Some thoughts about evolution vs creation debates

[Jim]

One of my disagreements with people on all sides is that I think that they’re misunderstanding and misusing their sources. Another is that I think these conversations would do everyone a lot more good if they were a lot more friendly. I think that anyone who keeps their own posts genuinely friendly, in conversations with people whose ideas are opposed to theirs, will be helping to make the conversations more fruitful and beneficial, regardless of what anyone else does.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Dude, religious conservatives have been opposing science since.....well, since there's been science.

To quote myself:
And yet much of the fundamental work today in e.g. particle physics, cosmology, chemistry, and modern physics more generally relies foundationally on mathematical structures and a corresponding view of the mathematical formulations of the laws of nature that was inherited from religion and theology:
"The orthodox view of the nature of the laws of physics contains a long list of tacitly assumed properties...It is not hard to see where this picture of physical laws comes from: it is inherited directly from monotheism, which asserts that a rational being designed the universe according to a set of perfect laws...Clearly, then, the orthodox concept of laws of physics derives directly from theology. Indeed, the "theological model" of the laws of physics is so ingrained in scientific thinking that it is taken for granted." (pp. 89-91)
Davies, P. (2014). Universe from bit. In P. Davies & N. H. Gregersen (Eds.) Information and the Nature of Reality (pp. 83-117). Cambridge University Press.

Of course the above is mostly about the conception of the nature of natural/physical laws within the physical sciences rather than their mathematical structures. It turns out that for much of modern physics, the relationship here is more direct...
Both the Hamiltonian formulation (whence comes the foundation of quantum mechanics and most of classical physics as well) and the Lagrangian as well as other basic frameworks relied on in physics, chemistry, cosmology, etc., are based upon the principle of (least) action. This principle originated in the work of Maupertuis, but it was really more fully developed by Euler:
"Euler maintained the theological view of Maupertuis and held that phenomena could be explained not only in terms of causes but also in terms of purpose. He believed that, since the universe was the creation of a perfect God, nothing could happen in nature that did not exhibit this maximum or minimum property." p.167
Cushing, J. T. (1998). Philosophical Concepts in Physics: The Historical Relation between Philosophy and Scientific Theories. Cambridge University Press.
The action principle that is so fundamental not only to our best modern theories and frameworks in the physical sciences but to deriving and testing possible extensions or new theories was developed, like the conception of physical laws, by using theological principles to deduce the "correct" manner according to which the universe must operate assuming a perfect God.
Now, neither I nor anybody I have ever encountered has ever either thought about anything related to theology when making use of Lagrangians or Hamiltonians. Likewise, current views about the nature of physical laws do not trouble many practicing researchers (either theorists or experimentalists) and when they do it tends to be over whether or not e.g., mathematical elegance can lead us astray or whether the group theory that encodes symmetry should take precedence for so many decades over and against empirical evidence.
The point is not that somehow modern physics or chemistry or physical science more generally in anyway relies on religious thought. Rather, it is that even today we can see the results of a previous dependence. Further, if the science and religion were so opposed then one must wonder how it could be that modern physics could have developed (from Newton to Euler and beyond) based directly or indirectly on theological presuppositions.

 

[Jesuslightoftheworld]

I am not an intellectual, scientist, nor Bible Scholar, so here’s my ignorant question. If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

 

[Jesuslightoftheworld]

Ok all you big brain people. Fifth grade science: all living cells come from other living cells. Well, where did the first living cell come from? It what makes it alive? So then, where does life come from? Please try and give me a fifth grade answer that makes sense.

 

[Jim]

I am not an intellectual, scientist, nor Bible Scholar, so here’s my ignorant question. If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

The idea is that some apes or ape-like animals were separated into two or more groups which evolved separately. One group evolved into humans, and the others into the apes we see today.

 

[Jim]

Ok all you big brain people. Fifth grade science: all living cells come from other living cells. Well, where did the first living cell come from? It what makes it alive? So then, where does life come from? Please try and give me a fifth grade answer that makes sense.

People don’t always agree on what is alive and what isn’t. Sometimes people say that everything in the universe is alive. For this discussion, let’s say that a cloud of organic compounds that are not organized into separate living cells is not alive. Some of the compounds are loosely and temporarily attached to each other in chains by chemical forces. There might be thousands or even millions of ways that happens. Different chains fold up naturally into different shapes, like a Rubik’s snake. Some of the chains naturally last longer than others, and some of the shapes facilitate that. With thousands or millions of ways for that to happen, sometimes there are negative feedbacks, sometimes positive. The positive feedbacks lead to longer, more long-lasting chains, and new shapes.

Sometimes some molecules become loosely attached to a chain, next to each other, then attach to each other and break away together as a new chain, like a negative of a photograph. Then a new chain might form next to that one, which will be a duplicate of part of the first one. Some of the folded chains floating around might facilitate that more than others. Again there might be some negative feedbacks and some positive ones. The positive ones lead to longer and more long-lasting chains replicating parts of themselves. That’s how a more complex system can evolve from a less complex one. Some combinations work that way better than others, and happen more often in more places in the cloud of compounds. Something happens sometimes that keeps some combinations together for longer, a chain along with some shapes that facilitate its replication. The replication is not exact, but it’s enough to continue producing the shapes that facilitate the replication and keeping the group together. At the same time, there are still new chains folding up into new shapes that do new things, and most of those are floating here and there, adding new capacities to the self-replicating groups. That might already be what people would sometimes call life. If not, maybe later when membranes form around the groups, and they develop more capacities.

 

[Audie]

To quote myself:
And yet much of the fundamental work today in e.g. particle physics, cosmology, chemistry, and modern physics more generally relies foundationally on mathematical structures and a corresponding view of the mathematical formulations of the laws of nature that was inherited from religion and theology:
"The orthodox view of the nature of the laws of physics contains a long list of tacitly assumed properties...It is not hard to see where this picture of physical laws comes from: it is inherited directly from monotheism, which asserts that a rational being designed the universe according to a set of perfect laws...Clearly, then, the orthodox concept of laws of physics derives directly from theology. Indeed, the "theological model" of the laws of physics is so ingrained in scientific thinking that it is taken for granted." (pp. 89-91)
Davies, P. (2014). Universe from bit. In P. Davies & N. H. Gregersen (Eds.) Information and the Nature of Reality (pp. 83-117). Cambridge University Press.

Of course the above is mostly about the conception of the nature of natural/physical laws within the physical sciences rather than their mathematical structures. It turns out that for much of modern physics, the relationship here is more direct...
Both the Hamiltonian formulation (whence comes the foundation of quantum mechanics and most of classical physics as well) and the Lagrangian as well as other basic frameworks relied on in physics, chemistry, cosmology, etc., are based upon the principle of (least) action. This principle originated in the work of Maupertuis, but it was really more fully developed by Euler:
"Euler maintained the theological view of Maupertuis and held that phenomena could be explained not only in terms of causes but also in terms of purpose. He believed that, since the universe was the creation of a perfect God, nothing could happen in nature that did not exhibit this maximum or minimum property." p.167
Cushing, J. T. (1998). Philosophical Concepts in Physics: The Historical Relation between Philosophy and Scientific Theories. Cambridge University Press.
The action principle that is so fundamental not only to our best modern theories and frameworks in the physical sciences but to deriving and testing possible extensions or new theories was developed, like the conception of physical laws, by using theological principles to deduce the "correct" manner according to which the universe must operate assuming a perfect God.
Now, neither I nor anybody I have ever encountered has ever either thought about anything related to theology when making use of Lagrangians or Hamiltonians. Likewise, current views about the nature of physical laws do not trouble many practicing researchers (either theorists or experimentalists) and when they do it tends to be over whether or not e.g., mathematical elegance can lead us astray or whether the group theory that encodes symmetry should take precedence for so many decades over and against empirical evidence.
The point is not that somehow modern physics or chemistry or physical science more generally in anyway relies on religious thought. Rather, it is that even today we can see the results of a previous dependence. Further, if the science and religion were so opposed then one must wonder how it could be that modern physics could have developed (from Newton to Euler and beyond) based directly or indirectly on theological presuppositions.

No christianity, no science?

I think science has progressed far more despite
than with the help of any theology.

 

[Audie]

B

Ok all you big brain people. Fifth grade science: all living cells come from other living cells. Well, where did the first living cell come from? It what makes it alive? So then, where does life come from? Please try and give me a fifth grade answer that makes sense.

French-speaking people learn from other French
speaking people.
So then who was the first person to speak French?
Where does it come from?

 

[Audie]

One of my disagreements with people on all sides is that I think that they’re misunderstanding and misusing their sources. Another is that I think these conversations would do everyone a lot more good if they were a lot more friendly. I think that anyone who keeps their own posts genuinely friendly, in conversations with people whose ideas are opposed to theirs, will be helping to make the conversations more fruitful and beneficial, regardless of what anyone else does.

You sure misuse or ignore yours when you speak
of reason to believe a sepsrate lineage for humans.

 

[Jim]

... when you speak
of reason to believe a sepsrate lineage for humans.

I’ve never spoken of any reason to believe it. I don’t believe it, myself. I’ve said that the idea of many separate trees seems more likely to me. I see how that can be misunderstood, so I’ll try saying instead that it’s easier for me to imagine, with or without a separate lineage for humans.

 

[Audie]

I’ve never spoken of any reason to believe it. I don’t believe it, myself. I’ve said that the idea of many separate trees seems more likely to me. I see how that can be misunderstood, so I’ll try saying instead that it’s easier for me to imagine, with or without a separate lineage for humans.

More likely, WHY??

The 100% absence of evidence v all rrlevant evidence against
appeals to you?

 

[Jim]

More likely, WHY??

I’m not saying that any more. I’m not saying that it seems more likely to me. I’m saying that it’s easier for me to imagine.

 

[Audie]

I’m not saying that any more. I’m not saying that it seems more likely to me. I’m saying that it’s easier for me to imagine.

Ah so no reason at all for the false claims, other than
it suits you.

Good grief.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No christianity, no science?

I think science has progressed far more despite
than with the help of any theology.

Historically, yes. Today, no. As I said, neither I know anybody else relies on the initial theological assumptions underlying the development of such fundamental concepts as the principle of least action when calculation Hamiltonians or Lagrangians. Nor is it only theological or even religious assumptions about the nature of the cosmos that could have allowed modern science to emerge. It is perfectly possible for similar assumptions to have been made (as indeed they are now) that could have allowed for scientific development to have emerged as it did. Rather, the point is simply that religion (even conservative religion) cannot be as fundamentally opposed as was suggested by the post I was responding to, for if it were then it is hard to imagine how such conservative religious thought could have provided (historically) the foundations upon which modern science is built and the principles upon which modern physics specifically still rests. It is NOT to say that this is the ONLY way in which modern science or physics could have emerged, or that either one STILL rests upon such religious thought; merely that it cannot be always and everywhere as opposed as was stated.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No christianity, no science?

I think science has progressed far more despite
than with the help of any theology.

It is less clear to me what the impact of theology is on intellectual pursuit and advancement, but clearly some versions as practiced have been a constraint on that pursuit.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To quote myself:
And yet much of the fundamental work today in e.g. particle physics, cosmology, chemistry, and modern physics more generally relies foundationally on mathematical structures and a corresponding view of the mathematical formulations of the laws of nature that was inherited from religion and theology:
"The orthodox view of the nature of the laws of physics contains a long list of tacitly assumed properties...It is not hard to see where this picture of physical laws comes from: it is inherited directly from monotheism, which asserts that a rational being designed the universe according to a set of perfect laws...Clearly, then, the orthodox concept of laws of physics derives directly from theology. Indeed, the "theological model" of the laws of physics is so ingrained in scientific thinking that it is taken for granted." (pp. 89-91)
Davies, P. (2014). Universe from bit. In P. Davies & N. H. Gregersen (Eds.) Information and the Nature of Reality (pp. 83-117). Cambridge University Press.

Of course the above is mostly about the conception of the nature of natural/physical laws within the physical sciences rather than their mathematical structures. It turns out that for much of modern physics, the relationship here is more direct...
Both the Hamiltonian formulation (whence comes the foundation of quantum mechanics and most of classical physics as well) and the Lagrangian as well as other basic frameworks relied on in physics, chemistry, cosmology, etc., are based upon the principle of (least) action. This principle originated in the work of Maupertuis, but it was really more fully developed by Euler:
"Euler maintained the theological view of Maupertuis and held that phenomena could be explained not only in terms of causes but also in terms of purpose. He believed that, since the universe was the creation of a perfect God, nothing could happen in nature that did not exhibit this maximum or minimum property." p.167
Cushing, J. T. (1998). Philosophical Concepts in Physics: The Historical Relation between Philosophy and Scientific Theories. Cambridge University Press.
The action principle that is so fundamental not only to our best modern theories and frameworks in the physical sciences but to deriving and testing possible extensions or new theories was developed, like the conception of physical laws, by using theological principles to deduce the "correct" manner according to which the universe must operate assuming a perfect God.
Now, neither I nor anybody I have ever encountered has ever either thought about anything related to theology when making use of Lagrangians or Hamiltonians. Likewise, current views about the nature of physical laws do not trouble many practicing researchers (either theorists or experimentalists) and when they do it tends to be over whether or not e.g., mathematical elegance can lead us astray or whether the group theory that encodes symmetry should take precedence for so many decades over and against empirical evidence.
The point is not that somehow modern physics or chemistry or physical science more generally in anyway relies on religious thought. Rather, it is that even today we can see the results of a previous dependence. Further, if the science and religion were so opposed then one must wonder how it could be that modern physics could have developed (from Newton to Euler and beyond) based directly or indirectly on theological presuppositions.

It wouldn't be the only example of an idea that turned out to have better and wider application in some other area.

The internet wasn't intended to be video games, free pornography and making uninteresting and vacuous people rich and famous either.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To quote myself:
And yet much of the fundamental work today in e.g. particle physics, cosmology, chemistry, and modern physics more generally relies foundationally on mathematical structures and a corresponding view of the mathematical formulations of the laws of nature that was inherited from religion and theology:
"The orthodox view of the nature of the laws of physics contains a long list of tacitly assumed properties...It is not hard to see where this picture of physical laws comes from: it is inherited directly from monotheism, which asserts that a rational being designed the universe according to a set of perfect laws...Clearly, then, the orthodox concept of laws of physics derives directly from theology. Indeed, the "theological model" of the laws of physics is so ingrained in scientific thinking that it is taken for granted." (pp. 89-91)
Davies, P. (2014). Universe from bit. In P. Davies & N. H. Gregersen (Eds.) Information and the Nature of Reality (pp. 83-117). Cambridge University Press.

Of course the above is mostly about the conception of the nature of natural/physical laws within the physical sciences rather than their mathematical structures. It turns out that for much of modern physics, the relationship here is more direct...
Both the Hamiltonian formulation (whence comes the foundation of quantum mechanics and most of classical physics as well) and the Lagrangian as well as other basic frameworks relied on in physics, chemistry, cosmology, etc., are based upon the principle of (least) action. This principle originated in the work of Maupertuis, but it was really more fully developed by Euler:
"Euler maintained the theological view of Maupertuis and held that phenomena could be explained not only in terms of causes but also in terms of purpose. He believed that, since the universe was the creation of a perfect God, nothing could happen in nature that did not exhibit this maximum or minimum property." p.167
Cushing, J. T. (1998). Philosophical Concepts in Physics: The Historical Relation between Philosophy and Scientific Theories. Cambridge University Press.
The action principle that is so fundamental not only to our best modern theories and frameworks in the physical sciences but to deriving and testing possible extensions or new theories was developed, like the conception of physical laws, by using theological principles to deduce the "correct" manner according to which the universe must operate assuming a perfect God.
Now, neither I nor anybody I have ever encountered has ever either thought about anything related to theology when making use of Lagrangians or Hamiltonians. Likewise, current views about the nature of physical laws do not trouble many practicing researchers (either theorists or experimentalists) and when they do it tends to be over whether or not e.g., mathematical elegance can lead us astray or whether the group theory that encodes symmetry should take precedence for so many decades over and against empirical evidence.
The point is not that somehow modern physics or chemistry or physical science more generally in anyway relies on religious thought. Rather, it is that even today we can see the results of a previous dependence. Further, if the science and religion were so opposed then one must wonder how it could be that modern physics could have developed (from Newton to Euler and beyond) based directly or indirectly on theological presuppositions.

I find this all very interesting and it fits with some of my own thoughts regarding religion and intellectual pursuit. But it does not refute @Jose Fly claim about the practice of certain schools of religious thought or the religious basis of science denial. What you describe may be valid and religious science denial still exists. I just do not see that it has to.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I find this all very interesting and it fits with some of my own thoughts regarding religion and intellectual pursuit. But it does not refute @Jose Fly claim about the practice of certain schools of religious thought or the religious basis of science denial. What you describe may be valid and religious science denial still exists. I just do not see that it has to.

It cannot be that

religious conservatives have been opposing science since.....well, since there's been science.

when science in fact emerged out of particular schools of conservative religious thought and through the work of certain religious "fundamentalists". It is certainly true that religious conservatives have and continue to oppose much or most of basic scientific tenets and the scientific enterprise itself. And it is certainly true that at various times in history conservative religious thought impeded scientific thought rather than stimulating it or allowing it to grow out of the combination of medieval scholastic traditions that themselves grew out of mostly Greek thought (with a good deal of help from later philosophers, not to mention the survival and additions to Greek thought due to the Islamic scholars) as it did.
But it is one thing to say that religious conservatives often or even usually oppose science and they in general they usually have historically as well, and quite another to assert that religious conservatives have always opposed science since the scientific enterprise emerged. The former claim is true, the latter demonstrably false.

 

[Audie]

Historically, yes. Today, no. As I said, neither I know anybody else relies on the initial theological assumptions underlying the development of such fundamental concepts as the principle of least action when calculation Hamiltonians or Lagrangians. Nor is it only theological or even religious assumptions about the nature of the cosmos that could have allowed modern science to emerge. It is perfectly possible for similar assumptions to have been made (as indeed they are now) that could have allowed for scientific development to have emerged as it did. Rather, the point is simply that religion (even conservative religion) cannot be as fundamentally opposed as was suggested by the post I was responding to, for if it were then it is hard to imagine how such conservative religious thought could have provided (historically) the foundations upon which modern science is built and the principles upon which modern physics specifically still rests. It is NOT to say that this is the ONLY way in which modern science or physics could have emerged, or that either one STILL rests upon such religious thought; merely that it cannot be always and everywhere as opposed as was stated.

Of course not always and totally opposed.

Whether "religious thought" overall has
done humanity more good than harm,
who knows.

All religion / superstition hinges on magical
thinking do they not? That much at least
is surely opposed to science.

 

[night912]

I am not an intellectual, scientist, nor Bible Scholar, so here’s my ignorant question. If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

The extinction of "parent" species in not a requirement for the survival of the sub-species that branched out of it.

Here's an example that is simplified for easy understanding.

Supposed a species of apes occupied an area. They populated an with a warm climate resulting in the apes having a thin coat of hair. Now if a group of them decide to wonder off traveling to a distant area consisting of an environment with colder climate. Through time, some of those apes adapted to the new environment and grows a thicker coat of hair. Those who adapted passed on their new traits to future generations. This results in having a population of apes that can withstand colder climate. The ones that didn't adapt from that group dies off from the inability to survive the colder weather.

So now there are two different populations of apes living in different environments, the original apes that remained in the warm environment and the new apes that occupied the area with colder environment.

Obviously, a lot of things were left out and simplified in order to make the concept easy and clear to understand.