Darwin and Gray

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

First can we clear up the previous confusion.


[/ QUOTE ]

Whenever I'm discussing evolution, and remember to do it, I ask for a definition of the word. I learned to do this because of problems involving chance, human evolution and macroevolution. Sometimes I forget to ask.

In this thread I intentionally used Darwinism and focused on Darwin and his contemporaries to address a specific issue - not the issue of the truth of evolution, but the cause of the conflict between science and religion in general and to a certain extent over origins.

So go ahead and state your expression of "the science of evolution".

[/ QUOTE ]
I like to keep my posts short and lack the wit for a pithy accurate description.

So here's wiki

chez

[PairTheBoard]

I think we might as well put aside NR's mistatement that "Dawinism states outright (does not impy) that God is unnecessary". It doesn't do this, Darwinism makes no more mention of God than does Newton's Theory of Gravity. If NR doesn't want to retract it then we can just ignore it as being clearly false and no longer worth discussion.

So putting that aside. What is NR's complaint? I think his complaint is the same as that of the 19th Century Religious Opponents shown in his link.

[ QUOTE ]
...the religious opposition to Darwin...centered on what seemed to be the randomness of natural selection, the appearance of new organisms by chance, and therefore the exclusion of divine purpose or design in Nature.


[/ QUOTE ]

The confusion is in the "therefore". Dawkins claims the "therefore", some Religious Opponents claim the "Therefore", and NotReady thinks the "Therefore" is so obvious that he can misspeak as in his statement we are putting aside, "Darwinism states outright (does not imply) that God is unnecessary...".

He feels that the "Therefore" is especially compelling for the Theory of Darwinism as compared to those like Gravity, because Darwinism describes Natural Selection and Mutation as taking place "by chance", "randomly", and "accidentally". What he does not see is that these terms are being used as terms of science, not religion. They scientifically characterize features of the Evolution data. Their implications in the Theory are scientific not Religious.

His problem is he sees these terms as having Religious implications. He is furthered bothered by the fact that people like Dawkins see the same Religious implications that he does. But he does not want to reject the science. So he's in a conundrum. How to reconcile the Religious implications he sees in the theory to his Religious beliefs. He says he is thinking about this and searching for a language to express his thoughts.

imo, He should first reconsider whether these terms of science really have the Religious implications he thinks are so obvious. The only implication I get from science regarding God, is that Consderations of God are unnecessary for the study of science.

It's not that "God is unnessary" in any religous sense at all. But that science can perfectly well go about its business without the necessity of taking God into consideraton. This is true about building scientific models of gravity, chemical reactions, subatomic particles, quantum complex probabilty wave functions, and the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. It's also true about when I line up a shot playing billiards. It is not necessary for me to "Consider God" while I'm lining up my shot. That says nothing about the Religious "necessity of God" in any way shape or form.

"Chance", "Randomly", "by Accident" are nothing special as scientific terms. If they are going to bother your Religious Beliefs when they are used in the Darwinian Theory of Evolution, they should also be bothering you when they are used in the study of Quantum Complex Probabilty Wave Functions. Or the movement of particles suspended in Gas. Or many other areas of science.

"By Accident" appears to be especially troubling to NR. He seems to think this word has such strong Religious connotations that it must be getting used in Darwinian Theory to puposely promote the Religious implications of its common connotations. This is not fair to science. Language is tricky and words do carry connotations. But when used in a scientific theory the word should be assumed stripped of any connotations other than those relating to the science. The science is not concerned with God.

PairTheBoard

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I like to keep my posts short and lack the wit for a pithy accurate description.

So here's wiki


[/ QUOTE ]

From that site:
[ QUOTE ]

In biology, evolution is the process of change with time in the inherited characteristics, or traits, of a population of organisms, AND GOD ISN"T NECESSARY!!!!!


[/ QUOTE ]

I felt it was necessary to fix Wiki's definition.

Do you see the point? What a theist hears when evolution is defined that way is a statement, shouted from the rooftoops, that God doesn't exist, and great glee over that assertion.

I'm beginning to understand that what some people mean is "You primitive tribe of idol worshippers don't need to ascribe every event in nature as solely the action of a deity".

I think sometimes atheists, like Sagan and Dawkins, mean it in the first sense, sometimes people on this forum mean it in the second sense.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I like to keep my posts short and lack the wit for a pithy accurate description.

So here's wiki



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



From that site:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In biology, evolution is the process of change with time in the inherited characteristics, or traits, of a population of organisms, AND GOD ISN"T NECESSARY!!!!!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I felt it was necessary to fix Wiki's definition.

Do you see the point? What a theist hears when evolution is defined that way is a statement, shouted from the rooftoops, that God doesn't exist, and great glee over that assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's sure what you hear but changing the definition to one you don't like then complaining you don't like it is pointless.

Have a go with the actual theory, the one many theists have no problem with, and tell us if you have a problem with it.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It's sure what you hear but changing the definition to one you don't like then complaining you don't like it is pointless.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think I understand some of the problems in these threads now. I think much of it is verbal coupled with natural animosity to opposing views. I think I've contributed all I can to this forum for a while. If I return I will probably take a new approach. Clearly the one I've had so far has been useless.

[PairTheBoard]

The Correct quote from the Wiki link on Evolution:

[ QUOTE ]
Wiki -
In biology, evolution is the process of change with time in the inherited characteristics, or traits, of a population of organisms

[/ QUOTE ]

And you claim that " What a theist hears when evolution is defined that way is a statement, shouted from the rooftoops, that God doesn't exist, and great glee over that assertion." ie. "AND GOD ISN"T NECESSARY!!!!!".

That's just ridiculous.

PairTheBoard

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's sure what you hear but changing the definition to one you don't like then complaining you don't like it is pointless.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think I understand some of the problems in these threads now. I think much of it is verbal coupled with natural animosity to opposing views. I think I've contributed all I can to this forum for a while. If I return I will probably take a new approach. Clearly the one I've had so far has been useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. It is useless to change a definition to something you don't like then complain about it.

That was one of the odder things I've seen on this forum.

[luckyme]

Other than the drunks that come on here every so often, that is the the weirdest thing I've seen.
Is there something to learn from it though? ( other than some people hear things being shouted when they're reading).

If NR had stated the definition and source that he was objecting to upfront it would have saved one heck of a lot of time. Maybe I'm not so crazy for rarely getting past arguing about the premises.

luckyme