| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Aster
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 130
|
 Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 6:05 am Post subject: Does the theory of evolution disprove the existence of God? |
 |
|
A few days ago, I tried to explain to some friends how the theory of evolution stands on the subject of the existence of God, only to realize that I really had no clear idea on the subject. So, I will appreciate any clues.
As I understand the situation, there are three major groups which hold different views.
A. There are those who think that God had no role to play in Creation. This approach is found in the following representative writings :
1) Darwin, in the 6th ed. of “the Origin of Species”, apparently took a stand on the issue, implying (or explicitly saying, I don’t know) that science substitutes its own explanations, based on the play of natural mechanisms, to the religious answers, making it unnecessary for God to play any role in Creation.
2) Richard Dawkins, the well-known biologist, has been promoting over the past two decades a message of atheism, through a number of books, articles and lectures (e.g. The blind watchmaker, the God illusion, Two lectures on Science and religion at Harvard U.).
3) Textbooks on biology, articles in the major encyclopedias and statements by major scientific associations generally seem to have either the same stand as Darwin, or a very ambiguous stand on the subject.
4) Articles on research in abiogenesis, beginning with the Miller-Urey experiment and continuing to this day, tend to assert that it is possible to show that life originated spontaneously, through the interaction of natural phenomena.
B. There are those who consider that the theory of evolution doesn’t have to take a stand on the subject of God and his role in Creation.
For example, the “University of Berkeley evolution site” makes no mention of abiogenesis, and explains that there is no incompatibility between the theory of evolution and religious beliefs.
C. There are those who criticize the statements of Darwin, Dawkins and the like on the following grounds:
Darwin may have a personal opinion on the subject of God, and is entitled to his own views on the subject. But nothing he mentions in his books justifies or supports his statement that God had no role in Creation. His views on the subject belong to the field of philosophy, or to the field of beliefs, but have nothing to do with science.
Similarly, one can view Dawkins as playing two parts: in the first one, he is a renowned biologist who has written a number of books and articles in his field of expertise, which his peers consider as a valid contribution to the research in the field.
In the second part, Dawkins plays the part of a promoter of atheism. But that has nothing to do with his expertise in biology. He is merely promoting his own intellectual views and opinions on the subject of God. The “scientific” proofs he presents in support of atheism are questionable, and prove nothing at all.
Nevertheless, Dawkins mixes his theorizing in the field of evolution with his theorizing in the field of God in such a way that he gives the reader the impression that the theory of evolution supports atheism, on scientific grounds.
Does anyone have clear ideas on these issues?
_________________
think |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Aster
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 130
|
| Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 1:12 am Post subject: Darwin's evidence in the 1st edition |
|
|
The existence of three major groups, holding different views on this issue, doesn’t make sense to me. I tend to see the issue in simpler terms. Either the theory of evolution disproves the existence of God, or it doesn’t. Can we reduce the situation to that, and analyze it within that framework?
Let's take the case of Darwin as an illustration. As I mentioned, it is largely admitted by the scientific community that “Darwin, in the 6th ed. of “the Origin of Species”, took a stand on the issue, implying (or explicitly saying, I don’t know) that science substitutes its own explanations, based on the play of natural mechanisms, to the religious answers, thus making it unnecessary to resort to God as an explanatory factor in the study of Creation”.
Let’s analyze this proposition in a methodical way.
1st hypothesis: Darwin was convinced that the theory he had developed provided a scientific explanation of the origin and development of the diversity of life on Earth. It offered a viable substitute to the religious theory (expressed in Genesis, for example) that God created life in all its diversity on Earth.
The keyword here is “scientific”. Darwin doesn’t express a personal opinion, based on his culture, education and social mores. He presents a “scientific” finding, a conclusion derived from his observations and analyses, as a professional “biologist” (i.e. as a student of “living beings”).
So, in my opinion, either Darwin is right, or he is wrong, in his statement that the scientific study of the evolution of living beings demonstrates that God had nothing to do with the matter.
Does he present, in his book “The origin of species” conclusive evidence to support that statement?
If that had been the case, the issue would have been settled in 1859, after publication of the 1st edition. Darwin didn’t change dramatically his discussion of the proofs of evolution between the 1st and the 6th edition.
But the fact is that the issue is still unsettled in 2009, 150 years after the publication of Darwin’s book. The least we can say is that the “scientific” evidence presented by Darwin wasn’t very “conclusive”, in terms of settling this issue.
2nd hypothesis: "Darwin may have had a personal opinion on the subject of God, and is entitled to his own views on the subject. But nothing he mentions in his books justifies or supports his statement that God had no role in Creation. His views on the subject belong to the field of philosophy, or to the field of beliefs, but have nothing to do with science.”
So, we have to make up our minds about this issue. There are not two ways about it. It’s a matter of “either…or”. Either Darwin presented conclusive scientific evidence supporting his assertions disproving the role of God in Creation, or he didn’t.
If he did, why is this evidence still so misunderstood, 150 years after its publication, by a large percentage of the population at large? Can’t somebody rephrase the evidence in plain English, to make it accessible to everybody?
If Darwin didn’t, why is the theory of Evolution accused of displacing the role of God in Creation, if this theory has no scientific grounds to support such a claim?
Why all the fuss in the “Creation-evolution debate” which has been going on for decades now?
_________________
think |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary S. Gaulin
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 644
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Aster. I challenged the philosophical questions by forum-writing a hypothesis (became more a theory) to look for evidence for an entity called "Creator" that may exist in a form we do not yet know how to "see" with our knowledge.
http://creator-hypothesis.blogspot.com/
What I found out is that a hypothesis to evidence a "Creator" ends up with all of science in it. One to evidence against could do the same by claiming science disproves the existence of a "Creator". The argument then becomes how "Creator" is defined. To make scientific theory possible Creator can be defined as whatever "created" us including being an entity that causes intelligent life to self-assemble from matter.
With how the Creator works a very very big scientific problem with a tremendous amount of reading/writing to maybe keep us busy for another few hundred years I doubt we will have a religion changing scientific revelation by Monday. But there are milestones along the way that let you know that's the science is absolutely real. The one I'm thrilled by right now is the "Chromosomal Adam and Eve" that is every bit as scientific as the "Mitochondrial Eve" that is now in science. I don't want to get off topic with your question relating to Evolutionary Theory by changing the subject to the theory that I (with others) are working on but trying to explain "evolution" is such a small part of explaining how a Creator works that even where you know every detail that exists you still do not have an answer either way to anything. For that we need a theory that sets the goal of the phenomena to be explained to be so far outside of existing science and towards what religion has that scientists worry, even panic. And not using any word that does not in the sentence help explain how something works the word "evolution" is not once said. Yet forum mentor peer Kermit and others helped make sure the fossil evidence was coherently accounted for in a sentence or two. There is also the accounting of the Cambrian Explosion as expected curve of being the product of intelligence. Evolutionary Theory cannot predict anything about that. Which right there indicates the theory is not taking us very far into science, either.
To answer the big questions you are trying to answer, we have to go much further than Evolutionary Theory. For me that was to propose a Creator Hypothesis, that in turn made it possible to challenge the "Theory Of Intelligent Design" to explain the phenomena of "intelligent cause".
At this time we have something that makes Mitochondrial Eve look silly because scientists all know there were humans way before her. Since mitochondria comes from the mother there can be no Mitochondrial Adam so even the metaphor falls apart. So as far as science is concerned Adam and Eve has only one certain place in science and it's exactly where the newest "Theory Of Intelligent Design" explains it to be. The theory itself was said by scientists to be absurdly impossible, but now there actually being intelligence from intelligence "intelligent cause" does not sound all that improbable anymore. Definitions for things change when a theory explains a phenomena. Both sides have a phrase to describe a property of emergence that shows where the search for the Creator travels through science on into matter itself, like the Big-Bang Theory a priest wrote who concluded the same from the physics equations of it. Progress in explaining things that are so religious sounding it's scary to some speaks for itself as whether that search for Creator is scientific, it very much is.
In your opening post you used the word "God" but to get a scientific answer to something it has to first be precisely defined. I do that by using the word "Creator" as defined by the Creator Hypothesis. And that does exist. So as you see the answer you get out of science depends on how good a question you give it.
How would the "God" you are searching for be able to play a role in Creation? Is there just "God" you are searching for or are all religions searching towards the exact same one? What was the dust/clay in scientific terms, something like what powers cells or like making a clay face then with sparks from finger then blowing on it producing wind to make come alive? Is it possible Genesis was long ago written down by one of the very first scientists who in words they had in their language explained something someone like I would need to be sucessful in a search for a "Creator" in science that needed Adam and Eve metaphor and such?
Where it is supernatural and beyond science, there can be no answer from science. But where even what people call "supernatural" would still exist to be explainable there can be useful answers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Norm Smith
Joined: 13 Feb 2009
Posts: 44
Location: Lincoln NE
|
| Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aster:
| Quote: | So, we have to make up our minds about this issue. There are not two ways about it. It’s a matter of “either…or”. Either Darwin presented conclusive scientific evidence supporting his assertions disproving the role of God in Creation, or he didn’t.
If he did, why is this evidence still so misunderstood, 150 years after its publication, by a large percentage of the population at large? Can’t somebody rephrase the evidence in plain English, to make it accessible to everybody?
If Darwin didn’t, why is the theory of Evolution accused of displacing the role of God in Creation, if this theory has no scientific grounds to support such a claim?
Why all the fuss in the “Creation-evolution debate” which has been going on for decades now? |
Darwin presented a powerful argument for the diversity of past and present life through “descent with modification” forced by natural selection. He had nothing to say about the origin of first life, though alluded to a Creator in the last paragraph of later editions of “Origins”. Some writers think that was a sop for his readers and not a reflection of his religious beliefs which could be characterized as ambivalent at best. Darwin agonized over how the lack of any explicit role of God in his theory would be regarded by contemporary societies, and for this reason, he left any mention of human evolution out of “Origins”. To address your first either-or proposition, Darwin presented strong evidence for evolution and natural selection, but he certainly did not disprove any role of God. Science cannot do that, and Darwin took no stand on it. He simply argued that natural selection causes slow gradual changes in interbreeding populations which, with time, leads to new species. He mentioned no role for God in this process, either implicit or explicit.
“Why all the fuss” is a different question. If evolution concerned only trilobites and dinosaurs, there would be little fuss, but in fact it also involves humans, and that’s a huge problem for folks who prefer the biblical story of man created in God’s image, for a purpose, with a soul and other sacred attributes that separate us from other earthly creatures. Putting it mildly, evolution is unkind to the concept of Adam and Eve. So true believers attack evolution not because of any intrinsic fault with the evidence, but because they are committed to believe that it must be wrong. That’s what leads to so much silly debate. In these evo-creo conflicts, the two end-member groups probably have it easiest: the strict creationists like Henry Morris, Steve Austin, Ken Ham and ABO, and pro-evolution atheists like Dawkins, Dennett, Gould, and E.O. Wilson……God vs science, one or the other, with no interests in reconciliation. Theistic evolutionists, on the other hand, can accept evolution by accepting the consensus of science or, better, reviewing the evidence themselves, but then are faced with the question of exactly what role God plays in it all. If my theistic-evo friends and colleagues are any guide, that presumed role is varied and ambiguous, but no less real in their hearts and minds. So it is not as dichotomous as you suggest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aster
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 130
|
| Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi, Gary,
Thanks for your detailed comments.
1) It’s all right with me if we talk about the “Creator”, instead of “God”. The latter tends to be associated with different descriptions in different religions, whereas Creator designates an entity which isn’t associated with any particular religion.
2) You say: “The argument then becomes how "Creator" is defined. To make scientific theory possible Creator can be defined as whatever "created" us including being an entity that causes intelligent life to self-assemble from matter.” I have no problem with this description. I like in particular the bit about “an entity that causes intelligent life to self-assemble from matter.” I think that’s a very good description. I always thought that the whole natural world functions on the basis of natural phenomena that can be identified, analyzed and reduced to scientific laws. I see no reason why Creation itself wouldn’t take place within the framework of natural phenomena, which we still don’t understand.
_________________
think |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aster
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 130
|
| Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Norm Smith"]
| Quote: | | To address your first either-or proposition, Darwin presented strong evidence for evolution and natural selection, but he certainly did not disprove any role of God. Science cannot do that, and Darwin took no stand on it. He simply argued that natural selection causes slow gradual changes in interbreeding populations which, with time, leads to new species. He mentioned no role for God in this process, either implicit or explicit. |
Hi, Norm,
Thanks for your comments. Maybe I misunderstood what Darwin said, or maybe I read about him in books that didn’t accurately describe what he said. Because I was under the impression that Darwin kept a prudent attitude on the subject of God and religion throughout the first 5 editions of « Origins », and only took a stand on the issue in the 6th ed. under the proddings of such people as Huxley. It was my impression that, in the latter edition, he took a clear stand on some questions, and this was usually taken as being against religious beliefs.
I personally think that, If Darwin only said : “natural selection causes slow gradual changes in interbreeding populations which, with time, leads to new species », then there is no necessary incompatiblity between what he said and the religious belief in the existence of God. The process described by Darwin as « natural selection », and what is now called the « modern synthesis » may very well be the process chosen by God to accomplish the development of life on Earth. Why not ? Everybody agrees that the ways of God are mysterious.
Of course, fundamentalists don't subscribe to such an approach. But that's another issue.
_________________
think |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary S. Gaulin
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 644
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aster wrote: | Hi, Gary,
Thanks for your detailed comments. |
Thanks for the interesting topic! Norm Smith did a great job of explaining Charles Darwin. I would say it's more like he saw the tip of an iceberg science and religion were heading towards. It was only a matter of time before the molecular mechanism accounting for it would be partially explained. So even though he could not explain a mechanism and had to generalize, time proved an evolution of some sort was occurring.
| Aster wrote: | | 1) It’s all right with me if we talk about the “Creator”, instead of “God”. The latter tends to be associated with different descriptions in different religions, whereas Creator designates an entity which isn’t associated with any particular religion. |
Yes, it is all inclusive. Science can help explain what might or might not exist but does not exclude any religion. And you never know when out of the clear blue something like a Chromosomal Adam and Eve just appears in science. That sure challenges everything we thought we knew about human origins, and the accuracy of Genesis. There is no fruit fly in scripture (to go with experiment with them) but in Genesis there is the fruit Adam and Eve were not supposed to eat but does not specifically say why. Maybe that was the fruit fly food? Like another clue to our human origin right there in front of our eyes? Is something kinda fun about viewing Genesis that way, that along with Chromosomal Adam and Eve adds to the religious experience not takes away from.
| Aster wrote: | | 2) You say: “The argument then becomes how "Creator" is defined. To make scientific theory possible Creator can be defined as whatever "created" us including being an entity that causes intelligent life to self-assemble from matter.” I have no problem with this description. I like in particular the bit about “an entity that causes intelligent life to self-assemble from matter.” I think that’s a very good description. |
Thank you for complementing it! I'm always looking for better ways to word things. Long ago it became clear that "self-assembly" is how cellular organelles required for there to be a cell appears from matter. All together it was not saying that Genesis was untrue, instead indicated that some things happen fast like Genesis (where taken as scientific theory) predicts is true. Now that it is clear that there is a very real and very human Adam and Eve in our human ancestry we're way further into Genesis via self-assembly based science that is like a stepping stone to get where science has us next going. Once again it's not what any of us expected would be explain but there is no doubt that Adam and Eve are this way forever taking their proper place in science. So even where a person would rather an even more Creator blessed entry into the world, it's a big improvement over the ape-based view it replaces. Being able to do that requires mentioning things like self-assembly exactly at the right place and time along with other words, which are not easy to find so a lot of work went into all descriptions of how a Genesis based creation could be possible. I'm thrilled to see that you noticed that part of it makes sense.
| Aster wrote: | | I always thought that the whole natural world functions on the basis of natural phenomena that can be identified, analyzed and reduced to scientific laws. I see no reason why Creation itself wouldn’t take place within the framework of natural phenomena, which we still don’t understand. |
Thinking that way sure works for me! Both science and religion makes much more sense. Both are connected to the same search for knowledge typical of intelligence even one as simple as the Intelligence Generator/Detector computer model that likewise gains confidence while succeeding at gaining new knowledge. What drives us is in a way simple, yet our conscious emotion guided human intelligence with a tremendous number of neurons in their own way working together towards new knowledge makes us a highly motivated complex behavior. So it is no surprise we take great risk and climb mountains to find answers to the big questions like in Tommy "See Me, Feel Me - Listening To You" where we see that search through art we can feel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV_9pn7MGUo
We are in the light of knowledge where science and religion both shine bright. Not many ever reach that. We're Creator blessed, to be there... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greg Myers
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 1210
|
| Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 10:57 am Post subject: Not Your Grandfather's Religion |
|
|
A couple of observations.
1. Science has given us tools to verify many claims of various religions. So far, none of them have panned out. What that tells me is that most all the scientifically-based worldviews are incompatible with most all conservative approaches to religions - for example, Hindu, Islamic and Christian fundamentalist's claims about the origins of the world are inconsistent with observations made using a scientific approach to the world.
So is evolution incompatible with religion? No, just many of the claims of religions in specific. If you want to postulate the existence of a supernatural about which we have no revelation, or if you want to reinterpret the existing religious texts so that they are no longer in conflict with scientific discoveries, then at most you could say that evolution does not rule out the possibility of a god who does not intervene in the workings of the universe in any detectable way.
2. We have learned quite a bit about the role of the brain in how we process the world around us. We are finding strong correlations between brain functioning and religious experiences, are able to reproduce these experiences in the laboratory, and observe differences in brain structure and chemistry in individuals who are experienced meditators, for example, compared with people with little or no spiritual practice. This raises the strong likelihood that spiritual experience is an artifact of the brain.
Does that mean that there is no external reality to those brain-based experiences? Again, if you accept that spiritual experience is produced and consumed by the brain, then an external referent to the experience seems to add little explanatory value. As these brain changes seem to cross all beliefs, conceptions of god or mystical reality (that is, they do not correlate to any existing understanding of spirituality), it seems unlikely that these spiritual experiences are produced by the supernatural entities referenced by any of the current spiritual systems. If there is a spiritual reality external to the brain, it would seem to be one that does not in any way influence or interact with the experience itself.
3. Though we appear to be talking about religion and evolution, this discussion is more about re-inventing the concept of god or spirituality so that it does not conflict with observation and fact. The creator becomes some ineffable entity that makes no discernible difference in the affairs of the world.
Why do I say this? Because the gaps between what we are able to observe and measure are getting so small, that there is no room for a creator to influence events. Deism attempted to deal with the observed absence of the need for a creator to explain the workings of the world by postulating god as watchmaker, winding up the world and letting it run on its own (this pretty much sums up ID as well). Quantum Mechanics and cosmological observation has pushed the opportunity for any such watchmaking to before the Big Bang.
To suggest that the creator is so remote as to be hidden forever behind the Cosmic Background Radiation is such a radical redefinition of spirituality as to beg for a different term altogether.
_________________
The sleep of reason produces monsters.
Francisco de Goya, Los Caprichos, 1799 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ABO
Joined: 12 Aug 2007
Posts: 687
Location: Sebring, Florida
|
| Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The quest to establish the theory of evolution hasn't disproved the existence of God or a Creator, but has rather provided evidence for one. Not evidence thought imaginary connecting links of common ancestry but rather through the well designed fully formed creatures which are masqueraded as transitional.
Last edited by ABO on Mon May 25, 2009 7:31 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary S. Gaulin
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 644
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Greg Myers wrote: | A couple of observations.
1. Science has given us tools to verify many claims of various religions. So far, none of them have panned out. What that tells me is that most all the scientifically-based worldviews are incompatible with most all conservative approaches to religions - for example, Hindu, Islamic and Christian fundamentalist's claims about the origins of the world are inconsistent with observations made using a scientific approach to the world. |
Not fully true. Muslims are proud of how Prophet Muhammad relatively accurately described implantation and growth of the human fetus, the scientific method, and other things. What Jesus represented was Genesis based creation where there is a sun in the sky but not one with a God riding a chariot pulling it across the sky with a rope, and other silly things. In his day and age the Genesis based scriptures were far more reality based than the mythologies they replaced.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | So is evolution incompatible with religion? No, just many of the claims of religions in specific. |
Very few deny evolution. For the most part, the problem is how little the theories you believe in are able to explain. I see them regularly used for automatic rejection of concepts like Adam and Eve with dust/clay made to seem like it has no meaning at all for the origin of life when in fact it may have been vital. And Creationists were right about the odds of a fully formed cell randomly coming together were impossible, not that there are accomplished scientists making such claims or that the origin of life has anything to do with Evolutionary Theory in the first place.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | If you want to postulate the existence of a supernatural about which we have no revelation, or if you want to reinterpret the existing religious texts so that they are no longer in conflict with scientific discoveries, then at most you could say that evolution does not rule out the possibility of a god who does not intervene in the workings of the universe in any detectable way. |
Something either exists or it does not. Therefore it is totally illogical to recognize the existence of a "supernatural" world that does not exist in reality. It's another generalization that conveniently avoids the core issues that requires you and I to find better explanation of what is now known through science.
I do not "postulate the existence of a supernatural". Aster ended their last reply mentioning how they thought the same. So what you said is only true in cases where the supernatural is assumed to exist and a Creator must "intervene" which to me makes as much sense as saying that photons must also be supernatural entities that magically intervene in our ability to see.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | 2. We have learned quite a bit about the role of the brain in how we process the world around us. |
Neither one of us can even explain how consciousness works! Or know how we can "feel" things.
The amount that is known about how the brain works is far less than you are suggesting. You know just enough to get yourself hopelessly lost in science. I accept how much we don't know, as much as I accept what we do.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | We are finding strong correlations between brain functioning and religious experiences, are able to reproduce these experiences in the laboratory, and observe differences in brain structure and chemistry in individuals who are experienced meditators, for example, compared with people with little or no spiritual practice. This raises the strong likelihood that spiritual experience is an artifact of the brain. |
What you are calling "artifact of the brain" supports my conclusions in regards to what religion is and where religious instinct comes from (emergent through molecular behavior/intelligence).
| Greg Myers wrote: | | Does that mean that there is no external reality to those brain-based experiences? |
The phrase "external reality" is too ambiguous for me to form an opinion with. You seem to be generalizing something that exists in your belief system that applies to "supernatural" but I'm honestly clueless as to what you're talking about in that sentence.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | Again, if you accept that spiritual experience is produced and consumed by the brain, then an external referent to the experience seems to add little explanatory value. |
From what I now know, the "spiritual experience" is from the exact same place as the scientific experience that drives scientists. They are molecularly produced (including hormonal) emergent instincts that influence the brain. Therefore the experience is not produced and consumed by the brain. It's from emergent levels that exists below it that influence our thoughts which is why religious experience makes little sense to our brain produced human intelligence that often sees one or both of these products of our knowledge seeking instinct as illogical.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | As these brain changes seem to cross all beliefs, conceptions of god or mystical reality (that is, they do not correlate to any existing understanding of spirituality), |
Yes, even cultures where religion was made illegal people still worshiped to spite the personal risks they were taking by doing so.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | it seems unlikely that these spiritual experiences are produced by the supernatural entities referenced by any of the current spiritual systems. If there is a spiritual reality external to the brain, it would seem to be one that does not in any way influence or interact with the experience itself. |
What you are calling "spiritual reality" exists both internally and externally to the brain and is able to "influence or interact with the experience itself" by behavioral emergence up the levels and into conscious human intelligence that makes us aware of it being there.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | 3. Though we appear to be talking about religion and evolution, this discussion is more about re-inventing the concept of god or spirituality so that it does not conflict with observation and fact. |
From my experience this type of discussion usually leads to reinventing science and Evolutionary Theory in order to belittle the purpose of "spirituality". Or in other words, useless generalizations end up forever going back and forth with none having learned anything at all from it.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | The creator becomes some ineffable entity that makes no discernible difference in the affairs of the world. |
Logic indicates that the Creator is why the living world exists and continues to exist. The Creator here becomes something beyond your ability to conceptualize, but that does not mean all are unable to understand how such a Creator works.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | Why do I say this? Because the gaps between what we are able to observe and measure are getting so small, that there is no room for a creator to influence events. |
The Creator entity that I study is the reason why living things exist, right now. This Creator is not a Santa Claus that gives you things prayed for like might exist in your religion or one you project on me. The Creator I know is in emergent behavior 24/7 feedforwarding into ours from the eternal lower levels that have always been there and always will.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | Deism attempted to deal with the observed absence of the need for a creator to explain the workings of the world by postulating god as watchmaker, winding up the world and letting it run on its own (this pretty much sums up ID as well). |
That sure does not sum up my theory of ID which is "in spirit" of the scientific view that predates the Discovery Institute. And ET is so utterly useless in explaining the Cambrian Explosion science would be better off it were gone. All then would have to start from scratch explaining what evolution (learning) is.
The theory of ID now has a computer model showing the exact same learning curve as seen in the Cambrian. Only an "intelligence" theory can account for such things. Trying to explain that with ET by saying something like ET shows it might be possible, just looks stupid when scientists are expecting details of a mechanism that they know defies ET to explain. Acting like a theory that cannot even account for the Cambrian Explosion is superior to one that can is just plain pompous.
Do not assume that accomplished scientists and professors brush off the theory like it has no value. In fact one had to give me a new url for their page that moved, or the theory would have been left with a big hole in what you might consider only a supernatural concept. They could have chose not to give it to me and their name would be gone from references. But thankfully they didn't mind. Along with others who have no problem with a theory like this being challenged, I can pretty much sum up that your generalization of ID pretty much has you outside of science itself.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | Quantum Mechanics and cosmological observation has pushed the opportunity for any such watchmaking to before the Big Bang. |
Quantum mechanics is just a series of formulas that approximate electron orbits. You would have had to study them in the detail that I did, to really know how useless it is in answering the big questions. And cosmological observation does not get us as far as you think it does, either. And "pushed the opportunity for any such watchmaking to before the Big Bang" is a false statement based upon your religious belief, not science where the watchmakers watches for telling seasonal time is a part of science called "vernalization". So you stated a generalization that is useless for proving anything at all.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | To suggest that the creator is so remote as to be hidden forever behind the Cosmic Background Radiation is such a radical redefinition of spirituality as to beg for a different term altogether. |
I can agree with that though. That's why in science there is no such thing as "supernatural" and in religion the Creator is often described as in everyone and in everything, not off somewhere that not even a prayer can reach. Muslims visualize Allah above Mecca during prayers. Christians the same sort of thing above their place of worship. It's therefore counter-religion to "suggest that the creator is so remote as to be hidden forever" when religions actually teach that the opposite is true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greg Myers
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 1210
|
| Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gary, your response sounds like a mixture of "you aren't enlightened enough to get it" and a rephrasing of what I said, with a few odd assertions mixed in.
In any event, you've managed to so change the definition of spirituality as to come close to making my point for me - what you propose is not your (or anyone else's) grandfather's spirituality - or even, strictly speaking, spirituality at all.
It might help if you would give an example of where this creator adds value to evolution. Perhaps an example where evolution cannot account for something that exists, and how only a creator (molecular intelligence?) could make it possible.
_________________
The sleep of reason produces monsters.
Francisco de Goya, Los Caprichos, 1799 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary S. Gaulin
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 644
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Greg Myers wrote: | | Gary, your response sounds like a mixture of "you aren't enlightened enough to get it" and a rephrasing of what I said, with a few odd assertions mixed in. |
That would be a fair assessment. We are in some agreement, but I seriously doubt you have any experience in the existing intelligence sciences. Chances are you cannot off the top of your head describe the four requirements of intelligence or are able to test that with a model or experiment of your own. From what I know you are not a scientist who has a need for a theory that explains the Cambrian Explosion and other events that are contrary to Evolutionary Theory which falls apart in such cases. From what I know you only use theory to support your personal religious world-view. This makes you no different from Creationists who likewise use the ambiguity and weaknesses of ET to support their religious world-view.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | In any event, you've managed to so change the definition of spirituality as to come close to making my point for me - what you propose is not your (or anyone else's) grandfather's spirituality - or even, strictly speaking, spirituality at all. |
I did not "change" the definition of spirituality. As with the definition of "intelligence" scientific theory makes a scientific definition possible but that only adds detail to the definitions that already exist.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | It might help if you would give an example of where this creator adds value to evolution. |
It would be a much bigger help for you to fully explain the mechanisms that produce the phenomena of intelligence, consciousness and how "this creator" can add value to evolution because once again you are using ambiguous wording that does not add up to a coherent scientific question. You asked an entirely religious question that in this case sounds like: "give an example of where bus drivers add value to evolution" without considering the possibility that neither bus drivers or even a conscious Creator "adds value" to evolution. Both entities simply exist, with no need that I know of for either to even want or need to add value to evolution.
| Greg Myers wrote: | | Perhaps an example where evolution cannot account for something that exists, and how only a creator (molecular intelligence?) could make it possible. |
Since you said "molecular intelligence?" which is one of the emergent levels that behavior in matter (possibly consciousness) feedforwards through I can start here:
| Quote: | from http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/
Cambrian Explosion
Trilobites (extinct arthropods) are known to have had well developed crystal lens compound eyes of modern insects. This level of complexity was reached approximately half way through the sudden proliferation of multicellular organisms some 530 million years ago. Trilobite morphology alone requires us to account for a genomic mechanism capable of this rate of information increase. We will here graph the information increase of beta class intelligence then look for correlation with fossil and phylogenetic evidence to determine whether this could be the cause.
The intelligence will be kept busy going from feeder to feeder while we monitor memory (information) increase with time. With its relatively static yet challenging environment this would represent typical information increase in an unexploted niche.
A blue line shows number of highest confidence 3 memories. This is a measure of the most successful responses to environment, a measure of overall "fitness".
The middle two lines show number of lesser confidence 1 and 2 memories, a measure of relative uncertainty.
The black line shows total memory, a measure of relative genome size.
There is at first a very rapid information increase. The number of confidence 3 memories in comarison to total can suggest a relatively large genome size in comparison to overall usefulness.
We can now predict at least two major events. The first when molecular intelligence emerged which rapidly proliferated cells. Then a second when eukaryote cellular intelligence emerged to rapidly proliferate multicellular organisms. This two event possibility is shown with dotted line in the phylogenetic data shown below.
The very left of the graph shows the first event where the simple prokaryotes appeared virtually at the same time. This is the first DNA molecular intelligence. It can exist as a rudimentary cell or in combination as an organelle for cells that fully achieve the next emergent level of cellular intelligence.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/4/2
The middle event would be expected where molecular intelligence has passed the threshold to become cellular intelligence where the cell itself meets all 4 requirements of any intelligence. There is then social/migration behavior of amoeba (also stem cells) and excellent hunting skills of unicellular "single celled animals" the protozoans.
Catastrophic environmental events would alter the static environment causing extinctions followed by quick recover that retakes control of lost niches. The fossil evidence therefore shows the relative information increase below.
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/timeline2.jpg
We can conclude that rapid proliferation of multicellular biodiversity is possible where a genome crosses the threshold to meet all four requirements of the next possible emergent level of intelligence. This is by no means the only explanation for the Cambrian Explosion. There would first have to be an oxygen source for animals to exploit, before their emergence would have been possible. Here we show how information increase typical of at least beta class intelligence reasonably accounts for such a rapid proliferation of biodiversity. |
Now it's your turn. It will be interesting to see how you attempt to account for the above with ET, or whether you can predict anything at all in regards to the phenomena of "consciousness" which the theory of ID appears to be predicting is emergent from subatomic behavior to be expressed through human intelligence. Without more evidence it's too early to include that in the theory itself. But that's the only theory I know of that even has a chance of predicting where the source of consciousness is from. You are though welcome to try explaining that with ET, in addition to the Cambrian Explosion, origin of "intelligence", human speciation, and other things that only this theory is able to properly explain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Norm Smith
Joined: 13 Feb 2009
Posts: 44
Location: Lincoln NE
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gary Gaulin said:
| Quote: | | From what I know you are not a scientist who has a need for a theory that explains the Cambrian Explosion and other events that are contrary to Evolutionary Theory which falls apart in such cases. |
Gary, could you explain, in plain English, why the Cambrian explosion is contrary to evolutionay theory and why it falls apart? In explaining this, it would be useful if you summarized what you think the Cambrian "explosion" is. For example, how long did it take, and what can you say about events and nature of the fossil record leading into it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary S. Gaulin
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 644
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 4:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Norm!
| Norm Smith wrote: | Gary Gaulin said:
| Quote: | | From what I know you are not a scientist who has a need for a theory that explains the Cambrian Explosion and other events that are contrary to Evolutionary Theory which falls apart in such cases. |
Gary, could you explain, in plain English, why the Cambrian explosion is contrary to evolutionay theory and why it falls apart? In explaining this, it would be useful if you summarized what you think the Cambrian "explosion" is. For example, how long did it take, and what can you say about events and nature of the fossil record leading into it? |
I don't see Evolutionary Theory itself being "contrary" to the Cambrian Explosion. I can sum it up by saying that ET is fine for what ET was intended for but having to describe things with Natural Selection is in this case a very real science-stopper that has you at a brick wall with no way to explain past that point with the fossil and other evidence. What I say to Greg will help explain why.
I also want to do just as you say about more detail and am looking for data that can draw the curves from phylogenetic, chemical, fossil, whatever evidence there is to draw lines with. I'm here thinking of an illustration that combines the three illustrations that are now there and use most recent information, wherever it is. All the modern data you can find in text file type format is greatly appreciated! Much of what now exists in science is preliminary and from what I read the Explosion is even more dramatic than thought but I don't have data necessary to better correlate curves into years and such.
And Greg,
A week ago I heard on the radio (local Lazer 99.3) that music artist Roger Daltrey (Who-Tommy) turned 65. Then today while watching "See Me, Feel Me - Listening To You" again I noticed in comments they were arguing whether he was 64 or 84 then while watching "I'm Free" it occurred to me for my generation the movie is very much representative of "Grandfather's Religion" especially now that (Creator willing) I'm a week or two away from Grandson #2. I'm in my early 50's not 60's but how time fly's...
And "Jesus Christ Superstar" is a part of the culture that made the current "Grandfather's Religion". Check how the movie trailer also ends looking towards the light (of knowledge):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvQHAEvaZIQ
The "Grandfather's Religion" you're talking about might be true of a small number of grandfathers but not many.
An example I like is in "I'm Free" where Roger Daltrey falls inside the mirror that connects the deaf dumb and blind kid to higher level knowledge that can even control the quarter sucking pinball machines that many in our generation were slave to. He is here running through the farm fields then seashore then through schooling fish and back in time like he's inside primordial ocean aquarium experiments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGa70tVYVKo
With all considered, the Grandfather's Religion found in Grandfather's Culture is such a parallel to the theory that it's like some of us kinda fulfilled the Tommy musical prophecy. In the first video Kathy Martin was left wounded on the pinball machine then all changes so that controlling the machine was cast aside then through the flames and up the mountain we go to find the light of knowledge to learn what the struggle was for, which in this case turned out to be the Theory Of Intelligent Design itself. That is because "intelligent cause" does exist, but you have to be "free" of all the science-stoppers you learned to know why that is true.
Lectures on what science cannot answer, is a science stopper. Saying "ID is not science" is not only a science-stopper. And why can't there actually be an Adam and Eve in our story and not even from a Y fork there is an extinct species in between? Because you were taught that we slowly branched off an ancestor just like all the apes with no Adam and Eve in there at all?
In the very beginning of ID were scientists speculating that our intelligence was somehow the product of another intelligence they could not see through their not very good microscopes. The sentence that explains the theory stated on the DI website was worded to be achievable. Did not go beyond saying "intelligent cause" which very well phrases the idea of our intelligence being emergent from other levels of intelligence that's emergent from "behavior". So there is nothing that anyone even Creationist said or did that is a science stopper, not even for the theory they at least did their best to be objective about and what happened at Dover or even a whole state having made it illegal. Real science stops at nothing and in this case with Judge Jones glad its being fought out in science not his courts with at most to come later a reconciliatory show-trial to rubber stamp whatever is deemed teachable, with the title and first 23 words what there is to argue over with it not mattering to me which they decide is appropriate for them.
Where there is no theory to explain how that works it's expected people will fill that in with whatever they have to make sense of it with, that's all they can do anyway. That happening is not a science stopper either. It only means people like trying to figuring out what science might have to say about that. Once there is a coherent theory it's a very serious science starter. Especially when Adam and Eve and all the rest is suddenly in our origins story. And notice it's free of fruit flies off on separate islands and human origins explained by comparing possible human skulls to that of a chimp. We here have fruit flies sharing a speciation event that makes us kinda special
I go where science goes and from what I can see consciousness is making perfect sense in the framework of the theory but I just can't explain why. Like I some time ago mentioned, an intelligence theory is the first step towards understanding consciousness. Intelligence does not need to also be conscious like we are for it to work, so it's relatively easy to study and experiment with. Consciousness is likely in addition to intelligence that requires neuron brain produced intelligence for it to be expressed. What I could now say even though skeptical would be a novel insight into another of science's biggest questions. Again gets us further along on our search for the Creator in science, whatever that Creator turns out to be. Which so far found a Chromosomal Adam And Eve that right there on their birthdays is when what we call "human" was finally born. Their kids would find other 46's from other parents. They were not written into the theory like I made up my mind they existed, they did not even take their proper place until I challenged speciation in a forum where it went very well and I was able to sort out speciation which led to the NS-free explanation of speciation that describes island isolation not the mechanisms that would speciate just fine without NS. Which has us free of having to memorize big-words for every way scientists can think of for populations to get separated while what chromosomally speciated us only used to support the man from ape mentality you assumed Evolutionary Theory could not be wrong about.
I'm glad to be free of the science stoppers. And am glad that we did after all have a very real Adam and Eve entry into the world and along with the fruit fly Adam and Eve for the fruit tree. Even where not mentioned by name the science itself so much infers them there is no way to even take them out. And it's not even my fault it is this way. It's the way of the theory. It keeps connecting science together into something "free" of all the science stoppers. It could not keep doing this were it not a "real theory" in the making. And google paleopolyploidy to see how the theory on its own found then connected right into a science that might be evidenced in the local tracksites and mine by size distribution through time where it looks like a double or triple size became more common in the population of sizes. Plenty of work to be done there in case anyone needs a big project. First of its kind trace fossil vertebrate-paleopolyploidy is now possible with the theory making it easy for others to understand what that is, what to look for.
I am very serious about there being no stopping this Theory Of Intelligent Design and renaming it "Origin Of Intelligent Life" was a failure, so you can't say I didn't try it another way. It's a very logical name but I think it's a little like alien from outer space sounding or something I did not anticipate. After weeks of describing it to people I had I think 8 visitors, about half of them to gawk at it.
The theory needs the title that pulls out all the science-stoppers and explains what deserves to be called "intelligent cause" or it goes nowhere. I would probably not have speciation that far along were it not for so many hating everything to do with ID. The Wiki on Collective Intelligence helps explains why that can happen in forums like this one to infer new knowledge from your old knowledge. To in this case become a new theory that is free of all the science stoppers you can think of.
Now you're stuck having to explain the underlying genetic mechanism that accounts for the Cambrian Explosion better than I did by explaining it as another "product of intelligence" with computer model of it showing same curve. And human speciation that's described in PNAS literature any better than the science papers do with it all the same to me whether that's just what is in the science paper is saying about human speciation because it comes out saying about the same thing as what I said anyhow. And I am long past the point of no return with this theory and must make sure you know what you're really up against with ID now that the theory has gone this far too. I have to make sure you know I am not talking about the DI's ID or the Grandfather's Religion I grew up with in culture and church. And I'm committed to seeing this theory through. Even with all the thorns, it has to become accepted science or science cannot progress past the science-stoppers. So play the videos on this page again, then relax and have fun being "free" of all the science-stoppers too.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aster
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 130
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Greg,
These are a few thoughts about what you wrote:
Greg Myers wrote:
| Quote: | | « Hindu, Islamic and Christian fundamentalist's claims about the origins of the world are inconsistent with observations made using a scientific approach to the world. » |
You seem to say that there are two positions :
« Hindu, Islamic and Christian fundamentalist's claims about the origins of the world » which are religiously-minded ; and
« observations made using a scientific approach to the world ».
You say the first position is inconsistent with the second. My question is: which one has been validated as definitely right ?
Does science have a position which has definitely established the true mechanisms of how the world came to be ? I know there are many theories, which get modified from time to time. But, does the Big Bang theory provide us with the definitive answers about the origins of the world ?
If it does, I would certainly would like to know the details.
If it doesn’t, if it’s merely a scenario which is based on postulates, assumptions, hypotheses, etc., that’s something else. I have nothing against such a scenario, so long as it is described as a scenario, and not as « the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth », or as evidence that would stand in a Court of law.
If it’s merely a scenario, how can one describe it as a major progress compared with « Hindu, Islamic and Christian fundamentalist's claims about the origins of the world » ? Especially if we take into account the possibility that, maybe in a few decades, this scenario will be considered as obsolete, and would have been replaced by another scenario ?
Greg Myers wrote :
| Quote: | | « at most you could say that evolution does not rule out the possibility of a god who does not intervene in the workings of the universe in any detectable way ». |
I find this sentence very intriguing. What is there is the theory of evolution which gives it a possibility to « not rule out the possibility of a god who does not intervene in the workings of the universe in any detectable way » ?
Again, I ask the question: "Does evolution have a stand on the subject of God ?" I wasn’t aware it did. As far as I know, evolution deals with how species evolve into different species.
It does not know how the first living beings came into being, and it does not explain that at all. It takes a situation as it exists : one species evolving into a new species. It’s exactly like someone getting onto a train which already exists and functions.
Religion tries to explain how the first living beings came into existence. Does the theory of evolution also do that ? What major results has it achieved in this domain, that can be considered as irrefutably established using the scientific method ?
Greg Myers wrote:
| Quote: | | « Because the gaps between what we are able to observe and measure are getting so small, that there is no room for a creator to influence events. Deism attempted to deal with the observed absence of the need for a creator to explain the workings of the world by postulating god as watchmaker, winding up the world and letting it run on its own (this pretty much sums up ID as well). Quantum Mechanics and cosmological observation has pushed the opportunity for any such watchmaking to before the Big Bang. » |
If the watchmaker did wind up his watch before the Big Bang, that doesn't make it any less important. For example: Does the Big Bang explain how living beings came into existence ? How the first cell structures came into existence? So long as there are no scientific responses to these questions, the issue of the role of the watchmaker remains unresolved.
_________________
think |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
