Is Evolution really all there is????

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Guy's vision of life, the universe, physics and history is utterly myopic. Better luck teaching your cat to bark.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The watch and factory is completely explainable by evolution...gradual change over time in technology up to the point someone can design a watch and a factory to make them. It didn't just happen overnight, it took all of human history and civilization to create that watch...and the factory where they are manufactured. We can go find historical evidence of the development of time-tracking machines, and the development of the technology of making such devices to wear on the human body.

But no one, ever, just waved their metaphorical hand and suddenly there was a watch. And while some people might have conceived of mechanical timepieces to wear on the wrist or attached to clothing, it was not until the technology advanced sufficiently that anyone actually built one.

Seems to me that the watchmaker analogy supports evolution a lot more than it does creation...

regardless of how long it took, the techniques, the process- there was one utterly essential ingredient for the watch to ever exist: creative intelligence- the desire, purpose to make it happen.

If I were forced to try to account for the watch without it?

I might first propose that the watch simply always existed, no creation and therefore no creator (static, eternal, steady state universe models)

Once we dated the watch to a specific creation event, I might be forced to shift to a cyclical system whereby the watch re-creates itself (Big Crunch)

once this too was debunked, I'd probably be forced to conclude an infinite probability machine that can create anything and everything spontaneously

(except a watchmaker of course- this infinite probability machine must have a safety mechanism to prevent this ever happening)



And therein lies the fundamental difference:
Naturalism must banish ID entirely from the playing field to become the most probable cause

But ID requires no such restriction on nature to win as most probable

We have no grounds to completely rule out either do we?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

regardless of how long it took, the techniques, the process- there was one utterly essential ingredient for the watch to ever exist: creative intelligence- the desire, purpose to make it happen.

If I were forced to try to account for the watch without it?

I might first propose that the watch simply always existed, no creation and therefore no creator (static, eternal, steady state universe models)

Once we dated the watch to a specific creation event, I might be forced to shift to a cyclical system whereby the watch re-creates itself (Big Crunch)

once this too was debunked, I'd probably be forced to conclude an infinite probability machine that can create anything and everything spontaneously

(except a watchmaker of course- this infinite probability machine must have a safety mechanism to prevent this ever happening)



And therein lies the fundamental difference:
Naturalism must banish ID entirely from the playing field to become the most probable cause

But ID requires no such restriction on nature to win as most probable

We have no grounds to completely rule out either do we?

and ID must assert an entity that can never be demonstrated to exist, but must be assumed, or else the whole construct of Monotheistic belief in an omnimax deity comes tumbling to the ground.

Can't completely rule out such a deity, but the principle of simplicity suggests that it doesn't exist.

 

[Demonslayer]

The old watchmaker chestnut? Haven't we seen the answer to this many times?

1. The watch is a complex thing, that could not have come about on it's own
2. Therefore the watch must have had a maker
3. However, the maker of the watch is necessarily MORE complex than the watch itself
4. Therefore, since the watchmaker is also a very complex thing, the watchmaker couldn't have come about on it's own
5. Therefore the watchmaker must have had a maker

Who made the watchmaker?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Guy's vision of life, the universe, physics and history is utterly myopic. Better luck teaching your cat to bark.

another very thoughtful substantive comment,

you are a master debater

So, if we create our (and please do note the plural that you have introduced here) own little universe, will we know everything that occurs in it? Will we have little aliens all saying of us, "Wow! God sure is big and created everything in an instant just like we see it? And revealed himself to some wandering tribe in a desert...and so on?

Just ask yourself. If you created a universe, would you not take any interest in it? would you wish it to be lifeless or experienced from within by it's own sentient life? would you care for and wish to provide a guide to help these lives fulfill their greatest potential, to appreciate, explore, your creation ?

Most would say yes, it's only logical.

You're saying "US," as in limited humans, would become literally GOD for those living inside the universe we created...And that "it is possible that this is how our own universe came to be..."...so it's possible our universe was created by beings who really aren't omnipotent, omniscient, etc., and might be not one but a collective...

Certainly it's possible...but it's also possible that the various Hindu accounts of creation and the nature of the universe are also true, or the Shinto, or the stories of the Dreamtime told by Australian Aborigines, or...

There are literally thousands of stories of creation told by humans...but it's more likely that YOUR preferred version is the truth than any of the others, and apparently, especially than the ones based in evidence collected about the nature of the universe...

I acknowledge my faith, belief as such, that I cant prove it. I was born and raised atheist and remained so for decades. So I can prove one thing, my opinion on this is totally unreliable!


must run for today..

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The old watchmaker chestnut? Haven't we seen the answer to this many times?

no, it keeps on ticking!

1. The watch is a complex thing, that could not have come about on it's own
2. Therefore the watch must have had a maker
3. However, the maker of the watch is necessarily MORE complex than the watch itself
4. Therefore, since the watchmaker is also a very complex thing, the watchmaker couldn't have come about on it's own
5. Therefore the watchmaker must have had a maker

Who made the watchmaker?

This is the first cause paradox, which applies to any explanation (where did THAT come from) so it's not only a wash, but a moot point- because here we are. Obviously there is a solution to this paradox one way or another.

whats NOT even are the odds of chance v ID creating everything we see around us.

 

[Demonslayer]

Obviously there is a solution to this paradox one way or another.

There is a solution, it's called natural selection. Natural selection builds very complex things over time without a sentient being involved. This explains how complexity can exist in nature without intention or design, and it eliminates the first cause paradox because it allows for complexity without a creator.

That you don't accept it is all well and good. But you can't have ID without this paradox, the question will always be "if complex things need a creator, than God would need a creator too." Saying "nuh-uh cuz he's God" doesn't solve the paradox.

whats NOT even are the odds of chance v ID creating everything we see around us.

Correct because "chance" doesn't "create" anything, and everything doesn't need to be "created."

 

[McBell]

whats NOT even are the odds of chance v ID creating everything we see around us.

Please show your math.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Just ask yourself. If you created a universe, would you not take any interest in it? would you wish it to be lifeless or experienced from within by it's own sentient life? would you care for and wish to provide a guide to help these lives fulfill their greatest potential, to appreciate, explore, your creation ?

Most would say yes, it's only logical.

There are lots of things that are logical. Logic, in and of itself, is meaningless--I suggest a good reading of Kant's The Critique of Pure Reason. Reason by itself can only make sure that reason is operating according to reason. It's only when we apply reason to observations that we can develop anything resembling an understanding of the world we live in. Logic is a tool for understanding our observations.

So, saying "it's logical" that a human would think about a creator of a universe and say that they would want there to be sentient life and so on is logical ONLY FROM OUT LIMITED PERSPECTIVE. We have can have no idea what an omnimax creator deity, not beholden to the laws that apparently govern the natural phenomenon of its creation, would find "logical" or reasonable to do.

Let's say that humans manage to create a universe, ala Linde and other modern theoretical physicists. If we can create one, it will be because we have gained some understanding of the natural laws that govern the formation of universes--not because we are deities.

And, we can create many. If we can vary the parameters, then it's likely that we'll experiment with them, creating many universes. Will we really be omnimax deities, though? No--likely, we would be the kind of deity described by Deism, a creator who has nothing further to do with events within its creation. Or, maybe we could only intervene in the most catastrophic of ways, because, well, as outside of the universe, how would we/it be able to see what's going on within, and affect it in subtle ways?

If there is one being somewhere who is creating universes, then why not lots of them? If WE can do it, why not anyone? EVERYONE? In fact, if there are all kinds of universes popping into existence as various sentient beings create them (using the laws of nature that we would exploit), why should we call the one/ones who created ours "God," and grant them omnimax powers--since we are able to do it (at least in this thought experiment), and we are most definitely NOT omnimax beings)?

And indeed, if non-omnimax sentient beings are capable of creating universes by exploiting the laws of nature, what is to keep NATURE from creating universes, since in this case we are talking about what can only be thought of as higher dimensions, etc. And whether or not it is sentient beings or the laws of nature itself, why exactly do we need to assert an omnimax deity to create our universe and us?

 

[Bird123]

When the Super-Volcano under Yellowstone Park explodes, - intelligence won't mean squat to that extinction event.

Estimated 90,000 dead in seconds, - a ten foot layer of molten ash 300 to a 1000 miles from the epicenter, - Sulfuric gasses will mix in the atmosphere into our water vapor, we will have temperature drop, darkening of the sky, - plants and animals will die, etc.



Ummmm? Why do you think I said a few made it? The majority died, some evolved into our birds.

*

90,000 dead out of say 8 billion, it's not the end of the world. there are probably 90,000 people who die in the middle east fighting every year. The Earth has had volcanoes go off in the past. We are still here. Mt St Helen kicked up a pretty good punch yet go look around it today.

One can dream up end of the world extinction, however I'll believe it only when I see it. Then, I would not be surprised if someone figured out a solution before everyone dies off.

A good challenge might be frightening but is not the end of the world.

 

[Bird123]

Intelligence might not be a very selective feature, in the end. Our species has only just made an appearance on this planet and already our cleverness has initiated a sixth Mass Extinction Event and a proposed new geological epoch. We may well be the most pernicious and monumentally unsuccessful species ever to hit the planet.

Perhaps all is not lost, though. Intelligence no longer confers an adaptive advantage. Clever people are no longer raising more children to maturity than dullards, and bright ideas and technology now spread instantly throughout the population. Mean IQ is decreasing.

Like eyes in a cave fish, metabolically expensive but no longer useful features tend to atrophy over time. If we can revert back to a Homo habilis' mentality before things collapse completely there may be a chance...

You are right in that the genius of the world are having fewer children, however that does not matter. As mankind's knowledge increases, it increases at a faster rate. Picture this: When robots are finally made to be able to do all the work, that will free up everyone's time. What will people do? Perhaps they will strive to better themselves intellectually in a million different ways. Though a few geniuses might end up carrying the many, this might allow everyone to advance further than simple evolution would allow.

 

[Bird123]

Why are we discussing "good" reasons or "bad" reasons? My statements inferred that there were no reasons for the occurrence of mutations and speciation events. I realize that this idea and mindset are difficult to grasp when one has the presupposition of a reason behind everything. But for the sake of communication, please do try to wrap your head around that?

As far as "good reasons" for the continuation of a given mutation continuing to exist to be passed to successive generations, you are philosophizing something for which there is no philosophizing. In a bitterly cold environment, there is a very good reason why mutations that gave extra layers of fur and/or blubber continued to thrive to be passed down to successive generations. So let's not philosophize such a simple concept? Thank you.

Then, as with everything in this world, we find that the Challenges lead to adaptation and growth in everything physical and in who a person is to become. Hmmmm? Whoever thought up such a system totally based on one concept has got to have High Intelligence especially since the world works so very well. What do you think?

 

[Bird123]

Since time as we know it, was created along with the rest of the universe; arguably choice 1 and 2 can coexist from God's perspective right?

i.e he created all time and space simultaneously. So in this sense he also created man in his present form.

We used to think the physical universe just happened to exist this way accidentally also, and by a few simple physical laws

We know better now with quantum mechanics, subatomic physics, everything was developed in distinct stages and according to highly specific instructions, describing exactly how great fusion reactors in stars would be assembled, and create and disperse the complex materials necessary for life. I see no reason to suspect that the development of that life is any different. That the process suddenly became blind and unguided at this point, and the result of a single species capable of appreciating all this creation from within.. yet one more staggering coincidence? millions of significant design improvements appeared spontaneously through lucky mutations? Not technically impossible I suppose, but I wouldn't bet on it!

Luck has never been a factor. I see only High Intelligence at work. Quantum physics does open a door to discover much. As science opens one door, it always leads to a place where one can discover more.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is a solution, it's called natural selection. Natural selection builds very complex things over time without a sentient being involved. This explains how complexity can exist in nature without intention or design, and it eliminates the first cause paradox because it allows for complexity without a creator.

Selection of a superior design goes entirely without saying, it's why the Ford Mustang outlived the Pinto. It's how automobiles evolved from scratch in fact. No argument there!

How you attain each significantly superior design in the first place, to then be selected.. is the far more relevant part, and usually skipped over by evolutionists. Perhaps because it relies 100% on complete utter fluke- a random mutation spontaneously creating significant design advantages.. millions of times over till a single cell becomes human. it's a little problematic to say the least, and the reason most people are skeptical of the theory.

That you don't accept it is all well and good. But you can't have ID without this paradox, the question will always be "if complex things need a creator, than God would need a creator too." Saying "nuh-uh cuz he's God" doesn't solve the paradox.

nor does saying 'nuh uh cuz it's nature' solve the same paradox, again it's wash and moot. But there is a separate paradox- that of infinite regression, purely automated naturalistic mechanisms relying on infinite layers of supporting naturalistic mechanisms. Creativity solves this paradox, this need for infinite automation- is is the only phenomena we know of that can create anything truly original.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Luck has never been a factor. I see only High Intelligence at work. Quantum physics does open a door to discover much. As science opens one door, it always leads to a place where one can discover more.

Hopefully... if it is not, as has often been the case, held back by atheist ideology, ever seeking to close the case on the simplest most superficial 'God refuting' theory at hand.

No coincidence that both Lemaitre and Planck were notable skeptics of atheism, which allowed them to delve a little deeper

 

[Ingledsva]

90,000 dead out of say 8 billion, it's not the end of the world. there are probably 90,000 people who die in the middle east fighting every year. The Earth has had volcanoes go off in the past. We are still here. Mt St Helen kicked up a pretty good punch yet go look around it today.

One can dream up end of the world extinction, however I'll believe it only when I see it. Then, I would not be surprised if someone figured out a solution before everyone dies off.

A good challenge might be frightening but is not the end of the world.

Mt St. Helen was not a super volcano. Yellowstone is.

Those 90,000 are just those estimated to die in the first few seconds, the rest will die from drinking and eating toxic food and water, = starvation, and disease from all the dead animals - including dead humans.

Planes will be grounded, as they are now for even small volcanic eruptions, - so no fast escape for those on the fringe of the event.

Basically death, and a many years long darkness, causing starvation for survivors on the American continent.

No God is needed for any of this.

And of course we are talking possibilities for mass extinction events.

*

 

[Thief]

Mt St. Helen was not a super volcano. Yellowstone is.

Those 90,000 are just those estimated to die in the first few seconds, the rest will die from drinking and eating toxic food and water, = starvation, and disease from all the dead animals - including dead humans.

Planes will be grounded, as they are now for even small volcanic eruptions, - so no fast escape for those on the fringe of the event.

Basically death, and a many years long darkness, causing starvation for survivors on the American continent.

No God is needed for any of this.

And of course we are talking possibilities for mass extinction events.

*

not to mention the dust cloud that will take years to settle....
sending the surface to a chill for lack of sun light
sending crops to fail
fuel driven vehicles will choke for air
grocery stores will not be restocked

are you ready?

 

[Ingledsva]

Hopefully... if it is not, as has often been the case, held back by atheist ideology, ever seeking to close the case on the simplest most superficial 'God refuting' theory at hand.

No coincidence that both Lemaitre and Planck were notable skeptics of atheism, which allowed them to delve a little deeper

Planck was a Deist at the end. He didn't believe in the Christian God, or any personal God.

*

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There are lots of things that are logical. Logic, in and of itself, is meaningless--I suggest a good reading of Kant's The Critique of Pure Reason. Reason by itself can only make sure that reason is operating according to reason. It's only when we apply reason to observations that we can develop anything resembling an understanding of the world we live in. Logic is a tool for understanding our observations.

So, saying "it's logical" that a human would think about a creator of a universe and say that they would want there to be sentient life and so on is logical ONLY FROM OUT LIMITED PERSPECTIVE. We have can have no idea what an omnimax creator deity, not beholden to the laws that apparently govern the natural phenomenon of its creation, would find "logical" or reasonable to do.

Thanks for the thoughtful response (and Im not being sarcastic!)

I take your point, it's certainly not something we can nail down. But we are not without any logical tools here.

Had the universe turned out to comply with various static, eternal, steady state, big crunch models that claimed to 'make God redundant' I'd be willing to accept the implications.
I'd also accept the implications of a galaxy teaming with myriad forms sentient life - that humanity is apparently not the primary intended beneficiary of creation, that we are probably not 'created in his image' in a human manner..

But I'm also willing to accept the opposite implications, those of observed reality- a universe with a distinct specific creation event, inexplicable by any natural mechanism we know of, and the 'great silence' of the galaxy.
We are the only means we know of by which the universe can contemplate, appreciate, know itself from within.. right? it's possible that all creation was intended ultimately for penguins, huddling on an ice sheet for some greater unknown purpose.. but surely you take my point- a book written in french is primarily intended for those who can appreciate it most- french speakers, and we can reasonably guess that the author is probably French also.

Let's say that humans manage to create a universe, ala Linde and other modern theoretical physicists. If we can create one, it will be because we have gained some understanding of the natural laws that govern the formation of universes--not because we are deities.

We will have established ID as the only known, testable, scientifically validated origins for a universe.
Right now ID and naturalism are both unproven, but while the natural means has confounded science at every turn, the ID means are becoming ever more plausible- 'feasible' in Linde's own words.

And, we can create many. If we can vary the parameters, then it's likely that we'll experiment with them, creating many universes. Will we really be omnimax deities, though? No--likely, we would be the kind of deity described by Deism, a creator who has nothing further to do with events within its creation. Or, maybe we could only intervene in the most catastrophic of ways, because, well, as outside of the universe, how would we/it be able to see what's going on within, and affect it in subtle ways?

I don't really follow that logic, why would we not wish to retain the ability to observe, be involved, experience our creation- as we do with all of our creations, our own children?

If there is one being somewhere who is creating universes, then why not lots of them? If WE can do it, why not anyone? EVERYONE? In fact, if there are all kinds of universes popping into existence as various sentient beings create them (using the laws of nature that we would exploit), why should we call the one/ones who created ours "God," and grant them omnimax powers--since we are able to do it (at least in this thought experiment), and we are most definitely NOT omnimax beings)?

I agree with your logic here, perhaps there are many, and I think this is the ultimate flaw with multiverses as a purely naturalist mechanism for cosmogony. An infinite probability machine powerful enough to create universes...sentient creative beings.. but restricted somehow from creating universe creators? Yet even in this 'one little universe' this is looking plausible.

i.e. even if there is such a thing as a naturalistic multiverse, it's arguably still not the best explanation for ours. Because the ID universes would be custom designed for life, designed by reverse engineering an already living universe. versus the staggering odds against designing the same by pure chance.
Think of this, where in a living animal is the information that describes it? the DNA yes? without which it could not have come to be. Now where in our universe is the information that describes it? To a large degree, right here in our data banks.
i.e. in this scenario we could think of ourselves as the DNA of universes, our job being similarly to store the information and replicate, reproduce our host bodies..

And indeed, if non-omnimax sentient beings are capable of creating universes by exploiting the laws of nature, what is to keep NATURE from creating universes, since in this case we are talking about what can only be thought of as higher dimensions, etc. And whether or not it is sentient beings or the laws of nature itself, why exactly do we need to assert an omnimax deity to create our universe and us?

we are non-omnimax currently, but we are not yet able to create a universe either. not so long ago, the very concept of an invisible cloud of intelligence, able to communicate with billions of people simultaneously- anywhere on the globe, was pure fantasy, not anymore.

but technicalities aside, again the one key ingredient for making a watch is creativity, desire, purpose- which can only exist in a conscious mind. this unique phenomena can create what nature alone never can

 

[Bird123]

Mt St. Helen was not a super volcano. Yellowstone is.

Those 90,000 are just those estimated to die in the first few seconds, the rest will die from drinking and eating toxic food and water, = starvation, and disease from all the dead animals - including dead humans.

Planes will be grounded, as they are now for even small volcanic eruptions, - so no fast escape for those on the fringe of the event.

Basically death, and a many years long darkness, causing starvation for survivors on the American continent.

No God is needed for any of this.

And of course we are talking possibilities for mass extinction events.

*

Tell me the possibilities for wonderful events. I see those as having a Greater possibility. Knowledge will increase at a faster rate the more we discover. Perhaps together we can figure out how to stop the end of the world from taking place. How about directional boring a hole to vent the build up of pressure. We could vent the lava into the ocean, create more land then build little pink houses for the starving people in the world today.

There is always a way. Why be a Victim when one can always Create???