Mother Nature vs. God?

[Jose Fly]

If we are to continue our discussion, I may have to ask you to please refrain from using artificial selection to promote points in my posts that were not intended.

What are you talking about?

The premise is very simple: The person(s) funding the scientific research controls the disclosure of the conclusions. It is the reason we are not reminded everyday of the news that the scientific community has once again failed to discover the origin of life.

Really? You think each research project into the origins of life is intended to "discover the origin of life" once and for all, and barring that, they are each a complete failure? You've never considered the possibility that they might be researching sub-issues within the larger question?

Let me ask you this: What specific papers on origins research have you read?

 

[Anonymouse]

Josefly-Really? You think each research project into the origins of life is intended to "discover the origin of life" once and for all, and barring that, they are each a complete failure? You've never considered the possibility that they might be researching sub-issues within the larger question?

Let me ask you this: What specific papers on origins research have you read?

Let me ask you this? If I funded 2 million dollars by hiring the brightest minds of science towards the agenda of finding out the all-important question of the origin of life, how long do you think it will take before these scientists are out of work and I am out 2 million dollars. Please show your work.

 

[Amill]

You didn't even respond to his questions. And are you suggesting that since money is being spent on research into the natural origin of life without there being a completely conclusive answer on how it occurred, that it is impossible or didn't ever happen? Solely because we haven't found an answer yet? And like Jose said, what do you make of the findings that have come out of that research?

 

[lunakilo]

I’m supporting the point that with all the beauty, ugliness and technicality evident in the different species on this planet it must be conceptualized and executed by artists.


My understanding comes very close to thief and Seyorni.

Seyorni-Nature is not a personage and does not judge, nor does it have goals. Its workings are entirely mechanical.Thief-To speak evolution and assume it leaves God out is naive.To speak creation without science is close minded.

My only addition to Seyorni’s comment is that I believe that there were programmers that programmed nature to behave that way.

Thief’s post was also very insightful. I just don’t grant divinity and holiness to the concept of God being a creator.

Al right. As far as I can see this all comes down to the question: what is randomness?

If you role a d6 there is a 1/6 chance og getting a 6.
But is there someone deciding the outcome of every role either by having programmed nature or by by directly interfereing every time someone roles a die, or is it just chance with no higher power involved.

If randomness is controled by natures programming, then nature decides what comes into being and thus is in charge of evolution.
And that would make Nature a god.

If randomness is uncontrolled, then nature is simply the outcome of the process called evolution where no higher power involved.

 

[LuisDantas]

What is interesting about following all of these Evolution vs. Creationism threads is the close ambiguous word play that evolutionists employ that comes close to admitting that they may have a deity called Nature. This nature judges what is good, bad, productive, purposeful and still they cannot explain why I do not have a neck like a giraffe, the same life span as a bug or why I cannot fly or live underwater even though my “cousin” could.

I'm afraid not.

I suppose it may look that way under certain circunstances. It might be useful to study a bit about the meaning and role of Natural Selection in Biology. The concept is at one time ingenuous and really quite simple. The core idea is that while mutation is indeed random, its odds of survival through various generations isn't; not due to any "deity" or design but simply because random mutations compete against each other for the opportunity to survive and breed. That unavoidably favors some mutations over others.

Natural selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When evolutionists speak against creationism I sometimes wonder if there aren’t enough artists in the ToE community. I wonder if sometimes they don’t recognize that the findings of evolution or the chain of events that are discovered doesn’t somehow give the researcher a glimpse into a unique and highly stylized sense of creation (for example, a God (or gods) that has created for the specific purpose of evolving). But what really captures my attention is the way that the ToE community describes nature and I realize then that they may have been following and researching (possibly misunderstanding) a different kind of god. Are highly prominent scientists accurately adhering to the scientific method or are they just promoting and putting all of their faith into Mother Nature?

Well, belief in God is a matter of aesthetical inclination in the first place, so I guess I see your point. And in fact, it is indeed possible and common to believe in God while also being aware and accepting of the nature of biological evolution. It is not like there is any contradiction at that.

The truth of the matter is that, in contrast to what some people believe, the whole controversy was created by Creationists and is kept alive by them still. Evolutionism is just a scientific finding like any other. It has no need nor desire to meddle with theological concepts or beliefs. Individual people of course might, but that has no bearing into Evolutionism itself.

What you describe looks like a pantheist or perhaps more accurately panentheist view of nature. It is quite possible to be a panentheist biologist without falling into contradiction. But it is also quite optional, because ultimately it makes no difference for the science itself. Despite your apparent suspicions, belief is weightless when push comes to shove in the field.

So no, there is no need nor evidence of straying from the scientific method in biological research related to the ToE. Yet yes, it is definitely possible and valid to be a straight panentheist biologist. Or, for that matter, a pantheist, theist, monotheist, Christian or Muslim biologist. The Theory of Evolution is not out to say that God does not exist or anything of the sort. It just describes and explains how lifeforms derive from each other.

 

[Thief]

I'm afraid not.

I suppose it may look that way under certain circunstances. It might be useful to study a bit about the meaning and role of Natural Selection in Biology. The concept is at one time ingenuous and really quite simple. The core idea is that while mutation is indeed random, its odds of survival through various generations isn't; not due to any "deity" or design but simply because random mutations compete against each other for the opportunity to survive and breed. That unavoidably favors some mutations over others.

Natural selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Well, belief in God is a matter of aesthetical inclination in the first place, so I guess I see your point. And in fact, it is indeed possible and common to believe in God while also being aware and accepting of the nature of biological evolution. It is not like there is any contradiction at that.

The truth of the matter is that, in contrast to what some people believe, the whole controversy was created by Creationists and is kept alive by them still. Evolutionism is just a scientific finding like any other. It has no need nor desire to meddle with theological concepts or beliefs. Individual people of course might, but that has no bearing into Evolutionism itself.

What you describe looks like a pantheist or perhaps more accurately panentheist view of nature. It is quite possible to be a panentheist biologist without falling into contradiction. But it is also quite optional, because ultimately it makes no difference for the science itself. Despite your apparent suspicions, belief is weightless when push comes to shove in the field.

So no, there is no need nor evidence of straying from the scientific method in biological research related to the ToE. Yet yes, it is definitely possible and valid to be a straight panentheist biologist. Or, for that matter, a pantheist, theist, monotheist, Christian or Muslim biologist. The Theory of Evolution is not out to say that God does not exist or anything of the sort. It just describes and explains how lifeforms derive from each other.

All the while using the word 'selection'.....
which would indicate an intelligence making choices.

 

[lunakilo]

All the while using the word 'selection'.....
which would indicate an intelligence making choices.

maybe that is why the word natural is put in front of it

 

[Thief]

maybe that is why the word natural is put in front of it

And 'natural' is a left over from a belief in a god.
Her name was Nature.

 

[lunakilo]

And 'natural' is a left over from a belief in a god.
Her name was Nature.

Hmm, I am not sure about that.

As I wrote earlier:

If randomness is controled by natures programming, then nature decides what comes into being and thus is in charge of evolution.
And that would make Nature a god.

If randomness is uncontrolled, then nature is simply the outcome of the process called evolution where no higher power involved.

You can se Nature as a god if you choose to, but you can also see nature as the very mundane outcome of a very mundane process.

 

[Thief]

Hmm, I am not sure about that.

As I wrote earlier:

You can se Nature as a god if you choose to, but you can also see nature as the very mundane outcome of a very mundane process.

So take the namesake and drop it...
replace it with Creator.

What?...God is not allowed to 'touch' His creation?

 

[lunakilo]

You can se Nature as a god if you choose to, but you can also see nature as the very mundane outcome of a very mundane process.

So take the namesake and drop it...
replace it with Creator.

What?...God is not allowed to 'touch' His creation?

If randomness as not being controlled by the divine, how does your post make sense?

 

[Thief]

If randomness as not being controlled by the divine, how does your post make sense?

It seems a misread somewhere?

I say, God is in control.

The play of the chemistry is simply....one small change at a time.

 

[McBell]

If randomness as not being controlled by the divine, how does your post make sense?

um...
Randomness is God?

Some people are so desperate for there to be a god they will throw their god in the mix even when it makes no sense to anyone, even their god.

 

[Thief]

um...
Randomness is God?

Some people are so desperate for there to be a god they will throw their god in the mix even when it makes no sense to anyone, even their god.

Keep reading....you'll catch on.

then again...maybe not.

 

[McBell]

Keep reading....you'll catch on.

then again...maybe not.

No need to catch on.
I am not interested in what you are selling.
I find it severely lacking in substance.

 

[lunakilo]

I say, God is in control.

The play of the chemistry is simply....one small change at a time.

Fine, you say God is in contol, but that is not the only interpretation isn't it?

It could be that randomness is not controlled by anyone or anything and then natural selection is not controlled. And nature is not a god.

 

[tumbleweed41]

...And nature is not a god.

:clap

 

[Anonymouse]

Lunakilo-Al right. As far as I can see this all comes down to the question: what is randomness?

If you role a d6 there is a 1/6 chance og getting a 6.
But is there someone deciding the outcome of every role either by having programmed nature or by by directly interfereing every time someone roles a die, or is it just chance with no higher power involved.

If randomness is controled by natures programming, then nature decides what comes into being and thus is in charge of evolution.
And that would make Nature a god.

If randomness is uncontrolled, then nature is simply the outcome of the process called evolution where no higher power involved.

The example I use is that nature could be a massive, highly sophisticated MMORPG program. We know that programmers create and execute these programs and release them for use by the population who are interested in playing them but they aren’t sophisticated enough to keep it self-contained; that is, they need to keep up with updates or fixing general bugs. The program of nature could be sophisticated enough to be self-contained, in that it does not need updating or there could be an intelligence that we don’t know about that is guiding (or misguiding) this evolution. One thing that seems evident is that this program can be hacked. Whether humans do this through natural means or unnatural means is debatable.

Nature is shareware.

 

[Anonymouse]

Amill-You didn't even respond to his questions

The last information I received about theoretical evolution origins was the embarrassing “crystal-back riding” molecules theory and the belief that the planet could have been directly or indirectly seeded which may hint towards Intelligence Design but asks more questions than answers. Are these the theories that Josefly wants to advocate? The last word from science that I heard was that no one knows. Is that what Josefly is going to tell me?

And are you suggesting that since money is being spent on research (anonymouse-it is a multi-billion dollar industry) into the natural origin of life without there being a completely conclusive answer on how it occurred, that it is impossible or didn't ever happen?

No, I am only suggesting that since the scientist does not know how the origin of evolution happened that I can no longer afford to support his conclusion.

 

[lunakilo]

The example I use is that nature could be a massive, highly sophisticated MMORPG program. We know that programmers create and execute these programs and release them for use by the population who are interested in playing them but they aren’t sophisticated enough to keep it self-contained that is, they need to keep up with updates or fixing general bugs. The program of nature could be sophisticated enough to be self-contained, in that it does not need updating or there could be an intelligence that we don’t know about that is guiding (or misguiding) this evolution. One thing that seems evident is that this program can be hacked. Whether humans do this through natural means or unnatural means is debatable.

Nature is shareware.

Oh yes!
God the almighty must be the only one who can make bug free software (there may have been a little bug at the time of Noa, but he fixed that).
I guess he could have made Nature.
I wonder what fetures one would get access to if one buys a licence.

But back to the OP:

What is interesting about following all of these Evolution vs. Creationism threads is the close ambiguous word play that evolutionists employ that comes close to admitting that they may have a deity called Nature. This nature judges what is good, bad, productive, purposeful and still they cannot explain why I do not have a neck like a giraffe, the same life span as a bug or why I cannot fly or live underwater even though my “cousin” could.

Nature is only a god if it actually decides the outcome.
I don't see any reason to believe that.

But if it is so, then nature is definatly the kind of god I could live with