Is there any reason to reject the science of evolution, other than religious beliefs?

[URAVIP2ME]

Is the universe accommodating to life? Christians on these forums don't seem enthusiastic about the idea that extra-terrestrial life is abundant,...........

.... and the reason why (at this point in time) is what is referred to as the ' sin issue '
Before there can be intelligent life elsewhere first the rebellion issue that started in Eden would first have to be settled here on Earth
Earth is the model, and once the issue, that started in Eden, is settled then we could see intelligent life elsewhere in the universe

 

[setarcos]

Gods answer nothing. They are as unlikely to exist as universes. You're kicking the problem back from a universe to a god.

Um...nooo. Your kicking the problem from a more improbable to a God. The particulars of which are the mental interpretations of mankind.
I'm defining the problem as the more improbable - all natural processes - ,compared to the less improbable - unnatural directed processes.
The particulars of what unnatural directed processes caused what is a different arguable question.

It's a logical error (special pleading) to apply an unjustified double standard for gods and universes.

I apply no standard other than the mathematically established probabilities of sufficient causes.

If one just looks at a cell or a universe and says, that's unlikely, he doesn't overcome that by positing an unlikely (for the same reasons) entity to account for it.

That depends on what makes the event unlikely versus posited other propositions.
If for instance the cell was discovered to have a portion of it which is known to not be found naturally in the universe as are some known elements but can be readily made artificially, the probability that the cell was made artificially goes up as the more probable sufficient cause. That does not identify the more probable sufficient cause. It merely makes the more probable cause artificial.

Whatever the believer's reasons are for accepting that god unchallenged can be reasons to accept naturalism unchallenged.

Two different arguments. Your speaking of a presumed identified sufficient cause - A particular God, when the argument here concerns classes of cause. Insentient undirected purposelessness versus sentient directed purposefulness.

Whatever requirements he wants to subject nature to, he must subject his proposed deity to or give a reason why it should be exempted.

I have my reasons for believing in the Christian God. But as I've said the specific cause is a different argument than one concerning the class of cause I am discussing here.
The reasons for my choice of the class of sufficient cause here is given by probability.

The usual reasons given are irrelevant:

• Because he's God
• Because he lives outside of time and space
• Because the laws of reason don't apply to their inventor.

These things may be used by some to identify specific sufficient causes within their relevant frames of reference but they have nothing to do with identification a more probable class of sufficient cause given specific identified physical data.

 

[Pogo]

That question depends on what makes something so complex, unlikely.
I think your mistaking complexity with probability. The probability of picking 1 blue ball out of ten red ones is the same no matter how complex or simple the balls themselves are.
Your simply asking what is the most probable sufficient cause of the formation of such complexity.
The answer is ...no one knows for sure. But the probability that natural undirected processes are sufficient to cause the formation of such complexity has been determined to be less - much, much less than the probability that some directed "unnatural" process is the sufficiency of the cause.
Why should it be that we were at one time willing to accept that the universe has just existed in eternal perpetuity eliminating "turtles all the way down" but we are not willing to accept the possibility of the same for what we call "God"? An eternal creator eliminates "turtles all the way day" just as sufficiently.
The buck stopping there so to speak.

Determined by whom with what evidence? Sorry, you can't do probabilities without information.

 

[McBell]

But the probability that natural undirected processes are sufficient to cause the formation of such complexity has been determined to be less - much, much less than the probability that some directed "unnatural" process is the sufficiency of the cause.

It has?
Please link us to where it has been determined.
I am particularly interested in where they got their numbers.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Um...nooo. Your kicking the problem from a more improbable to a God.

You're saying that a god causing a universe is more probable than say an unconscious multiverse causing our universe, or our universe always existing as some seed that eventually began expanding. Make the argument. The claim isn't insufficient.

I apply no standard other than the mathematically established probabilities of sufficient causes.

You have a different standard for your god than you do for nature and justify it with verbal smoke and mirrors trying to justify a double standard. Writing the phrase, "the mathematically established probabilities of sufficient causes" has no persuasive power. Make a specific argument. Show the mathematics that you say justifies your double standard.

If for instance the cell was discovered to have a portion of it which is known to not be found naturally in the universe as are some known elements but can be readily made artificially, the probability that the cell was made artificially goes up as the more probable sufficient cause. That does not identify the more probable sufficient cause. It merely makes the more probable cause artificial.

That's an irreducible complexity argument: finding matter arranged in ways it could not have accomplished without the help of an intelligence - sort of a post turtle of nuclear physics. The saying goes, when you come upon a turtle on a post, you don't know how it got there, but you know it got help.

 

[Godobeyer]

However, Not so in the Bible because at Genesis 2:7 man did Not evolve but God formed or fashioned man from the existing ground

Bible or Qur'an, both about creation.
The steps of creation mentioned, in Qur'an, evolution of human body inside his mother during the creation.

Not mentioned to whole process of creation or evolution.

 

[blü 2]

Bible or Qur'an, both about creation.
The steps of creation mentioned, in Qur'an, evolution of human body inside his mother during the creation.

Not mentioned to whole process of creation or evolution.

But of course the Qur'an was written at a time when there was no concept of evolution as a force for diversity of species.

You don't use 7th century medicine, I take it,. Why would you use 7th century science?

 

[Godobeyer]

But of course the Qur'an was written at a time when there was no concept of evolution as a force for diversity of species.

You don't use 7th century medicine, I take it,. Why would you use 7th century science?

No, science just discover evolution. Recently.

The concept of evolution exist in Qur'an.
Which means creation by steps.
Qur'an is not science book.
It's just message from God to human beings.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

My point is that given that the universe IS here and it seems to be here in a most unlikely form IF we assume just "natural" undirected processes but not if we assume directed (in some fashion) processes, then why have you chosen to view the universes creation in its most unlikely form?

Why is it that you refuse to subject this sentient creator to the same rules you do our universe? You keep talking about how unlikely the universe is but won't address how unlikely gods are? There is no known reason for such a thing to exist, exactly like a universe.

Is it simply because you would rather disregard the "God hypothesis" than the "natural hypothesis" even though the latter is more unlikely mathematically?

And there you go again asserting mathematics that you've never provided or supported. You have a god and a universe in your metaphysics and keep asserting probabilities that favor a god and the universe over just a universe or a multiverse and our universe without evidence or argument - just by fiat. You'll never try to justify that, will you?

I just find it fascinating that some prefer the more improbable over the less improbable just to remove any conditions which might involve sentient directives in the universes creation. Why is that do you think?

More of your made-up math.

Its certainly not scientific nor even rational if you go with the mathematically more probable.

And more.

Why should it be that we were at one time willing to accept that the universe has just existed in eternal perpetuity eliminating "turtles all the way down" but we are not willing to accept the possibility of the same for what we call "God"?

I do accept that possibility, but possible isn't enough to call it a preferred hypothesis. How many more things are possible than actual? It's only the latter we care about, and we address the former in search of possible things that are actual.

You're form Nebraska? OK. You have a 9-digit Social Security Number, meaning that there are a trillion possibilities for it assuming that all 9-digit numbers can be a SSN. But only one is actual. Your might be 345-12-6789 if that's not an excluded number. Or maybe 987-65-4321.Maybe its 163-83-8814. Is this interesting to you? Not to me. That's how much less interesting possible is than actual.

So, yes. Gods are possible. And it's possible that your SSN is 572-72-5272.

An eternal creator eliminates "turtles all the way day" just as sufficiently. The buck stopping there so to speak.

So does an eternal universe and an eternal multiverse, and both of those are more parsimonious than presuming an eternal sentient creator. Neither requires sentience exist before it arose in this universe.

 

[Audie]

Why is it that you refuse to subject this sentient creator to the same rules you do our universe? You keep talking about how unlikely the universe is but won't address how unlikely gods are? There is no known reason for such a thing to exist, exactly like a universe.

And there you go again asserting mathematics that you've never provided or supported. You have a god and a universe in your metaphysics and keep asserting probabilities that favor a god and the universe over just a universe or a multiverse and our universe without evidence or argument - just by fiat. You'll never try to justify that, will you?

More of your made-up math.

And more.

I do accept that possibility, but possible isn't enough to call it a preferred hypothesis. How many more things are possible than actual? It's only the latter we care about, and we address the former in search of possible things that are actual.

You're form Nebraska? OK. You have a 9-digit Social Security Number, meaning that there are a trillion possibilities for it assuming that all 9-digit numbers can be a SSN. But only one is actual. Your might be 345-12-6789 if that's not an excluded number. Or maybe 987-65-4321.Maybe its 163-83-8814. Is this interesting to you? Not to me. That's how much less interesting possible is than actual.

So, yes. Gods are possible. And it's possible that your SSN is 572-72-5272.

So does an eternal universe and an eternal multiverse, and both of those are more parsimonious than presuming an eternal sentient creator. Neither requires sentience exist before it arose in this universe.

I get bored quick, with people who
just say things.

 

[Link]

There are religious believers who are going to be set in their ways & if that means rejecting the science of evolution, then it's probably a lost cause. I don't think there's any point in trying to change their minds, so I'm not interested in that.

I am, however, interested in finding out if there's a reason not based in any way on religious beliefs for rejecting the science of evolution. Is there any other reason?

I think evolution just by it's nature can never be proven, it can only be disproven. For example, if irreducible complexity exists in some type of structure in nature, then it's disproven. I think consciousness as in the ghost in the machine is an example of an irreducible construct.

 

[Pogo]

I think evolution just by it's nature can never be proven, it can only be disproven. For example, if irreducible complexity exists in some type of structure in nature, then it's disproven. I think consciousness as in the ghost in the machine is an example of an irreducible construct.

I think you miss the point that scientific theories are never proved though evolution is a fact beyond reasonable doubt. Irreducible complexity is another problem, you can never demonstrate it, only say that you have yet to reduce it which brings us to consciousness which we don't yet completely understand, but that in and of itself is not evidence of anything except the fact that we don't understand it yet.

 

[anotherneil]

In my opinion, not all religion gives a valid view of reality. But that is the nature of the game. Not every religion can be valid in reflecting reality. Especially those that diametrically appose one another in some fashion.
A common misconception about religion is that it must, by its very nature, be apposed to science. This is incorrect. In Christianity for instance religion reflects a reality which includes science which mankind has been fashioned to be able to use as a tool to survive, thrive, and discover certain aspects concerning that reality.
Science from its beginnings was never meant to be in conflict with religious belief except that some ignorant people promoted it as so.

Religion doesn't supersede science. On the contrary, the modern scientific method budded from a foundation of religious beliefs.
Science is a tool. Religion is an experience. The hammer was never meant to be the carpenter nor the carpenter the hammer yet the two were meant to complement each other in building a picture of reality. The hammer can do nothing of its own accord nor know reality. The carpenter cannot build a proper house without the hammer though the carpenter can "appreciate" reality which the hammer cannot do. Appreciation of reality IS a religious experience.
One thing that has been discovered about that reality through science is that as we approach what we think is the most fundamental levels of reality we find science behaving more like a religion being founded more on faith than fact. I think that might be because reality supersedes what the hammer can build but in appreciating that fact the carpenter has gone beyond what the hammer can do.

I don't think you can take scripture too literally where scripture is meant to be literal.
Many people forget that scripture as a whole is much much more than merely literal.
God speaks to the mind of humans but also to our hearts. Where the rational speaks to our condition the poet speaks to our reality.

Thank you for your opinion.

You mean like a boy evolving into a man?

Transitioning from a boy to a man isn't about evolving, it's about maturing from child stage to adult stage.

Or a crack evolving into a crevice which evolves into a crevasse?

That's deep, but nope, evolution in the context of biology - living, organic matter.

That kind of evolution?

Evolution in the context of this forum section; how could it be any other kind?

I was unaware that evolution has been used to develop medicines or treatments for illness. Can you elaborate on this?

Sure - see Jayhawker Soule's post, here: question for those who reject biological evolution

Give me a for instance from scripture that you think has been taken too literally. Appreciate the inputs from you.

I'm not sure why you're using the word "scripture" - I didn't phrase anything using this word. In any case, to answer your question regarding religious texts, the basis for creationism in religious texts: Creationism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[anotherneil]

It all depends on what you mean by evolution, some common definitions/(or ways to understand) for evolution are

1 organism change and adapt

2 common ancestry

3 complex organisms came from simpler organisms

4 the variety and complexity of life is mainly a consequence of the mechanisms of random variation + natural selection

The scientific consensus is that 1,2 and 3 are true beyond reasonable doubt…………..but there are good reasons to doubt “4”

Reject is a strong word………but Some reasons to doubt “4” are

1 the lack of conclusive evidence

2 the existence of other alternative mechanisms

3 the existence of obstacles that seem hard to overcome with these mechanisms alone

All of it.

 

[anotherneil]

Islam view is about creation,and mention on evolution too.
which mean both are true and parallel,life based on creation "blueprint"

What does this have to do with my question?

 

[anotherneil]

Neither evolution nor religion puts food on your plate or cure illnesses

Wrong; evolution actually does put food on my plate. I work for a healthcare organization, and I get part of my paycheck because of those patients who we help with treatments that were developed with the help of the scientific knowledge of evolution.

I agree that religion doesn't cure illnesses, but it does put food on plates for those involved in hustling religion, especially these types:

These Are The Richest Pastors In America

Some of the richest pastors in America built giant fortunes through the faithful, with at least one pastor's net worth estimated at over $300 million.

www.therichest.com

Why do you say that evolution does not cure illnesses?

If I may briefly say we are all challenged that under the loss of physical health we would Not serve God
And a person who can work but does Not neither should he eat

I don't know what this has to do with the topic, but it sounds like trying to pitch economic slavery.

 

[Link]

I think you miss the point that scientific theories are never proved though evolution is a fact beyond reasonable doubt. Irreducible complexity is another problem, you can never demonstrate it, only say that you have yet to reduce it which brings us to consciousness which we don't yet completely understand, but that in and of itself is not evidence of anything except the fact that we don't understand it yet.

IT's easy to dismiss an irreducible complex design and just say we can't or don't know. But we do know by it's design that it's irreducibly complex.

 

[anotherneil]

I think evolution just by it's nature can never be proven, it can only be disproven. For example, if irreducible complexity exists in some type of structure in nature, then it's disproven. I think consciousness as in the ghost in the machine is an example of an irreducible construct.

I think Pogo put it better than I could:

I think you miss the point that scientific theories are never proved though evolution is a fact beyond reasonable doubt. Irreducible complexity is another problem, you can never demonstrate it, only say that you have yet to reduce it which brings us to consciousness which we don't yet completely understand, but that in and of itself is not evidence of anything except the fact that we don't understand it yet.

 

[Link]

I think Pogo put it better than I could:

Why is irreducible complexity undetectable? It's not, it can be detectable.

In case of evolution, it proposes evolution happens by small changes over time through mutations and natural selection. However a ghost to non-ghost is too fundamentally different. A mind requires components, not just a simple mutation to give a ghost. All those components would not arise from a naturalistic point of view.

This reflection does show consciousness cannot arise from non-consciousness. It's irreducibly complex. It doesn't matter how much or little we understand of it, what we know of it is that it's fundamentally way different then non-consciousness. And we do know a mutation will not simply ever turn something from non-ghost to ghost in the machine.

 

[Pogo]

IT's easy to dismiss an irreducible complex design and just say we can't or don't know. But we do know by it's design that it's irreducibly complex.

First, You don't know it might be designed unless you know of a designer and its potential methods.
Assuming design because it seems complex is a god of the gaps fallacy.
Secondly there are a lot of indirect pathways to create things which appear Irreducible in that you see no simple route but just have not found the more complex route.
As for consciousness, it is probably what is known as an emergent property like the wetness of water which cannot be predicted from knowledge of the properties of Hydrogen and Oxygen but is not really special, just an unknown property from the physical combination of basic neurological actions.
We don't know is the answer not hypothesizing an unknown explanation that is even more complex than the original problem.