Dissent From Darwin

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

would you say that god is powerful enough to completely fool you about pretty much anything?


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, one more time. Yes.

Could you come to the point? Thanks.

[Jiggymike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

. You think all scientists grasped enthusiastically at the theory of evolution because of some desire to maintain god's non-existance.

nuff said


[/ QUOTE ]

Not all. Natural selection was looked on by many Christians as God's method for biological diversification. It still is by many. But name another scientific theory that was accepted so quickly and so completely without any real evidence at all. Consider how quickly atheists like Huxley and Spenser jumped on the evolution bandwagon. "Darwin has given atheism an intellectual justification" - somewhat paraphrased I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a scientist, I must say that I am upset when other scientists "go down to the same level" as people trying to push ID. Now I don't mean this as an insult to you or any other person who believes what they want to but science = science and religion = religion and scientists SHOULD NOT bring up God or atheism or anything of this sort when mentioning evolution becuase one thing has nothing to do with another from a scientific standpoint. Evolution and a supreme being are totally independent from one another in science, even if a supreme being is driving evolution because such an occurence cannot be falsified. On the contrary, evolution could be falsified if one of it's major tenets was found to be incorrect, as was already pointed out. None of them have been but people who oppose evolution always point out the little foibles that come along in the course of scientific research (for example, primitive birds being older than the youngest dinosaurs, I can explain this in more detail later if need be). However, these disagreements do not "shake the foundation" of evolution but in fact lead to new hypotheses about evolution which need to be either supported or falsified, since none of them have completely or even largely disagreed with what is widely believed.

Now, for some reason you keep stating that Darwin "had no evidence" when he proposed evolution by natural selection . If you had/have read the Origin of Species, you will see that this is a very well thought out hypothesis where he uses numerous biological examples to support it. Although some of them have been proven more or less incorrect in the 150 years since the publication of his original theory, a surprisingly large number of them are still relevant and still hold water today.

I admittedly did not read some of the earlier links so I could be missing something but I just wanted to make the points listed here.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

s a scientist, I must say that I am upset when other scientists "go down to the same level" as people trying to push ID.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't push ID if that is defined to include it as science. I believe in intelligent design. I so far don't see it as valid science as science is normally defined. Neither is atheistic evolution as espoused by people like Dawkins.

[ QUOTE ]

Evolution and a supreme being are totally independent from one another in science


[/ QUOTE ]

I would change "are" to "ought to be".

[ QUOTE ]

Now, for some reason you keep stating that Darwin "had no evidence" when he proposed evolution by natural selection . If you had/have read the Origin of Species, you will see that this is a very well thought out hypothesis where he uses numerous biological examples to support it. Although some of them have been proven more or less incorrect


[/ QUOTE ]

You've got me on that one. I haven't read it. I started to and most of it seemed to be relying on artificial selection. But I was mostly referring to a quote from Darwin where he was uncertain that the fossil record would bear out his theory, which indicates to me that the record wasn't sufficient to provide enough evidence at the time.

At any rate, I don't necessarily deny some definitions of evolution. I seriously doubt the one common ancestor idea but would not be devastated if it should turn out to be correct. What I mostly argue against is the idea of pure chance and undesigned evolution - neither is science any more than ID but many present it as such while attacking ID.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

would you say that god is powerful enough to completely fool you about pretty much anything?


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, one more time. Yes.

Could you come to the point? Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

the point is, how could you be 100% certain that jesus died for your sins if you also believe a god could exist who is capable of making you believe pretty much anything?

suppose jesus didn't die for your sins, but god wanted you to believe it. suppose god is "bad," but he wants you to believe he is "good." suppose god is NOTHING like your conception of him, but for his own inscrutable reasons wants you to believe the things you do? couldn't a god like that exist?

isn't the existence of a god like that 100% consistent with all your experience/knowledge?

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Funny. I look on it as a humble admission that humans on their own know nothing truly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans...except you, right? Even though philosophers consider your epistemological premises self-stultifying/special-pleading, you know better. Even though evolutionary biologists are optimistic to eventually identifying first-principle mechanisms, you know they'll never succeed. Even though physicists question contingent existence as a meaningful construct, you're sure they're wrong. Even though billions of non-Christians imagine their lives have existential purpose, you know they're just delusional. Even though tens of thousands of the worlds' best scientists see no reason to believe God exists, it's clear as crystal to you they're just rejecting God's personal sovereignty. Even though there's not a shred of evidence that human consciousness is more than a biological epiphenomenon, you scoff at everyone who goes with the empirical data.

Yep, you're nothing if not humble.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

the point is, how could you be 100% certain that jesus died for your sins if you also believe a god could exist who is capable of making you believe pretty much anything?


[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that He is capable in terms of His power doesn't mean I think He will. The same Bible that tells me Jesus died for sinners also tells me that God doesn't lie. When I have 100% subjective certainty I'm really talking about a feeling, not an objectively demonstrable proof. I also believe that God is author of faith so He sometimes grants me that feeling of certainty.

But I'm human. From a strictly human viewpoint I can't say that I can prove that God exists and I can't say that He isn't like Descartes' demon. That is, I can't demonstrate it objectively with 100 % certainty. We walk by faith.

[ QUOTE ]

isn't the existence of a god like that 100% consistent with all your experience/knowledge


[/ QUOTE ]

No. He explains much in His word and explains why not everything is explained. The god you describe is completely inconsistent with my experience/knowledge.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
What I mostly argue against is the idea of pure chance and undesigned evolution - neither is science any more than ID but many present it as such while attacking ID.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the Theory of Evolution mentions "design" one way or another, just as it makes no mention of God. "Pure Chance" is a trickier term though imo. When it talks about "Random" mutation, what does it mean by "random"? I think it means that if we empirically measure incidents of mutation we see they occur in agreement with certain probability models. What we don't see, for example, are concentrations of mutations which cause a specific change in the species that the species needs. If the species needs stronger muscles we don't see the mutations concentrated in those that produce stronger muscles. We see random mutations, with the ones producing stronger muscles getting selected for in the process of natural selection.

Now there's nothing in that concept of "random" that has anything to do with God/No-God, Design/No-Design. It's just a scientific explanation for how we see it working.

PairTheBoard

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
God doesn't lie

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you accept a quote from the bible that god does lie.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

the point is, how could you be 100% certain that jesus died for your sins if you also believe a god could exist who is capable of making you believe pretty much anything?


[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that He is capable in terms of His power doesn't mean I think He will. The same Bible that tells me Jesus died for sinners also tells me that God doesn't lie. When I have 100% subjective certainty I'm really talking about a feeling, not an objectively demonstrable proof. I also believe that God is author of faith so He sometimes grants me that feeling of certainty.

[/ QUOTE ]

but you admit that a lying god could convice you he never lies, and a deceitful god could grant you a "feeling" of certainty about something that is entirely false!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

isn't the existence of a god like that 100% consistent with all your experience/knowledge


[/ QUOTE ]

No. He explains much in His word and explains why not everything is explained. The god you describe is completely inconsistent with my experience/knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]
no?? how can you possibly say no? the god i describe wants you to have had exactly the experiences/knowledge that you have. he is consistent with all your experience by definition!

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think the Theory of Evolution mentions "design" one way or another, just as it makes no mention of God.


[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the theory doesn't, granted for the sake of discussion. But some evolutionists do.

[ QUOTE ]

"Pure Chance" is a trickier term though imo.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is. If it's used the same way we normally do, as in poker for instance, as an expression of "We don't know the cause but the result falls within a known probability", no problem. But if it's used in the sense of "uncaused" then I believe it's no longer science because no one can show that something is uncaused.