc etc (and there are many complex things) has to go down the path of incredulity to say it happened without a designer/maker. So that leaves the way open for atheists to say that irreducible complexity has been debunked,,,,,,,,,,, but really that is not true as evidence for God, it is just true as a subject for scientific acceptance.

So, once again you do not know what you are talking about. Instead of doing so without directly admitting it you should ask questions instead.

As you say, the path is always left open for science to say how it thinks something evolved naturally.
But when we look at that, all it can ever be is educated guesses.

Nope, we went over this error.

So it ends up in reality being scientific educated guesses versus believer's faith and incredulity.
In science the naturalistic way, the educated guesses, win because science cannot test for or find spirits or God in any verifiable way.
But also science cannot verify that any path they say was followed for the evolution of eyes or flagellum motor etc is true.
So really it only sounds as if the naturalistic path has won over faith when in fact they both require some degree of faith. Those who believe what science says (guesses) has to have faith (in the face of no verification) that the natural way is correct and that science has found the best of the naturalistic paths.

No, just because you do not understand something that is not an excuse to make false claims about other people. You really need to be a lot more careful in your reasoning.

I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him.

Abraham Lincoln

 

[McBell]

I can see a general evolution argument for anything appearing by chance and making a life form more fit and so improving over time. This general argument can be made about any complex system.
So an area of the skin was sensitive to light by accident and by accident had nerves to the brain to convey this information and that set up the start of the evolution of the eye. That would be the general formula I imagine and I suppose it cannot be debunked and cannot be shown to be true.
In the case of the flaggellar motor an accidental appearance of something that a cell could use to primitively move and it would slowly evolve into a flagellar motor.
Whether it is reasonable to see this as a sytem that could have evolved naturally to assemble itself and be used by cells to move around and find food is something for an individual to decide. It is like the animation about the workings of a cell and seeing that as possible naturally or not.
Some people believe what science tells them when it cannot be verified and is educated guesses and others like me (theists) use the incredulity logical fallacy and say "WT*, they must be kidding."

flagellum motor animation - Google Search

www.google.com

animation of cells narrated by dr lydell - Google Search

www.google.com

Nice little sermon, but it did not present one that has not been debunked.

 

[McBell]

If it could be shown scientifically that someone designed the universe or things in it then that would be proof of God.

By that reasoning a house is proof of god, right?
Even if it was proven that the universe was designed, all it shows is that the universe was designed.
It would show that your god or any other god designed it.

You rely to heavily on a false dichotomy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice little sermon, but it did not present one that has not been debunked.

Even though he denies it the only version of Intelligent Design that was falsifiable proved that it was indeed falsifiable by being falsified. That was the version of ID that was falsified by a mousetrap in an analogy. Behe used to argue that an intelligently Irreducible Complexity showed that ID was a fact. And this is the concept that was refuted by a mousetrap in an analogy, since Behe used a mousetrap in his example and the bacterial rotator flagellum in reality. His argument was that a mousetrap "could not work" without all of its parts. Each one was needed to work. Ken Miller showed that mousetrap could work. Without all of its parts. It could work at a different job. He made a crude tie clip out of it. When it comes to the flagellum there were all sorts of bacteria that were found with only a partial flagellum. It still worked. And that gave a pathway of evolution for that flagellum. Those partial flagella had different jobs than being a flagellum. So they still worked as far as evolution goes.
The reason that it has not been refuted since then is because Behe and other learned their lesson. They no longer put ID into the form of a testable hypothesis. Unfortunately that also makes it pseudoscience.

 

[Brian2]

I am sorry, but you have it backwards. There is no evidence for IC, and that is largely the fault of Behe. In the sciences something with no evidence for it does not need to be refuted. It has already been effectively refuted by the author of it.

And how did Behe shoot himself in the foot and remove his concept from the realm of the sciences? Because his first hypothesis was formed properly. It was testable. It was tested and it failed.


Go ahead. See if you can find a proper hypothesis of IC. It needs to be testable. There has to be some test that could possibly refute it based upon the predictions that it makes. I doubt if you will find one.

In the sciences even a wrong hypothesis can be useful. It will tell us what direction not to go at times. Behe, after he failed the first time, redefined IC so that it is no longer scientific. To justify it he tried to redefine "science" and his definition was so poor that during the Dover trail he had to admit under oath that his definition of science, not one used any any other scientists, would mean that astrology, you no . . . signs of the Zodiac etc., would be a science.

Anyway back to hypotheses. We can learn from failed hypotheses. Behe's nonsense is even worse. Pseudoscience is held in contempt by scientists because one cannot even learn from the mistakes that it makes. Behe's work is in the bottom category of "Not even wrong".

It is true that IC is not a science with verifiable evidence but it is also true that it is not verifiable that those things that IC claim are too complex for evolution, actually evolved.
So in that respect, that part of science is not real science.
IC has never been refuted. All that has happened is that it has been shown not to be a science.
So nobody can say that science has shown that the eye or flagellum motor or anything else has evolved and nobody can say that it has been shown that God did not have a hand in the creation of the eye or flagellum motor etc.

 

[Brian2]

The blood clotting cascade was another one. I don't think that Behe ever used the eye since evolution of the eye has been understood for quite some time. Behe's original hypothesis failed because he stated that various functions would not work if one took out one single part. For the flagellum he did not realize that the flagellum always worked as a flagellum. It had different uses before then. And life can be found with all stages of partial "flagella" living without a hitch. The ability to be used as a propeller appears to have been an emergent process. The blood clotting cascade can be found in all stages in life too. Modern creatures with it have usually lost some traits that made it work better than nothing, sine one that evolved as an emergent process they were no longer needed, but whales for example do not have all of the elements in the cascade that other mammals do. They probably lost them due to different needs in the sea. They can still clot blood, but not quite in the same way. And of course simpler life has only some of them.

If you remember the seen in the PBS documentary the recreation of when Behe was surrounded by texts and journals those were all on the blood clotting cascade.

Bacteria have been found to close down their flagellar motors and eject the flagellar (the spiralling tail) and plug the hole with a protein to avoid leaks. This happens when nutrients are scarce and energy has to be conserved.
Is this what you are talking about when you mention partial flagella.

 

[Brian2]

I find your blanket statement about atheists to be rather flawed.

Yes it probably is flawed. However the many atheists I have been speaking to demand verifiable evidence for God.

 

[Brian2]

Since evolution does not need a "supernatural input" to work, why muddy the waters with it?

It is not known that evolution can work without supernatural input.
That is just the assumption, as in "evolution is true and so every aspect of it has worked without supernatural input".

 

[Brian2]

What are you talking about?

Surely you realize that there is no way any scientific argument will ever convince us atheists that there is a god.

Yes I realise that, however that is the demand from atheists I have been speaking to.
Either evidence is verifiable or it is not evidence.
Faith is what you have when you have no verifiable evidence.
Believing unverified conclusions is irrational, etc etc.

 

[Brian2]

What do you mean by that?

It is not like there is any way of using supernaturalism in science, including evolution.

So, what would going too far even be?

I was, in context, saying that as a Christian I find a lot of evolution to be assumed rather than proven so in relation to what I believe about evolution, I might draw the line in places that other Christians may not. They may accept everything that science says about evolution and what probably happened.
Much of what scientists say about what happened is unverified and just presumed to be probably true because all of evolution is true for them.
And then there are those who draw the line elsewhere and reject evolution altogether.

 

[Brian2]

Without belief in gods, we tend strongly to
be materialists, & science applies only to the
material world. The supernatural doesn't lend
itself to testable theories.

It is true that the supernatural does not lend itself to testable theories so why are testable theories demanded by atheists, and without them it is irrational to even claim to have evidence?

 

[Brian2]

No, that only refutes the YEC God. If you are going to claim that the YEC God is the God of the Bible then so is the Flat Earth God. Sine the Bible only refers to the Earth as being flat in word and deed.

If someone says that the flat earthers are refuted and the YECers are refuted so the Bible and the Bible God are refuted, that seems to show something about that person and not that the Bible and Bible God are refuted.

There is no evidence for supernatural input. If you want to claim that there is such input then find scientific evidence for it Otherwise you are complaining about nothing.

Yes I know that Christians like me break the rules of logic but that is fine, that does not mean we are wrong.

 

[Brian2]

Science does not show that the universe wasn't created by a celestial octopus either. Believing something because it hasn't been shown not to exist isn't rational. It's an argument from ignorance. It uses lack of evidence as evidence.

I don't believe something because it hasn't been shown not to exist.
I do believe a designer/maker is responsible for the universe however (whether you want to call Him a celestial octopus is up to you) and that He has not been shown not to exist.
If He had been shown not to exist then I would not believe in Him.
Interestingly many atheists seem to use lack of scientific evidence as evidence that God does not exist.