Evolutionists MUST Be Semi Atheists

[David Sklansky]

Even the most hard core creationist, with half a brain, admit that some changes occur due to survival of the fittest. DNA guarantees that. If there is a designer involved, it is obviously indirect in many cases.

But what about traits that are particularly well adapted, and there is yet no obvious path to that trait through mere mutation and survival of the fittest? I'm no expert, but I'm sure many, if not most, of the traits of living things fit that description. Evolutionists have little doubt that the fact that they can't pinpoint how those traits evolved is not strong evidence against their general theory. They are sure evolution somehow caused those traits rather than an intelligent designer. What they won't admit publicly though, maybe even to themselves, is that their certainty does not make sense unless they are also certain that there is no such thing as an intelligent designer. That last statement is a mathematical fact.

Say, for the sake of argument that human's immune system has, as of yet, not been explained by the same evolutionary logic that polar bear's white coat's have. If there was any reasonable chance that there was a designer out there who is omnipotent, and sometimes directly intervenes, then that would be the more likely explanation for the immune system. (Again I'm stipulating it is presently a big puzzle.) Baye's Theorem. The argument that so many things have eventually been explained via evolution isn't strong enough to make it a favorite over an intelligent designer. At least in some cases. You can only lay big odds on evolution if you are also willing to lay big odds against the existence of an entity that EVER designs anything directly. Because if he sometimes does, he likely designed the immune system or whatever.

Thus the underlying assumption of all who believe that all the traits of living things evolved, is that it is very improbable that there is a God who directly designs anything. Are Catholics comfortable with that?

[durron597]

Do you mean semi atheists or semi agnostics? Sounds like the latter to me

[Phil153]

I disagree with you. Long observation and a number of scientific amazing discoveries has taught us that God-glue is not required to make things work. Even if an incredible miracle occurred today, many religious scientists would look for naturalistic explanations first (aliens, unknown natural phenomena,etc). The history of scientific discovery - which has made fools of the BluffTHIS!'s and NotReady's of history - is enough to make educated people wary of invoking supernaturalism as an explanation.

Your post would have been accurate 200 years ago.

[ChrisV]

The problem with your argument is that natural selection is more or less an all or nothing proposition. You can't have most of an organism created through natural selection and then bits tacked on later by a designer.

Take your example of the immune system. How would that work? Were humans wandering around for a while with no immune system and then suddenly pow! fully functioning immune system? If so, how did they survive with no immune system?

If organisms evolve at all, it seems silly to be to imagine bits suddenly tacked on. That suggests that beforehand, they were a functioning organism apart from not having that specific bit. But this then suggests that the bit is non essential, so it seems to me impossible that crucial pieces of an organism could be added in this way.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with your argument is that natural selection is more or less an all or nothing proposition. You can't have most of an organism created through natural selection and then bits tacked on later by a designer.

Take your example of the immune system. How would that work? Were humans wandering around for a while with no immune system and then suddenly pow! fully functioning immune system? If so, how did they survive with no immune system?

If organisms evolve at all, it seems silly to be to imagine bits suddenly tacked on. That suggests that beforehand, they were a functioning organism apart from not having that specific bit. But this then suggests that the bit is non essential, so it seems to me impossible that crucial pieces of an organism could be added in this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are and Phil have missed my point. Maybe the whole organism was designed. The thing is that if there is a God that designs anything, then it is entirely possible, even if not probable, that he also designed things that include stuff that we presently have no explanation for. Too many of such things still exist to dismiss that possibility. Unless the possibility of such a God existing is also dismissed.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
But what about traits that are particularly well adapted, and there is yet no obvious path to that trait through mere mutation and survival of the fittest?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. -On the Orgin of Species by Charles Darwin, Chapter III.

Darwin also used 'struggle for existence' not survival of the fittest. For more information see here: Survival of the Fittest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest) - Full explanation.

From the article:

[ QUOTE ]
Survival of the fittest is a phrase which is a shorthand for a concept relating to competition for survival or predominance. Originally applied by Herbert Spencer in his Principles of Biology of 1864, Spencer drew parallels to his ideas of economics with Charles Darwin's theories of evolution by what Darwin termed natural selection.



The phrase is a metaphor, not a scientific description; and it is not generally used by biologists, who almost exclusively prefer to use the phrase "natural selection".



[/ QUOTE ]

Added in edit:

[ QUOTE ]
Evolutionary biologists criticize how the term is used by non-scientists and the connotations that have grown around the term in popular culture. The phrase also does not help in conveying the complex nature of natural selection and modern biologists prefer and almost exclusively use the term natural selection.

Indeed, in modern biology, the term fitness measures reproductive success and is not explicit about the specific ways in which organisms can be "fit" as in "having phenotypic characteristics which enhance survival and reproduction" (which was the meaning that Spencer had in mind).



[/ QUOTE ]

Of course the phase was even adapted by Darwin in later editions of his book but not without misgivings. It has of couse entered into common use with all the attendant misinterpertation(s) and application. I am fighting a losing battle but wanted to make this post anyway.


-Zeno, Atheist

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
But what about traits that are particularly well adapted, and there is yet no obvious path to that trait through mere mutation and survival of the fittest? I'm no expert, but I'm sure many, if not most, of the traits of living things fit that description. Evolutionists have little doubt that the fact that they can't pinpoint how those traits evolved is not strong evidence against their general theory. They are sure evolution somehow caused those traits rather than an intelligent designer. What they won't admit publicly though, maybe even to themselves, is that their certainty does not make sense unless they are also certain that there is no such thing as an intelligent designer. That last statement is a mathematical fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry David, imo, you need to do an Evolution 101 course. There are such traits but... whereas they have been many, over the years only explanations in evolutionary terms have been found. Never a denial of evolution. How many time do you need to see a theory working and being proven again and again in different contexts and different disciplines, and never a denial being found (falsification) for you to think it is sufficient proof?

PS Evolution has nothing to do with proving or disproving god. It simply shows that no god is necessary to explain the phenomena.

[PairTheBoard]

I saw a show on Nova or National Geographic or the Discovery Channel about a recent discovery whereby just a small change in one gene suddenly morphed a single chamber heart for some species into a functioning two chamber heart. The implication being that small mutations might indeed produce large changes that improve the species.

Another point was raised concerning the huge ungainly tail feathers of male peacocks or some such bird. The ungainly tail feathers have got to be a major degradation of the male bird's ability to survive. But the female birds like them and will only mate with the males with the largest tail feathers. The ability of the male to grow large tail feathers is an indicator of his good health and probable strong genes which will likely produce a strong brood of healthy female offspring who will have good survival characteristics.

So the evolution of the ungainly male tail feathers has been driven by female preference. As the females may be using their intelligence to form that preference an argument can be made that the intelligence of the species itself can drive the direction of evolution. I suppose then we might blame our problems on the women drivers.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

I stand by my statement. Its a syllogism. If there is a designer who can, and has, designed really complex, ingeniously useful stuff. And if you come upon a complex and useful trait in an organism that doesn't seem to be explained by the known processes of evolution. Then the fact that we often eventually find an evolutionary explanation for other things does not mean that evolution is a big favorite over a designer in this particular case.

Therefore: Anyone who believes evolution is a big favorite over a designer in cases like these, must also believe that such a designer is unlikely to even exist.

My point may be a little tricky and is not directed at the atheist evolutionists who have thus far replied. It is directed at the religious evolutionists.

[MidGe]

David, Thanks for your reply. I think I understood the point you were trying to make the right way. In that spirit, right or wrong /images/graemlins/smile.gif , I am saying that opposing a deity (ID) to evolution is only one other possible theory. Saying that unicorns, the spaghetti monster or Santa Claus are responsible for or have a designing effect on it, is the same. There are a infinite number of alternatives to explain the phenomena and, deities, of one form or another, are only a group of those possible explanations. None has however succeeded with the number of confirmations and the lack of falsifications that evolution has. The question is, what is the likely more valid answer, and more, is there any support at all for any other theories.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
My point may be a little tricky and is not directed at the atheist evolutionists who have thus far replied. It is directed at the religious evolutionists.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is such a difficult question to answer in an 'a priori' sense. We're living in a techni-color world, and to conclude what an 'a posteriori' black &white or non-visual world could have been like, is conjecture at best.

I find it hard to escape the conclusion that we're living in a Zarathustrian world were human destiny is directed entirely by human will. Now we might question whether or not our will is governed by emotion, reason or a higher power, but to ignore the human will's influence over the current evolution of the human species, would seem impossible.

I really don't know how we can divorce from the will: ourselves; our ancestors; or for that matter any form of life. Whether the will is an evolved, emerged, or intelligently designed trait… we don't know. It's not something that's quantifiable or provable, and exists only subjectively - but it's real nonetheless. Certain individual organisms grit their proverbial teeth; prevail and win. Others don't.

When we operate collectively, it's the organism that can expand it's will the most that ultimately prevails. No man's individual will can prevail against the will of a tribe, and no tribe's will can prevail over the will of a nation. Beyond that it's the will of an ideal(s) over a nation, and ultimately the will of a God. For that reason, religion is and will always be, the most powerful force on the planet.

I know that idea doesn't sit well with the anti-religious or atheist crowd, and it didn't sit well with Epictetus either, but it's still reality. And the reality is that there's a bunch of mini caliph's declaring mini jihad's. But tomorrow morning the major Caliph's could declare "The Jihad" and the Pope could declare Mohammed, not a false prophet but "the" false prophet (anti-Christ) and this whole gig we have going on will come to a screeching halt.

That's the stark reality of the world we live in. Is it stupid? Sure. But is running around calling people idiots going to fix the problem? No. Which really makes me question the utility of intelligence. If these people who hold intelligence on such a pedestal, had half the sense they think they do - they'd be able to acknowledge the problem and come up with some half-possible way of dealing with it - but do they? No.

To me any half-wit can be a skeptic, and any moron can point out what's wrong in the world or with what people believe. But a real genius can figure a way out of the mess all us idiots got ourselves into. And like the rest of the idiots, I'm too stupid to realize how stupid I am, so the genius' are going to have to paint a picture for me.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
But a real genius can figure a way out of the mess all us idiots got ourselves into.

[/ QUOTE ]
They already have. It was called the Enlightenment, and it was where reason and compassion won against the evils of religion and superstition. You live in a pleasant world today because of the collective works of a handful of brave and intelligent people.

[chezlaw]

Polar bears don't have white coats.

Probably not terribly vital to your argument, wouldn't have bothered Aristotle much.

chez

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But a real genius can figure a way out of the mess all us idiots got ourselves into.

[/ QUOTE ]
They already have. It was called the Enlightenment, and it was where reason and compassion won against the evils of religion and superstition. You live in a pleasant world today because of the collective works of a handful of brave and intelligent people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem accepting your point. But what I see as the relative issue is, in plethora of movements that occurred, they weren't attacks against something as much as they were actions toward something. The establishment of the United States, wasn't a destruction of a Monarchy, it was the movement towards a positive goal. I think the lesson of the Enlightenment wasn't that the good comes about by the destruction of the bad, but that if you focus your energy on the creation of the good, the bad just goes away.

You simply can't stamp out darkness. You just light a candle and it goes away. In other words: you Enlighten. Light is a positive force that darkness has no power over. Fighting darkness, substantiates darkness.

[ALawPoker]

Evolutionists must be semi Atheists? Or evolutionists must be semi non-Creationists?

Why can't someone take an "evolution is God's work" approach and accept that the most fit traits will inevitably survive (so it's improbable that any trait lacks an explanation). But also believe that God wants this to happen.

If you just meant to say that they can't be creationists, then I guess I agree (for the same reason that you can't be inside a room and outside at the same time). But even then you could still argue that God created us fit to survive in our environment. Why wouldn't He? So thus, it wouldn't matter. There would exist some sort of evolutionary "explanation" for all our traits, but we'd be looking at God's foresight rather than nature's hindsight. But the logical explanation would still be there.

[SitNHit]

[/ QUOTE ]
You are and Phil have missed my point. Maybe the whole organism was designed. The thing is that if there is a God that designs anything, then it is entirely possible, even if not probable, that he also designed things that include stuff that we presently have no explanation for. Too many of such things still exist to dismiss that possibility. Unless the possibility of such a God existing is also dismissed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean just like the universe started from some point and God created the things neccessary for it to evolve, just as our perfect orbit for us to exist, like he programmed it to work out this way knowing that we eventually would be created and what we would be like. Think of how big the universe is how it works, how are planet fits in with our galaxy and our perfect place in orbit and then how we are humans and our traits, special talents, characteristics, funtions of our brains, etc. I don't know where I am going with this but I think what you were trying to say that maybe evolution is the case in alot of things, but God created the things that have evolved.

I believe that the two most ignorant things to say is that God and the Devil absolutley do not exist.

I would think even for a non-believler that any person who has a brain with common sense and reason would be open to at least the possibility.

Anyways, maybe I am not sophistacted enough for this discussion, haha. Thought I would try to add my 2 cents in.
Mike.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
But what about traits that are particularly well adapted, and there is yet no obvious path to that trait through mere mutation and survival of the fittest?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a little confused as to what you're getting at here. Are you referring to traits where we just haven't figured out the likely steps behind its evolution?

[ QUOTE ]
The argument that so many things have eventually been explained via evolution isn't strong enough to make it a favorite over an intelligent designer. At least in some cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you expand here and give an example or two?

[Borodog]

David,

Which is more likely to have existed:

1) A very long chain of very small naturalistic changes, or
2) An infinitely complex intelligence that violates the (apparent) laws of physics.

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
David,

Which is more likely to have existed:

1) A very long chain of very small naturalistic changes, or
2) An infinitely complex intelligence that violates the (apparent) laws of physics.

[/ QUOTE ]

The laws of Physics have been violated already with picture proof. An image by Hubble Telescope shows a Galaxy that has more then 8 times as many stars as our galaxy and according to physics theories, it shouldnt even exist.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
An image by Hubble Telescope shows a Galaxy that has more then 8 times as many stars as our galaxy and according to physics theories, it shouldnt even exist.

[/ QUOTE ]The limit is 7 times?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
David,

Which is more likely to have existed:

1) A very long chain of very small naturalistic changes, or
2) An infinitely complex intelligence that violates the (apparent) laws of physics.

[/ QUOTE ]

The laws of Physics have been violated already with picture proof. An image by Hubble Telescope shows a Galaxy that has more then 8 times as many stars as our galaxy and according to physics theories, it shouldnt even exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[SitNHit]

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

No to what?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But a real genius can figure a way out of the mess all us idiots got ourselves into.

[/ QUOTE ]
They already have. It was called the Enlightenment, and it was where reason and compassion won against the evils of religion and superstition. You live in a pleasant world today because of the collective works of a handful of brave and intelligent people.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we could have signatures added at the end of our posts, I would be asking you if I could use this as mine right now.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
David,

Which is more likely to have existed:

1) A very long chain of very small naturalistic changes, or
2) An infinitely complex intelligence that violates the (apparent) laws of physics.

[/ QUOTE ]

The part that I don't get is, is David saying that evolution cannot be a PROHIBITIVE favorite, unless we entirely reject the possibility of a designer God, or just that it cannot be a favorite at all? I think evolution would still certainly be the favorite, even if I believed in the possibility of a designer God, just based on past performance. But I don't know that I could call evolution a runaway favorite. Is that his point?

[David Sklansky]

You go to a planet where everybody constantly plays poker but no poker books exist. They all have IQs of 110. You encounter some great players. The first 500 of them show you how experience got them to where they are. You now encounter an even better player who makes plays in rare situations such that it is hard to see how experience could have led him to make them. But since he isn't smart enough to figure them out logically, the assumption must be made that somehow his experience did lead him to these plays. But only because we are sure that the Theory of Poker does not exist on this planet. If that was even a small possibility then it would have to be a reasonable alternative explanation for the plays of this one fellow.

If you are so sure his great plays evolved from his experience just because so many others have, then you must necessarily be sure that I never intervene with these players. Get it now?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What they won't admit publicly though, maybe even to themselves, is that their certainty does not make sense unless they are also certain that there is no such thing as an intelligent designer.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why people think God and evolution are logically mutually exclusive, ignoring any problems interpreting Genesis.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Which is more likely to have existed:

1) A very long chain of very small naturalistic changes, or
2) An infinitely complex intelligence that violates the (apparent) laws of physics.


[/ QUOTE ]

How can a being of finite knowledge calculate the probability of a being of infinite knowledge?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is that if there is a God that designs anything, then it is entirely possible, even if not probable, that he also designed things that include stuff that we presently have no explanation for. Too many of such things still exist to dismiss that possibility. Unless the possibility of such a God existing is also dismissed.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the difference between this claim and any ol' god-of-the-gaps claim?
"There are things we haven't yet explained. Therefore god did it."
Wow, we can explain god? , or else we haven't explained the things we haven't explained ( Donald Rumsfeld was a good teacher, There are unknown unknowns ..etc :-)

It's not that god existing is dismissed, it's that it doesn't explain anything, it makes it even tougher to explain.

luckyme

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Long observation and a number of scientific amazing discoveries has taught us that God-glue is not required to make things work.


[/ QUOTE ]

No science will ever teach us that God isn't necessary. By definition.

[ QUOTE ]

The history of scientific discovery - which has made fools of the BluffTHIS!'s and NotReady's of history - is enough to make educated people wary of invoking supernaturalism as an explanation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please substantiate this. Give examples. Be specific.

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
You go to a planet where everybody constantly plays poker but no poker books exist. They all have IQs of 110. You encounter some great players. The first 500 of them show you how experience got them to where they are. You now encounter an even better player who makes plays in rare situations such that it is hard to see how experience could have led him to make them. But since he isn't smart enough to figure them out logically, the assumption must be made that somehow his experience did lead him to these plays. But only because we are sure that the Theory of Poker does not exist on this planet. If that was even a small possibility then it would have to be a reasonable alternative explanation for the plays of this one fellow.

If you are so sure his great plays evolved from his experience just because so many others have, then you must necessarily be sure that I never intervene with these players. Get it now?

[/ QUOTE ]

That was very well put. How would this person, if physically and intelligently the same as everyone else whos had the same experience know this. Could it possibly be influence from higher power. And I guess the thing is you cant say that its not possible.

Thats at least what I took from it.

[justscott]

"I find it hard to escape the conclusion that we're living in a Zarathustrian world were human destiny is directed entirely by human will."

Would you mind defining this a little more for me?

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
You go to a planet where everybody constantly plays poker but no poker books exist. They all have IQs of 110. You encounter some great players. The first 500 of them show you how experience got them to where they are. You now encounter an even better player who makes plays in rare situations such that it is hard to see how experience could have led him to make them. But since he isn't smart enough to figure them out logically, the assumption must be made that somehow his experience did lead him to these plays. But only because we are sure that the Theory of Poker does not exist on this planet. If that was even a small possibility then it would have to be a reasonable alternative explanation for the plays of this one fellow.

If you are so sure his great plays evolved from his experience just because so many others have, then you must necessarily be sure that I never intervene with these players. Get it now?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your message was clear the first time. But I still don't see how it possibly says anything about non-creationist theists.

To use your example, "You" could have, a long time ago, blessed the citizens of this planet with your poker insights. Today it plays out as simply experience; but it's experience upon the catalyst that you gave them.

[SomeWeirdFish]

[ QUOTE ]
You simply can't stamp out darkness. You just light a candle and it goes away. In other words: you Enlighten. Light is a positive force that darkness has no power over. Fighting darkness, substantiates darkness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wonderful.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You simply can't stamp out darkness. You just light a candle and it goes away. In other words: you Enlighten. Light is a positive force that darkness has no power over. Fighting darkness, substantiates darkness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wonderful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed... the light of rationalism!

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You simply can't stamp out darkness. You just light a candle and it goes away. In other words: you Enlighten. Light is a positive force that darkness has no power over. Fighting darkness, substantiates darkness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wonderful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed... the light of rationalism!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll go as far as saying that rationalism is one terminal the filament of enlightenment is attached to. Just not both terminals - absolute values aren't rational.

[St. lucifer]

Evolution... is... a farce... MIT no longer assumes evolution because it is mathematically impossible for this many mutations (beneficial ones at that)to occur in a time and manner that would account for the creatures we see now. Evolution is a new religion

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution... is... a farce... MIT no longer assumes evolution because it is mathematically impossible for this many mutations (beneficial ones at that)to occur in a time and manner that would account for the creatures we see now. Evolution is a new religion

[/ QUOTE ]

Most blatant troll ever?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that the two most ignorant things to say is that God and the Devil absolutley do not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you feel the same way when someone says unicorns dont exist?

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution... is... a farce... MIT no longer assumes evolution because it is mathematically impossible for this many mutations (beneficial ones at that)to occur in a time and manner that would account for the creatures we see now. Evolution is a new religion

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure about that? Because I'm sitting in a lab at MIT right now, and we mentioned evolution in class no less than 6 times yesterday.

[Stormwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
You go to a planet where everybody constantly plays poker but no poker books exist. They all have IQs of 110. You encounter some great players. The first 500 of them show you how experience got them to where they are. You now encounter an even better player who makes plays in rare situations such that it is hard to see how experience could have led him to make them. But since he isn't smart enough to figure them out logically, the assumption must be made that somehow his experience did lead him to these plays. But only because we are sure that the Theory of Poker does not exist on this planet. If that was even a small possibility then it would have to be a reasonable alternative explanation for the plays of this one fellow.

If you are so sure his great plays evolved from his experience just because so many others have, then you must necessarily be sure that I never intervene with these players. Get it now?

[/ QUOTE ]

David, but in this case we can be sure there is such thing as a book called Theory of poker or that you exist(and these things have evidence of changing poker skill for good or for bad). if the explanation of the player skill is merely a hypothesis(the solely exists because it fits the problem so damn well, like 'he is more skilled because he is divine') we can use it as a hipothesis but we cant claim its highly likely(specially without prior evidence) can we?
After all you can attribute the god hipothesis to the missing links on evolution but since its not provable and it was created solely because it fit the problem(and past problems like the big bang) well I'm not sure one can claim its highly likely, specially over a concurrent theory that has plenty of evidence for it

[reup]

you neglect the fact that an understanding of the TOP is intuitive. just cause you were teh smart enough to connect the dots doesn't mean that that same creative process in you that formulated the theorum isn't already the potential in another.

call it IQ or call it the inherent creative process of the Universe working through you, the way your mind formed the understanding, that same creativity is innately a part of and the whole (holonic: a series of whole/parts, transecening itself) of what makes up the creative process aka evolution.

Some people aren't creative because they're dumb, for a lot of reasons, their personality is fragmented due to dissolution, mental blocks, fear, they have deficiencies in brain from drugs or they're born that way, they attach to ideas or systems of thinking rather than being freed by them ... they identify with form rather than form and the emptiness underlying, which form manifests from, there's lots of reasons creativity gets blocked, physical or mental blocks.

Where does genius come from? It's already there it just has to be uncovered though that doesn't mean it doesn't take a focused dedicated mind to manifest it hence meditation/other Eastern traditions aimed at uncovering you 'true self'.

'god' is the creative process itself, spirit transcends form but isn't separate from form, two sides of the same coin. evolution arguably has a telos or direction and it's towards a 'higher' more encompassing, transcendence of itself or what it's already come to be. in this way there is no stop to evolution though a person may regress through their own ideas of separation hence 'original sin', the loss of innocense, the fall from 'grace'. blah blah blah.

[TomCowley]

I had a statistical answer to your question, but it had a fair bit of handwaving, and I realized I could answer this far more simply.

For all natural phenomena currently without a scientific explanation, would a sober bookie ALWAYS refuse to set a finite over/under on whether on not science will have solved the problem in X amount of time?

If science can answer the question, then there is clearly a fair line. If science cannot answer the question (because it's the result of an intervening god), there is no fair line because the question will never be answered by science. Therefore if god is even money or better, there can be no fair line. If god is even a smidgen under 50%, there will be a fair line.

Sober bookies will set over/unders (or, at the least, name a number and be willing to take the under) on scientific progress. An intervening god is not a favorite, nor even money.

[NotReady]

Sorry, thought this was a new thread.

[GoodCallYouWin]

DS :

I think you'd have realized already that religion is about faith : ergo any logical argument that considers religion is worthless (and hence any rational discussion about religion is worthless). Anyway, to say because someone believes something they must believe something else is silly and patently false, no matter the logic used.

[smurfitup]

David,
Individuals who believe that heretofore unexplained biological processes will ultimately be illuminated by evolutionary theory are essentially making a faith-based claim. I don't understand why it's necessary to conclude that this faith in evolution precludes belief in God; that would suggest that the two are mutually exclusive, which they don't need to be.

[speedfreek]

Surely, logically, there is nothing that science could possibly discover that could preclude a creator, for science can always be seen as simply providing a progressively better, more accurate description of that creators plan. (I'm an atheist who believes in evolution, but I accept the possibility of a creator but have no belief in that possibility being the correct one, whatever that means!)

[CrushinFelt]

[ QUOTE ]
You go to a planet where everybody constantly plays poker but no poker books exist. They all have IQs of 110. You encounter some great players. The first 500 of them show you how experience got them to where they are. You now encounter an even better player who makes plays in rare situations such that it is hard to see how experience could have led him to make them. But since he isn't smart enough to figure them out logically, the assumption must be made that somehow his experience did lead him to these plays. But only because we are sure that the Theory of Poker does not exist on this planet. If that was even a small possibility then it would have to be a reasonable alternative explanation for the plays of this one fellow.

If you are so sure his great plays evolved from his experience just because so many others have, then you must necessarily be sure that I never intervene with these players. Get it now?

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't really analogous to your argument (one is governed by choice and the other is not).

I don't understand why it can't be that, with regards to DNA being copied, there was error involved which then got copied and recopied? It seems that your argument demands that DNA be copied perfectly every time?