Why Is Only "Micro Evolution" Acceptable?

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Roger Penrose, and others, claim that human's unique ability to understand Godel's proof makes them way beyond animals. The barber paradox is a simpler version.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you find time to start another thread explaining how the barber 'paradox' is related to Godel's proof it would be interesting. The barber struck me as a problem of poorly formed premises rather than a paradox that grows out of solid ones. Likely I've been mishandling something.

thanks, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

This is another one of those Sklansky simplifications that mathmeticans might cringe at. Since I am only moderatrely familiar with Godel's proof I will let others elaborate.

[David Steele]

It's moot as Penrose's Godel idea ( by John Lucas before him) is wrong. I assume Sklansky is waiting to slam dunk all the theists with this, after he gets them to concede his evolution point.

D.

[MaxWeiss]

Why are you confused about it??? It's really quite easy to see how they think that...

(I'm very tempted to bring out the old ducy here.)

When you believe one thing which does not fit the evidence, if you want to try to back it up, you must necessarily make up reasoning which either is flawed or also ignores or does not fit the evidence. In this instance, they are creating a false dichotomy of two types of DNA mutation, where in fact there is none.

Edit: Read Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things" and his "How We Believe".

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused about the specific category of theists who say that there is microevolution within a species but never macroevolution from species to species. Because God created the different species. That stance doesn't make sense.

Once DNA was discovered, the distinction between different species, and different varieties within species, is blurred. Because we now know that changing a bit of DNA can cause both types of differences.

So as long as someone agees that mutations in DNA can be passed on, and that they sometimes stick if they have benefits, why make a big deal between inter species changes and intra species changes?

I suppose one reason might be that there hasn't been enough time for all these inter species changes. So if you believe that the universe is 6000 years old you can fall back on that argument.

But aren't there also a lot of theists who accept a 5 billion year old earth and still think that macro evolution hasn't occurred even though they admit micro evolution has?

I believe that these people take this inconsistant stance because they feel that they must oppose all macroevolution so that they can believe that God created man. But it is unnecessary to do this and it makes them look foolish (given they accept microevolution and an old earth).

The thing is that the truth of macroevolution doesn't mean that some species weren't directly created by God. It just means some weren't.

Furthermore, even if the physical human being evolved from monkeys it still doesn't screw up thiests concept of their relationship with God. Because even though we are physically and DNA wise 97% equivalent to a chimp, we are light years away from one when it comes to contemplating death or understanding Bertrand Russel's barber paradox.

If God let evolution take its natural course with the one exception that he infused man with the ability to understand those two things I just mentioned and other stuff like it, everything else scientists say should be irrelevant to theists.

PS I didn't use the barber paradox lightly. World class physicist Roger Penrose, and others, claim that human's unique ability to understand Godel's proof makes them way beyond animals. The barber paradox is a simpler version.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think it's a position adopted through logical deduction. Descending from monkeys and ultimately from slime is disgusting to some people and inherently debased or undignified. Someone in the habit of forming beliefs based on their desires may easily adopt the position that it didnt happen.

I would speculate that, given they are confronted with evidence of microevolution (so much so that it is undeniable), they have to concede micro but deny macro - not because they have any good reason, but due to a psychological need.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, I think you could make a pretty strong argument that many of the stories in the Bible simply DO NOT WORK as fables, and MUST be based on actual, real events. Things like the ressurection, the crucifixion, the virgin birth, the Fall. If these were not real events but merely metaphor and allegory, then they are pointless. We cannot base a religion on Aesop. MOST Biblical stories work just fine as allegories, stuff like Abraham almost killing his son, Cain and Abel, that stuff doesn't have to have ever happened. We get the point. But if Eve never existed, ball game.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is also making the assumption that people read and pay attention to every story in the Bible. How many Christians know all the stories in the Bible all that well? How many actually think about all the "historical facts" it contains? They don't have any bearing on how many of them think or act. I think we had this conversation before about how you can't just attribute Christians with what you think they should believe based on their Bible.

I was also objecting to the claim that the theory of evolution pertains to these stories. You could make the argument that other scientific discoveries have cast doubt on or falsified many claims in the Bible, but not necessarily evolutionary theory.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that most theists look to the Bible for humanistic concerns

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. They could just watch other social animals, like chimpanzee,s, buddhists, and europeans to pick up the basics and think through the fine tuning. What mind blowing humanistic lesson is available in the bible that isn't available from lots of other sources? What humanistic lesson did it reveal to the world that prior writers hadn't covered?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying the Bible is essential, necessary, or sufficient for these things. Just that many people use it for that. People grow up in a certain tradition and they use it to make sense of the world. I'm not really claiming anything fantastical. You could easily claim that it's not the best source, but it is a major source nonetheless.

[ QUOTE ]

If you have a book full of nonsense about the natural world, is this the book you want to turn to for good advice about obvious and naturally arrived at humanistic advice? On the grounds it's proven it's credibility?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe I claimed it necessarily contains the best advice or even good advice.

[ QUOTE ]

Wrapping your self-worth in any cult and our evolved social characteristics will produce similar results. It's like a super stockholm syndrome. DS is looking for a rational explanation, when the answer is a psychological explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it is a psychological explanation. That doesn't mean that it can be easily dismissed or done away with.

[hexag1]

this threads been going for a day and NotReady still hasn't weighed in. Hes the only one Ive seen one here that accepts micro but not macro evoluciotn

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that most theists look to the Bible for humanistic concerns

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. They could just watch other social animals, like chimpanzee,s, buddhists, and europeans to pick up the basics and think through the fine tuning. What mind blowing humanistic lesson is available in the bible that isn't available from lots of other sources? What humanistic lesson did it reveal to the world that prior writers hadn't covered?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying the Bible is essential, necessary, or sufficient for these things. Just that many people use it for that. People grow up in a certain tradition and they use it to make sense of the world. I'm not really claiming anything fantastical. You could easily claim that it's not the best source, but it is a major source nonetheless.


[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be arguing for my point. Except your first sentence and last are a bit confusing.
I was going easy on the topic, here's the larger point - They don't use it to form their moral judgement, they get that from other sources just like the rest of us, some of it rather innate ( certain personalities will lean to certain interpretations, of anything, not just the bible). The bible is merely interpreted to fit their view. If it were possible to get any moral guidance out of the bible there wouldn't be such 180o views finding 'support' in it.
Reading the bible for moral guidance is like reading Nostradamus for history lessons and accomplished in much the same way.

Stating that they use the bible as their source for moral grounding simply has it rather backward. Watching a leaf fall from a tree can be 'read' as delivering a moral lesson, that doesn't mean it is doing that. the message comes from the watcher. We shouldn't fall for their bs about what the source is, even if some of them have ( not as many as they make out. NR, for instance, knows what he is doing).

luckyme

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that most theists look to the Bible for humanistic concerns

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. They could just watch other social animals, like chimpanzee,s, buddhists, and europeans to pick up the basics and think through the fine tuning. What mind blowing humanistic lesson is available in the bible that isn't available from lots of other sources? What humanistic lesson did it reveal to the world that prior writers hadn't covered?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying the Bible is essential, necessary, or sufficient for these things. Just that many people use it for that. People grow up in a certain tradition and they use it to make sense of the world. I'm not really claiming anything fantastical. You could easily claim that it's not the best source, but it is a major source nonetheless.


[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be arguing for my point. Except your first sentence and last are a bit confusing.
I was going easy on the topic, here's the larger point - They don't use it to form their moral judgement, they get that from other sources just like the rest of us, some of it rather innate ( certain personalities will lean to certain interpretations, of anything, not just the bible). The bible is merely interpreted to fit their view. If it were possible to get any moral guidance out of the bible there wouldn't be such 180o views finding 'support' in it.
Reading the bible for moral guidance is like reading Nostradamus for history lessons and accomplished in much the same way.

Stating that they use the bible as their source for moral grounding simply has it rather backward. Watching a leaf fall from a tree can be 'read' as delivering a moral lesson, that doesn't mean it is doing that. the message comes from the watcher. We shouldn't fall for their bs about what the source is, even if some of them have ( not as many as they make out. NR, for instance, knows what he is doing).

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I think maybe you misunderstood my initial claim. I was simply saying that the reason many Christians look at the bible was for humanistic concerns and not for history/science lessons. I didn't claim that's actually where they derived their morality, just that it's where they believe they are getting it.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused about the specific category of theists who say that there is microevolution within a species but never macroevolution from species to species.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a way to get around the fact that gene pools obviously change, like the famous British moths that changed colour in a few generations as pollution darkened the trees.

The argument goes like this: microevolution is a change in the frequency of genes already present in a population. This CAN occur, according to the rap. So if there are genes for darker moths in existence, they can become predominant as the environment changes. In fact, the moths really are a case of micro-evolution, not macro.

But they continue to insist that species cannot evolve into new species, because entirely new traits are statistically impossible, allegedly. Mutations are too random and usually deleterious, therefore they cannot be coordinated to give forth genuinely new features. (An early version of Behe's irreducible complexity argument.)

So the frequency of already-present traits can change (micro-evolution). But mutation cannot lead to functional, novel traits (macro-evolution), because they say so.