Is Evolution Conscious (Some amazing points about evolution)

[bmk2416]

If a lack of an alternate explanation somehow is thought to provide support for an explanation of the natural world based on the supernatural, it is a flawed argument. That is what I meant by the God of the gaps argument assuming that we will not discover anything new about the natural world. Unless we make this assumption, we will not jump to a supernatural explanation. How is this an outdated view?

But see I think from the theistic view, seeing that there is a lack of explanation from both religion and science (after all all the "explanations" for adaptations are merely created stories and anecdotal evidence because no one was there to observe) we base our conclusion on the next most logical source, our personal experiences.

And for us those experiences line up with the truths in the Bible. When we combine both we arrive at the conclusion that it is more likely that there is an intelligence in the universe.

And really there is no logical inconsistency or God of the gaps arguments, we're talking about metaphysical concepts here and by definition that means there is a lack of physical evidence.

 

[Kirran]

But see I think from the theistic view, seeing that there is a lack of explanation from both religion and science (after all all the "explanations" for adaptations are merely created stories and anecdotal evidence because no one was there to observe) we base our conclusion on the next most logical source, our personal experiences.

And for us those experiences line up with the truths in the Bible. When we combine both we arrive at the conclusion that it is more likely that there is an intelligence in the universe.

And really there is no logical inconsistency or God of the gaps arguments, we're talking about metaphysical concepts here and by definition that means there is a lack of physical evidence.

Of course, there are a wide variety of groups drawing different conclusions from the same 'metaphysical evidence', the Bible, as well as others working on entirely different material, namely members of other religions, or adherents of other spiritualities. So it rapidly becomes a personal matter.

 

[leibowde84]

But see I think from the theistic view, seeing that there is a lack of explanation from both religion and science (after all all the "explanations" for adaptations are merely created stories and anecdotal evidence because no one was there to observe) we base our conclusion on the next most logical source, our personal experiences.

And for us those experiences line up with the truths in the Bible. When we combine both we arrive at the conclusion that it is more likely that there is an intelligence in the universe.

And really there is no logical inconsistency or God of the gaps arguments, we're talking about metaphysical concepts here and by definition that means there is a lack of physical evidence.

Evolution is not merey a "theory," it is a "scientific theory." Hamm was way off with his classifications of evidence, as evolution can be demonstrated through observation. We use evolution to predict what we will find in the future, so to speak.

1. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Indeed. Something markedly lacking with the alternative "theories" we see here, which are largely just speculation based on personal beliefs.

 

[bmk2416]

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Then by your definition these ideas such as why we have eyebrows etc are complete guess and not rooted in science

 

[Ouroboros]

Then by your definition these ideas such as why we have eyebrows etc are complete guess and not rooted in science

The theory of eyebrows hasn't been established yet.

 

[Kirran]

The theory of eyebrows hasn't been established yet.

You can tell a thread has been going on for a while when this kind of thing comes up.

 

[bmk2416]

The theory of eyebrows hasn't been established yet.

Well any idea for that matter, none of these have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment, they are an extrapolation of other evidence for micro mutations.

 

[Ouroboros]

Well any idea for that matter, none of these have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment, they are an extrapolation of other evidence for micro mutations.

You mean the theory of evolution? Well, when you have a half-a-million fossils (so many, all of them coherent with the theory), and DNA complete with many dimensions of evidence that it's true, that we see it in action today, and even start using it now to solve problems, both technical and medical, witness to that the theory is solid. It doesn't tell you the answers to all the details. It's a theory that encapsulates a truth on a higher level of nature. And the past 50 years of misuse of antibiotics and GMO mistakes, we're now learning that evolution doesn't rest because we ignore it or have religious extremists preaching against it. It still is doing its thing.

 

[bmk2416]

You mean the theory of evolution? Well, when you have a half-a-million fossils (so many, all of them coherent with the theory), and DNA complete with many dimensions of evidence that it's true, that we see it in action today, and even start using it now to solve problems, both technical and medical, witness to that the theory is solid. It doesn't tell you the answers to all the details. It's a theory that encapsulates a truth on a higher level of nature. And the past 50 years of misuse of antibiotics and GMO mistakes, we're now learning that evolution doesn't rest because we ignore it or have religious extremists preaching against it. It still is doing its thing.

Agreed, and I can see how that evidence can be ultimately taken to the conclusion that we came from a common ancestor.

I can also see how it fits in with theistic Philosophy.

The point being that it's possible even from that evidence to arrive at two different conclusions, neither of them are 100% rock solid, at most the conclusion is a hypothesis yes a valid one but not complete, to be complete it would need to answer all the details.

 

[Ouroboros]

Agreed, and I can see how that evidence can be ultimately taken to the conclusion that we came from a common ancestor.

Yup. (I've actually looked at several of the hominid skulls, and compared features. Quite interesting.)

I can also see how it fits in with theistic Philosophy.

And I don't deny that.

I basically never engage in trying to refute theistic evolution, simply because it's not something that can be proven either way. It's a belief, not science though, but still, it can't really be disproved.

The point being that it's possible even from that evidence to arrive at two different conclusions, neither of them are 100% rock solid, at most the conclusion is a hypothesis yes a valid one but not complete, to be complete it would need to answer all the details.

Naturalistic evolution and theistic evolution are not very different from each other. There are theists in the evolution camp.

A few years ago, I found this website with theistic evolutionists. I'll see if I can find it again. They're 100% behind evolution (because of the evidence), but they still believe in a God (and they're scientists).

--edit

Here's one site you can look at : Theistic Evolution

 

[leibowde84]

Then by your definition these ideas such as why we have eyebrows etc are complete guess and not rooted in science

Nope. These scientific theories have been shown through observation and experimentation. They aren't guesses at all, they are scientifically substantiated theories. They have been shown to be true in our physical world. There is an array of information on experimentation/observation supporting the scientific theory of evolution. And, btw, you might be confused over what "observe" actually means in the scientific world. You don't have to watch evolution happen naturally in order to "observe" it. It is perfectly fine to conduct experiments or make predictions about specimens found in the future to "observe" your theory's accuracy. Hamm is not a smart man ... he has an extreme lack of understanding of scientific testing and the definition of terms.

 

[bmk2416]

I'm not sure why Hamm keeps getting brought into it, this is logic not a political idea.

I respectfully disagree that observe doesn't mean to truly see something in action. Observation is the only way to actually confirm something. Anything else is like I said an extrapolation.

I say this because if you claim something is a fact, which is how you're portraying the word theory in science, then it means there is no other possible explanation for it. And that just isnt the case.

In my mind I liken it to a trial of a wrongly accused person, all the evidence may point to a guilty verdict yet the only ones who know the facts are those who were there, the ones who observed it.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm not sure why Hamm keeps getting brought into it, this is logic not a political idea.

I respectfully disagree that observe doesn't mean to truly see something in action. Observation is the only way to actually confirm something. Anything else is like I said an extrapolation.

I say this because if you claim something is a fact, which is how you're portraying the word theory in science, then it means there is no other possible explanation for it. And that just isnt the case.

In my mind I liken it to a trial of a wrongly accused person, all the evidence may point to a guilty verdict yet the only ones who know the facts are those who were there, the ones who observed it.

Why do you think that I consider a scientific theory a "fact"? I never said that, and I certainly do not consider that to be the case. A scientific theory is one that is based on observations rather than ideas or things that "make sense" subjectively. It is merely a strengthened theory, if you will. Obviously, even evolution might be found to be incorrect down the road. That is surey possible, but it is certainly the best explanation that has been developed thus far, as it has been shown to be consistent with scientific discoveries time and time again.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm not sure why Hamm keeps getting brought into it, this is logic not a political idea.

I respectfully disagree that observe doesn't mean to truly see something in action. Observation is the only way to actually confirm something. Anything else is like I said an extrapolation.

I say this because if you claim something is a fact, which is how you're portraying the word theory in science, then it means there is no other possible explanation for it. And that just isnt the case.

In my mind I liken it to a trial of a wrongly accused person, all the evidence may point to a guilty verdict yet the only ones who know the facts are those who were there, the ones who observed it.

A scientific law could be considered a "fact" as you say, but a scientific theory cannot.

 

[Robert.Evans]

If a lack of an alternate explanation somehow is thought to provide support for an explanation of the natural world based on the supernatural, it is a flawed argument. That is what I meant by the God of the gaps argument assuming that we will not discover anything new about the natural world. Unless we make this assumption, we will not jump to a supernatural explanation. How is this an outdated view?

I don't know anyone who holds to that idea of the god of the gaps now. Though there might be.

To me, there is no difference in saying, Everything is made of atoms, or, Everything is God. There is no supernatural / natural. To me it is all the same; the divine expressing itself, evolving, changing through the aeons. I see the divine in everything. And I don't see that science will run out of answers, now questions come to that.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Fair enough. Just hope I can live up to it.

Just don't start any wars.

 

[Robert.Evans]

That is surley possible, but it is certainly the best explanation that has been developed thus far,

That is one of the most honest and correct answers on evolution I think I have read for some time.

 

[Robert.Evans]

A scientific law could be considered a "fact" as you say, but a scientific theory cannot.

So what is a secular Christian?

Do you think Evolution is a complete theory as it stands?
My idea is that without some sort of direction, it is hopeless. It would be like having balls on a flat surface. Nothing happens. introduce a slope and suddenly it all makes sense and things happen.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't know anyone who holds to that idea of the god of the gaps now. Though there might be.

To me, there is no difference in saying, Everything is made of atoms, or, Everything is God. There is no supernatural / natural. To me it is all the same; the divine expressing itself, evolving, changing through the aeons. I see the divine in everything. And I don't see that science will run out of answers, now questions come to that.

You'd be surprised how many hold to this God of the gaps argument. There are a few on this site that keep saying that until God can be proven false, we should assume that he exists.

What is your reasoning for believing that "everything is God," beyond, of course, what is stated in scripture?