Monday, August 16, 2010

Jerry Coyne: Simplistic Renderings of Evolutionary Thought

Evolutionist's come in a wide variety of religious flavors. Even in the Christian wing of evolution-dom, the details of how God and evolution are to be understood vary. There is, for example the bottom-up view where God controls the world via sub-atomic particles all working together to effect macro events. Or, at the other end of the spectrum, there is the top-down view where God controls events in a way analogous to the way humans perceive their willed actions. From my perspective, I simply move my arm. I do not initiate nerve impulses in order to activate muscle contractions leading to appendage movement. It's almost difficult to find a view that doesn't fit into the spectrum somewhere. But once again evolutionist Jerry Coyne demonstrates what can be done when facts don't matter.

Evolutionists who are Christian hold to a variety of views of how God used evolution. But there is one view to which they do not hold. They do not believe God used evolution in the way that a sculptor uses a chisel. They do not believe that God precisely and exactly controlled the evolutionary process to achieve a preconceived design. For that would mean that God intended for this gritty world.

As Roman Catholic Nicholas Malebranche hypothesized in the early days of modern science, God limited divine action to secondary causes--creation's natural laws. God preferred the simplicity of such blunt creation instruments to more complex, detailed intervention, even if it meant inefficiencies and evil. Better to believe in divine self limitation than in a God who would create this contemptable world.

Malebranche's seventeenth century system was one of several traditions (mostly Anglican and Lutheran) mandating a strictly naturalistic creation narrative which laid the foundation of modern evolutionary thought.

Creationists view evolutionary thought as atheism is disguise, and atheists such as Coyne view it as creation in disguise. It is neither.

Evolutionists who are Christian hold to a variety of views, but they are not creationists in disguise. Nonetheless, Coyne manages to conclude that evolutionists such as Kenneth Miller, Karl Giberson and Francis Collins are creationists. Of them he writes:

Yes, they do accept that our species changed genetically over time, but they see God as having pulled the strings. That’s not the way evolution works. The graph labels these 48% as believers in intelligent design, and that’s exactly what they are, for they see God as nudging human evolution toward some preconceived goal. We’re designed. These people are creationists: selective creationists.

To count them as allies means we make company with those who accept evolution in a superficial sense but reject it in the deepest sense. After all, the big revolution in thought wrought by Darwin was the recognition that the appearance of design—thought for centuries to be proof of God—could stem from purely natural processes. When we cede human evolution to God, then, we abandon that revolution. That’s why I see selective creationists like Kenneth Miller, Karl Giberson and Francis Collins as parting company with modern biological thought.

One consequence of the naturalistic mandate in evolutionary thought is that divine action cannot be scientifically detectable. As Coyne writes, the appearance of design can stem from purely natural processes. How, and whether or not, God worked via those laws becomes irrelevant. "Let each man hope and believe what he can," as Darwin put it.

But what they may not believe is that design is detectable. They may believe in design, but not that it is detectable. Blinded by his atheistic zeal, Coyne misses this subtlety.

Divine intention is the crux of the argument. If God did not intend for the specifics of this world, but rather merely created natural laws which act on their own, then God is justified and design is not detectable. But if design is detectable, then by definition natural laws are insufficient to explain creation. That means God controlled the process more precisely than we can accept.

Darwin brought forth example after example of designs that made no sense. They must have evolved, and evolution must be true. Today, the story from molecular biology is the same. Junk DNA, regardless of whether some oddball function is found, for evolutionists simply makes no sense on design.

The evolutionary drumbeat that Darwin's idea must be a fact is not a scientific conclusion based on empirical findings in a metaphysical vacuum. Yes there are plenty of empirical findings, but they are viewed through evolutionary spectacles, with all of its rich metaphysical history. It isn't atheism, it isn't creationism, it isn't design, and it isn't empirical science.

Miller, Giberson, Collins and rest are not intelligent design advocates or selective creationists, as Coyne erroneously describes them. Though specifics vary, these Christians are very much in the evolutionary traditions from the Enlightment and before. Today's dominant paradigm did not begin in 1859 and Coyne's new finding that theism is not allowed is absurd. It is also hypocritical since, in typical fashion, Coyne relies on those same theistic arguments (you can see examples here, here, here, here and here).

35 comments:

  1. "As Roman Catholic Nicholas Malebranche hypothesized in the early days of modern science, God limited divine action to secondary causes--creation's natural laws. God preferred the simplicity of such blunt creation instruments to more complex, detailed intervention, even if it meant inefficiencies and evil. Better to believe in divine self limitation than in a God who would create this contemptable world."

    This is the problem with ID theologically. Genesis tells us that God created a perfect world and that the creation fell along with humans after sin entered the world. It was then that thorns, weeds, etc. entered the world. God's perfect creation was no more perfect. It is not because of some self-limitation that God placed on Himself. He didn't use death, suffering, pain, extinction, disease, survival of the fittest, etc. to create the world that we now experience. That doesn't fit with the God of the Bible. But this is what ID theory implies. God therefore becomes the author of everything imperfect. Claiming that God limited how much He intervened and had to sit back helplessly as His creation became something He had never intended is a ridiculous insult to the Creator. IDers who believe that God created the universe and life through evolution run into this fatal flaw. The Roman Catholic mentioned above was terribly mistaken!

    ReplyDelete
  2. tokyojim,

    Genesis tells us that God created a perfect world and that the creation fell along with humans after sin entered the world. It was then that thorns, weeds, etc. entered the world. God's perfect creation was no more perfect.

    You make it sound passive, as if all of those bad things were inevitably and automatically triggered by the first humans’ sin. As if God had nothing to do with it.

    It is not because of some self-limitation that God placed on Himself. He didn't use death, suffering, pain, extinction, disease, survival of the fittest, etc. to create the world that we now experience

    And yet, in Genesis, God says to Adam:

    Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

    Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field…


    Isn’t God actively cursing the ground here, and deliberately making the world miserable as a punishment for the sin of disobedience?

    ReplyDelete
  3. TokyoJim:

    The Bible does not say God created a perfect. It says he created a "very good" world.

    ReplyDelete
  4. When you're omnipotent, you can create any kind of world you like.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jerry Coyne is right. Everybody who believes that the universe was created by a God for a purpose is a creationist. The significant differences between them are that some creationists claim that they can scientifically demonstrate that the laws of nature are insufficient to explain the universe or more specifically the history of life on this planet and pretty much the same people claim that they can scientifically demonstrate that God somehow interfered in the history of life.

    If an omnipotent and omniscient God creates a world then any specific, every single detail, in that universe is necessarily intended. Nothing in such a universe happens without a reason even if the reason can't be found out and everything in such a universe is designed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. second opinion

    "If an omnipotent and omniscient God creates a world then any specific, every single detail, in that universe is necessarily intended. Nothing in such a universe happens without a reason even if the reason can't be found out and everything in such a universe is designed."
    ==========================

    Would it be fair to say that unofficially, the mystical guiding ever directing magical force called "Natural Selection" is also itself somehow - an omnipotent and omniscient blind guiding force (or a god 'alien' of sorts) to an Evolutionist/Atheist ???

    ReplyDelete
  7. Eocene

    Neither omnipotent nor omniscient nor blind are scientific categories. Natural selection is a direct consequence of the laws of nature acting on self replicating system under certain side conditions. Or you can even call natural selection itself a law of nature.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Eocene: "Would it be fair to say that unofficially, the mystical guiding ever directing magical force called "Natural Selection" is also itself somehow - an omnipotent and omniscient blind guiding force (or a god 'alien' of sorts) to an Evolutionist/Atheist ???"

    Asking if natural selection could be called omnipotent or omniscient only demonstrates that the person asking the question either has no idea what natural selection is, or that they have no idea what 'omnipotent' or 'omniscient' mean. (or both.)

    And, how could anything be both 'omniscient' and 'blind' at the same time? Read what you've written before you click 'Post Comment.'

    ReplyDelete
  9. second opinion: "Jerry Coyne is right. Everybody who believes that the universe was created by a God for a purpose is a creationist."

    I think you (and Coyne) are departing a bit from the common definition of 'creationist'. As most people use it, the term creationist refers to someone who believes that the different 'kinds' of animals were separately created, with no shared ancestry, or that if they do share common ancestry, God miraculously intervened in the process, which is why it is fair to consider ID a form of creationism. But if someone believes that evolution proceeds through entirely naturalistic mechanisms, (Like Collins, Miller and Giberson) then they are by definition not creationists, regardless of a belief in God/purpose or not.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Derick Childress

    That's true. I just wanted to emphasize the similarities and the differences between the positions.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Derick childress

    "And, how could anything be both 'omniscient' and 'blind' at the same time? Read what you've written before you click 'Post Comment.'
    ===================

    No Derick, I know exactly what I wrote. When you debate Atheists long enough, you realize that there are no absolutes and truth is relevant. Natural Selection is always depicted from the storytelling as something with a magical wand that makes everything work out so perfectly, almost as if it were an intelligent guiding force, but NOT. Unfortunately there is also this insistance of blind, pointless, pitiless, blind indifference, without guidance, direction or purpose. Athesit/Evolutionists reserve the right to have it both ways if you read them regularly.
    --------------

    second opinion

    "Neither omnipotent nor omniscient nor blind are scientific categories. Natural selection is a direct consequence of the laws of nature acting on self replicating system under certain side conditions. Or you can even call natural selection itself a law of nature."
    ================

    Unfortunately this is the only answer pulled off the shelf when asked to show how the original mechanisms at the beginning appeared through nothing more than physics and chemicals, or as the good Reverend Richard Dawkins put it, a happy chemical accident. Sadly none of the answers are ever satisfactory, hence you are advised you'd better take it on faith if you know what's healthy for you.

    Also 'second' , see above.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Eocene

    Look Eocene, I'm not particularly interested in explaining something to somebody when the person can find a huge amount of material of different levels of sophistication on the internet for free especially if this person is not really interested in the answer and if it is unrelated to the original blog post.

    Right now I'm not sure what your problem is. Is it CB090?

    ReplyDelete
  13. second opinion said...

    Eocene

    Look Eocene, I'm not particularly interested in explaining something to somebody when the person can find a huge amount of material of different levels of sophistication on the internet for free especially if this person is not really interested in the answer and if it is unrelated to the original blog post.

    Right now I'm not sure what your problem is. Is it CB090?


    Eocene's problem is the same as Tedford's, and CH's, and every Creationist who comes traipsing through. The problem is that empirically observed physical reality doesn't support their YEC biblical beliefs. Rather than accept reality and modify those beliefs, we see amazing amounts of bluster, mental gymnastics, and hand-waving to deny that physical reality and fight off the resulting cognitive dissonance.

    Same ol' same ol', and it will only change with more and better science education.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dr Hunter wrote:

    They do not believe that God precisely and exactly controlled the evolutionary process to achieve a preconceived design. For that would mean that God intended for this gritty world.

    Dr Hunter,

    You seem to suggest these Christian evolutionists are making what appears to be arbitrary or paradoxical claims regarding when an omnipotent being was or was not involved. However, as a non-theist, the claim that God somehow created conscious beings our of nothing, yet these beings have 'free will,' seems just as arbitrary and paradoxical.

    You might claim this 'makes sense' in that, if human beings are going to be held responsible for their actions, then God must have allowed us to make free choices. But, unless God did not have a choice in the kinds of beings he created, this would represent a conscious choice to remain 'hands-off' regarding a specific aspect of his creation.

    Perhaps you can elaborate on why drawing the line at human choices, rather than the laws of physics and any less arbitrary or paradoxical.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Cornelius G. Hunter is Adjunct Professor at Biola University where their doctrinal statement includes in part –

    ‘Therefore, creation models which seek to harmonize science and the Bible should maintain at least the following: (a) God providentially directs His creation, (b) He specially intervened in at least the above-mentioned points in the creation process, and (c) God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms.’


    Evolution is a fact because I say so and I am prepared to stand up and face your imaginary god in any way he/she/it should wish to challenge me. Bring it on.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Eric: "Evolution is a fact because I say so and I am prepared to stand up and face your imaginary god in any way he/she/it should wish to challenge me. Bring it on."

    Eric, I have to say that that comment comes across as supremely arrogant, and is part of the reason these guys are skeptical of evolution. You're not helping with statements like that. And, by the way, evolution is not a fact because you say so; it is a fact because it is extremely well supported buy multiple lines of evidence from many diverse disciplines; your individual opinion on the matter is simply irrelevant.

    I respectfully ask that you re-evaluate your tone - there is no need to be so combative. Our side doesn't need a Joe G.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The point of my statement Derick, was that the god/creation/ID folk will not accept the overwhelming level of evidence to which you refer. They still claim that evolution is no more evidenced than god. The whole 'god of the gaps' premise is clearly evident in Cornelius's articles. His Biola creedo says all that needs to be said.

    They are not 'skeptical' of evolution. They refuse to acknowledge or accept the reality of it because it does not fit their god paradigm.

    When I say 'because I say so' it is not actually me saying so, it is the weight of evidence speaking for me. And given that god does not exist, it is easy to accept any challenge 'god' may throw up.

    Trying to argue the science with these people, time after time after time, is a pointless exercise as they clearly demonstrate an unwillingness or inability to accept science.

    I think my arrogance is trumped by their consistent display of both arrogance and ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Eocene: "When you debate Atheists long enough, you realize that there are no absolutes and truth is relevant.
    -------------------------------------

    You seem to be making the error of using atheist and evolutionist interchangeably. Well, at the moment, you're not just debating atheists, you're also debating a Christian who accepts evolutionary theory. I assume you mean "...and truth is relative," In which case, please understand that the vast majority of scientists believe that truth is absolute; that whatever happened in the past doesn't actually vary depending on who you ask, and that hard facts about nature aren't subjective.

    --------------------------------------
    Natural Selection is always depicted from the storytelling as something with a magical wand that makes everything work out so perfectly...
    --------------------------------------

    *sigh* With this statement, I'm fairly convinced that you've never actually read any literature on evolution. You simply do not know what you are talking about. One of the hallmark features of an evolutionary process is that things most assuredly don't work out perfectly. I'm not going to waste space here by naming all the sub-optimal features in nature like cancer, viruses, back and knee problems in humans, etc. Your statement is baffling. Natural selection is never portrayed as something that always works out 'perfectly.' In fact, the lack of perfection was probably an important clue leading to the discovery of the process.

    And you use the word 'magical' in describing this scientific process. It's a shame that the irony of that statement is lost on you; there are few words more opposite in meaning than 'magical' and 'scientific'

    ------------------------------
    ...almost as if it were an intelligent guiding force, but NOT.
    ------------------------------

    And this is precisely why Darwin chose the phrase 'natural' selection. It's a phrase that's become so familiar to us that the juxtaposition of these two contrastive words is often overlooked. 'Selection' is a word that usually conveys an intention or a conscious choice. But Darwin made the case that sometimes in nature, types of 'selection' could be made naturally, with no conscious intent. Think of those coin sorters that work by dropping different sized coins down different sized holes - The device is still 'selecting' where each and every coin goes, but it is obviously not consciously 'choosing' or 'deciding' where they go. Natural selection is pretty much the same thing. It may even be random which coins go in in which order, but because there is an organizing principle to the system, the final arrangement of the coins is anything but random.

    ------------------------------
    Unfortunately there is also this insistance of blind, pointless, pitiless, blind indifference, without guidance, direction or purpose.
    ------------------------------

    I'll give you part of this point. When someone like Dawkins uses words like 'pointless' or 'without purpose or meaning' he is speaking from philosophy, not science. Those are not science words. But, words like 'undirected', and 'blind' are appropriate in science. A hurricane is a blind process - It has no intentionality or foresight within itself. Erosion and gravity are undirected in the sense that they operate without the need of consciousness; nothing has to 'decide' that an apple will fall or that a stream will carve through the landscape.

    ------------------------------
    Athesit/Evolutionists...
    ------------------------------

    Ah- you're doing it again. You mean evolutionists who are also atheists...

    ------------------------------
    ..reserve the right to have it both ways if you read them regularly.
    ------------------------------

    What is both ways?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Derick Childress explained:

    "Well, at the moment, you're not just debating atheists, you're also debating a Christian who accepts evolutionary theory."
    ==========================

    So there is no Natural Selection as far as your concerned, therefore it's "God Selection" that is continually morphing life on Earth ?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Eric stated as fact:

    "Cornelius G. Hunter is Adjunct Professor at Biola University where their doctrinal statement includes in part –
    "The whole 'god of the gaps' premise is clearly evident in Cornelius's articles. His Biola creedo says all that needs to be said."
    ======================

    Okay, yeah, he's at Biola and yes he's admitted on this blog comments section that he's a Christian and most likely he is biased towards belief in a God who is responsible for the environment that sustains our life as a living being. So what ??? Are you not also biased ??? Is Richard Dawkins not biased ??? Does NASA, Oxford (and far more secularist Universities) not biased and have an understood mandate that evolution needs to be a fact which almost certainly colours their research work ???
    (okay- Reality check alert)

    Your so-called righteous indignation here is hollow and without solid foundation Eric. Everybody is biased with regard something. I'm biased and so are you. But it's okay to be biased and yet open to listening to someone else's viewpoint. But yet while chastising the Christian side for not being open to evolution, your own biased bigoted statements speaks volumes about your predjudice and closed mindedness.

    ERIC biasedly and boldly without hestitation stated:

    "Evolution is a fact because I say so and I am prepared to stand up and face your imaginary god in any way he/she/it should wish to challenge me. Bring it on."
    -----------------------------------

    Cornelius Hunter's blog subjects are not so much against evolution as they are against the official method by which it is "asserted" - "assumed" to be fact. The very last thing that is EVER employed is the official "Scientific Method" that most of us have quoted and shoved down our throats. It's ironic however, that evolution gets a pass for skirting this rule of etched in stone scientific research law, yet creation belief must wear it like shackles (which most believers don't mind).

    Every CH blog O.P. exposes and critiques the methods employed for so-called proofs of evolution, not evolution itself. If scientists actually honestly employed the "Scientific Method" for evolution experimentation, then there may well have never been a Cornelius Hunter blog or at least it would be something different. To sum it up, we're still dealing with nothing more than "Definition shell Games", "Goal-Post Moving" and statements like there being millions of written research papers all pointing towards inference (correct word is assumptions)for evolution, therefore that makes it a FACT. Suddenly we find ourselves needing to debate argue the question that even a small child knows the answer to, What is the definition of the word FACT?

    *eyes rolling*

    ReplyDelete
  21. Eocene: "So there is no Natural Selection as far as your concerned, therefore it's "God Selection" that is continually morphing life on Earth ?"

    That's the opposite of what I'm saying. If God were doing the selecting, it would be called something like Supernatural Selection.

    I'm not sure how you got the impression that I was speaking against natural selection, I apologize If I was unclear. To restate: Natural selection is 'undirected' in the same sense as gravity, heat transfer, erosion, crystallization, and hurricane formation are.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Eric said: "When I say 'because I say so' it is not actually me saying so, it is the weight of evidence speaking for me.
    -------------------------------------

    But you see how others could be forgiven for thinking that when you say "because I say so," you mean: "because I say so." Your sentiment that it is actually the weight of the evidence speaking for you is not found in the original statement.

    --------------------------------------
    And given that god does not exist, it is easy to accept any challenge 'god' may throw up.
    --------------------------------------

    This is a perfect example of the kind of statement that is retarding the public acceptance of evolution. You're implying that the nonexistence of God and the acceptance of evolution are on the same level. This is the reason Cornelius keeps up with his "Religion drives science." mantra. You're fueling his fire.

    It's not a 'given' that God doesn't exist. It's not a 'given' that the FSM doesn't exist either. It may be perfectly rational to not accept the existence of God - but it's certainly not on par with the mountains of positive evidence for evolution.

    Equating evolution with atheism is the same mistake the creationists make. It would be like saying to a global warming denier: "The data strongly supports the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming; and since it's a given that pollution will happen in a capitalistic society, we must switch immediately to communism." It may be the case that communism would solve that particular problem (or not), but binding the two concepts together in the public mind makes them less likely to evaluate the evidence fairly. (and the concepts shouldn't be bound together in the first place; one is scientific, the other is political)

    With statements like that, you've distorted the science by tying it in with non-science.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Derick childress clarified:

    "Natural selection is 'undirected' in the same sense as gravity, heat transfer, erosion, crystallization, and hurricane formation are."
    ===================

    Perhaps you can further clarify this for me. If you believe in a god (not sure what god) , then surely you believe there would not be any undirectedness in any of the engineering mechanisms of any ecosystem. Why would would hang on to bits and pieces of atheistic thinking and fuse them together to create a belief in a god you are comfortable with on your terms ???

    Most of Christendom did this very thing almost 2000 years ago after the death of the Apostles (who acted as a restraint for purity of belief) when they fused many Christian beliefs with numerous pagan concepts and traditions. The whole process was nothing more than politics and holding onto what was left of a failing divided Roman Empire together. Hence what was salvaged and reinvented was a Holy Roman Empire. It's certainly not surprising that today the Roman Catholic Church has compromised yet again (to salvage what is left of a shrinking attendance & financial base), along with other Protestant Churches I'm sure on their stand with regards Evolutionary dogma.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Eocene said: "Perhaps you can further clarify this for me. If you believe in a god (not sure what god), then surely you believe there would not be any undirectedness in any of the engineering mechanisms of any ecosystem.
    --------------------------

    Why on earth would I 'surely' believe that? Again, look at my wording. Something can be undirected in one sense, but not in another. Embryonic development is undirected in the sense that there is no conscious action or intervention required to explain the chemical process that occur. It is directed in the sense that it is following rules and instructions embedded in DNA. As a Christian, I believe that many or all aspects of our universe are intended, but 'intended' has a different meaning than 'directed'. If you'll re-read my post, and others I've made in other forums, I'm always careful to say that natural selection is undirected in the same sense as gravity, erosion, etc. Do you believe that whenever an apple falls, that God is actively 'deciding' that it should move towards the earth instead of away from it? (as opposed to 'ordaining' it or 'allowing' it?) Or could it be that gravity (whatever causes it) affects matter in a rational and consistent way, without the input of miraculous interventions?

    --------------------------
    Why would would hang on to bits and pieces of atheistic thinking and fuse them together to create a belief in a god you are comfortable with on your terms ???
    --------------------------

    You seem to define "has a natural explanation" as being "atheistic thinking." If that's the case, then you're in for some disappointments as scientists explain the physical processes of our universe, one at a time, as they have been doing for centuries.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Eocene said: "Why would would hang on to bits and pieces of atheistic thinking and fuse them together to create a belief in a god you are comfortable with on your terms ???
    -------------------------------

    It is not 'creating' a belief in God to align our thoughts about God with reality. To use your language, some people 'believe in a God' who created a flat, stationary earth in the middle of a relatively small universe, while other's 'believe in a God' who created a spheroid, orbiting earth in a large universe. The second group have a more accurate view of God in that respect. (though of course not perfectly accurate.)

    By your view, is it 'atheist thinking' to say that epilepsy and seizures aren't caused by demons?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Derick philosophized:

    "It is not 'creating' a belief in God to align our thoughts about God with reality. To use your language, some people 'believe in a God' who created a flat, stationary earth in the middle of a relatively small universe, while other's 'believe in a God' who created a spheroid, orbiting earth in a large universe. The second group have a more accurate view of God in that respect. (though of course not perfectly accurate.)

    By your view, is it 'atheist thinking' to say that epilepsy and seizures aren't caused by demons?"
    ===================

    Nice, but I didn't ask for a New Age Mystic explanation with sutle eastern religious overtones.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Derick speculated:

    "You seem to define "has a natural explanation" as being "atheistic thinking." If that's the case, then you're in for some disappointments as scientists explain the physical processes of our universe, one at a time, as they have been doing for centuries."
    =====================

    You are at the same disadvantage as your average atheist who has yet to show any proof of the various unguided natural processes for which all the billions of living organisms today evolved from that one singular microscopic parent of all life. Definition shell games of word/terms don't cut it and adding Thorton's dastardly phrazology of "Gawddidit" does not work to your advantage either. You still have burden of proof and you've failed thus far by using off track mystic philosophic Soothsaying visionry. I understand the anger people have towards traditional conventional Christendom, but adopting eastern religious concepts and incorporating them into your version of Christian belief system hasn't made any improvement.

    I am curious as to whether or not you read or belief anything in the Bible and if you've ever taken the time to do your own personal scholastic research with regards original meanings of Hebrew and Greek words/terms.

    The majority of those claiming to be Christian never have. In their view (as they been taught and conditioned to believe) it is the responsibility of the Clergy to do their religious thinking and study for them. Hence they actually take a materialist approach as opposed to a spiritual one. I find most arguementative atheists on these forum sites are identical in character. Most of their education to justify their behavioral issues comes from their own Clerics (Forum Admins/Moderators & prominent clerics such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, PZ Meyers, etc) who run the religious websites of infidels.org, talkrational.org, richarddawkins.net, atheistforums.com, talkorigins.org, etc. Most of them are not involved directly with science and most have never made practical application of those blind, undirected, purposeless philsophical mechanisms they say drive evolution, with the exception of course of how they live their personal lives in the pursuit of whatever animalistic passion driven whim that comes along (no judgement aloud) that they see fit to follow.

    With all seriousness and sincerity here Derick, you seriously need to rethink your position. The religious concept of evolution was originally a pagan (Darwin was a Charlie come Lately) one taught by not only the Greeks, but also the empires of Babylon and Egpyt. Moses was schooled in the educational concepts of ancient Egytian Philosophy (including evolutionary ideas on human/animal origins). Had God actually used the mechanisms evolution (as espoused by most Atheists) as a means of the creating life, then Moses could have drawn from the traditional stories which would have been common knowledge in all the cultures throughout the Mediterranian, but he didn't. Greek Aristotle believed life came from fishes, turned into land animals from which mankind eventually came from. It's a simplisitic explanation, but one that could have been easily grasped by the Israelites if it were true and God inpsired Moses to write about it.

    Instead, we don't get a mechanics explanation of the how, but the who and the what. The Genesis account was not written for the Peer Reviewed approval of the modern day Panel "lovers of debate" Stoics. It was simply an introduction to the legal and moral issues raised by an intelligent being who origined the issue of God's right to rule and set limitations on all intelligent creation (Spirit or Man). Much of the modern arguements today are simply parrotings and embellishments of that orignal rebellion by that same individual at the beginning. He's been proved a liar multiple times and is on a scorched Earth policy much like that of Hitler at the end of the war.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Eocene, you don't get away with it that easily! The academic creed that Cornelius ascribes to is 'god did it' as the basis and final answer for all 'scientific' endeavors.

    Yes, we are all biased in regards to something, it's just that some are biased by faith while the secular people and organizations you mention are influenced by.....by what, truth? The search for facts with no pre-conceived result?

    The rest of your 12.32AM comment is the same drivel that Cornelius spouts - pointless.

    Derick, it's people like Cornelius, Uncommon Descent, Answers in Genesis, The 'Creation' Museum and the likes of Ken Ham and co. who are retarding the acceptance of evolution. They do so to retain the power that religion has over people, especially the control of women.

    Cornelius saying 'religion drives science' has as much value as the 6 year old who cries 'am not, you are' when someone calls them a name. He's the one who has religion, it drives his science. Everyone else has an uncluttered search for answers.

    Once evolutionary science is insurmountably evidenced, 'god' is ultimately disproven. Hence atheism is all that will be left. Ergo evolution and atheism are one.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Tom said: "Derick, it's people like Cornelius, Uncommon Descent, Answers in Genesis, The 'Creation' Museum and the likes of Ken Ham and co. who are retarding the acceptance of evolution."

    Absolutely Tom, but I would say that it's also people like CH, UD, AIG, but not only. Unfortunately, Cornelius is sometimes right in pointing out instances where scientists have overstepped the boundaries of science. Dawkins' famous quote: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." - is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one.

    I think that the science-denialism anti-intellectualism that creationism breeds is having a disastrous effect on society. But, as a former YEC, I can assure you that you cannot get rid of creationism by attacking God. To the creationist, every single thing that exists is irrefutable proof of God's existence. Stars? Designed. People? Designed. Brain eating parasites? Designed. To a creationist, there is no conceivable argument that could make even the smallest dent in their certainty that God exists; so when 'evolutionists' attack their (our) belief in God, it actually reinforces the evolution-denialsim.

    I was a YEC for so long because of people like Dawkins. A lot of his statements really do make it seem as if his atheism motivates his acceptance of evolution. (in his case, it was actually the other way around) It wasn't until some very intelligent Christians like Collins and Miller took public stances against science-denialism that I was able to recognize the confirmation bias that affected my thinking and therefore evaluate the evidence fairly. Evolution hasn't affected my belief in God, just some of my thinking about God.

    You said: "Once evolutionary science is insurmountably evidenced, 'god' is ultimately disproven. Hence atheism is all that will be left. Ergo evolution and atheism are one.:

    This is simply not the case. First of all, evolutionary theory has pretty much been 'insurmountably' evidenced for quite a while now, so even if it were demonstrated beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt, it would only cause most theists to modify their theology, because it would at most only disprove a few aging doctrines. It doesn't follow that explaining the workings of a process demonstrates that the process wasn't intended or has no puprpose. When I was a small child, my Dad once joked that he could open the garage door by wiggling his ears. I would watch him wiggle his ears - and lo and behold, the garage door would open. My understanding of the process was that he was directly causing the door to open. When I later figured out how garage-door openers worked, I didn't discard the notion that it was still, at bottom, the intent of my Dad to open the door; I just now understood that the turning chain in the garage-door-opener was the direct cause of the door raising, that the running motor was the direct cause of the turning chain, and that the radio signal from the remote was the direct cause of the running of the motor.

    So if you believe atheism naturally follows from evolution, (which I don't) why not concentrate on raising acceptance of evolution, (which benefits society and helps everyone) instead of lowering acceptance by mixing it in with theological musings, which quite honestly, can't be proven one way or the other?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ah Derick. Scientists may overstep the boundaries of science from time to time but it still always comes back to science. meanwhile, the people I mentioned overstep the boundaries by their attempts to include fallacious material into science. And Dawkins is right.

    I'm not attacking god! How can I when no such thing exists. What I attack is the falsehoods and numerous other acts perpetrated by those who claim god. Sometimes people are such slow learners that they need the information repeatedly delivered until they can no longer deny it.

    As the scientific evidence grows, theists are left with less and less ground on which to base their beliefs. Religion is based on god being the creator. Once it is demonstrated that there is no creator, god disappears. It disproves a lot more than a few aging doctrines.

    I'm not the one introducing theological musings. Theology is a false premise. Evolution is it. No god, no creator. Therefore there is no theological argument any more than a book-club meeting.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @Eocene

    For the sake of argument, let's assume God exists.

    - Is God an intelligent agent that makes choices?

    - Did God choose to give human beings free will rather than make us "robots", but could have chosen otherwise?

    My guess is that your answer two these two questions is "YES."

    If so, the question is NOT if God could or would chose to be 'hands-off' in regards to aspects his creation, as apparently you think this has already occurred. Instead, the question becomes, "Which specific aspects of his creation did God take a 'hands-off' approach? "

    However, your argument seems to hinge on a claim that an omnipotent and omniscient God who does not micromanage biological complexity is a paradox or nonsensical.

    My point is that, this claim in itself seems to be paradoxical. That an omniscient and omnipotent God would choose to be 'hands-off' in any one area, but not others, is a matter of theistic dogma, rather than necessity. It's the 'party line' rather than a logical conclusion based on the existence of some supernatural creator.

    In other words, It's unclear how you know what God would or would not do if he did exist.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Tom, allow me to clarify. When I said "...by attacking God," what I meant, and and stated later in the paragraph, is "...by attacking the belief in God."

    My last post was a bit long-winded for the point I was trying to make. Let me try again.

    Setting aside the debate about whether God actually exists or not, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, trying to get rid of creationism by getting rid of a belief in God first is a loosing strategy; it simply will not work in the vast majority of cases.

    To an ardent creationists, especially a young earth creationist, as long as the creationism is intact, their belief in God is completely unassailable. There is absolutely, positively, nothing in the world you could say to a person like Ken Ham that would make him doubt the existence of God for a second, because every single thing in the entire universe is irrefutable proof of God. Bananas, jars of peanut butter, whatever. I was the same way. For the entire period of my life that I was a YECer, I never had the slightest doubt that God existed, and couldn't understand for the life of me why anyone else did. The more science you throw at a YECer, without addressing the creationism, the more they consider science to be corrupt and 'infiltrated by the enemy.' The more logic and reason you throw at them, the more illogical and unreasonable they become. The more you point out contradictions and inconsistencies in their belief system, the better they get at mental gymnastics. (and at yelling "Metaphysics!")

    You said that religion is based on God being the creator, but this is not true in the least. There are many atheistic religions, like Buddhism. There are many theistic religions, where the gods are not the creators (Greek & Roman). And again, at most, evolution just proves that God didn't create in a certain way, not that he had no intention in the process. Many, many theists both fully understand, and fully accept evolution. It doesn't impact their foundational belief in God in the least.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Derick, these people will continue to argue against evolution no matter how overwhelming the evidence is. They seek any avenue, any question, any loophole to be able to say 'goddidit'.

    Even when the truth of evolution is 110% proven beyond a doubt, some will still believe in god, or at least claim to.

    So many will reconcile themselves to the absence of god once the science is categorically undeniable. Others will either not understand, or not want to understand - they require a different approach.

    And while the people we have mentioned continue their obstinate denial of reality here and in other spheres, I intend to call them out over their religion driving everything about their science.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Derick,

    Very interesting personal history you have there, from a YECer to an evolutionist.
    I made a switch too, from Darwinist to a proponent of a quantum mechanical model of evolution, for I believe the future is in quantum biology.

    ReplyDelete