What prevents evolution?

[Borodog]

This is a question for NotReady and anyone else who would care to answer. In another thread NotReady claimed that "atheistic" evolution wasn't science (I'm not sure what "atheistic" has to do with it--is that like atheistic gravity or atheistic plate tectonics?).

So let me pose this question. If you have:

a) Self-replicators organisms whose phenotype (i.e. their internal and external structures, organs, behaviors, etc) depends on their genotype (a genetic code that contains the "recipe" for growing the organism), and

b) The fidelity of their genetic replication is good but not perfect (i.e. errors are made), and

c) Small difference in the genetic codes of two similar organisms can lead to small differences in phenotype (not that all small difference in genetic code must necessarily lead to small difference in phenotype; some small difference in genetic code lead to huge differences in phenotype, and some small, and even large, differences in genetic code do not lead to any phenotypic difference at all), and

d) The differential reproductive success of individuals replicators within the population depends to any extent on phenotype, then

Evolution is inevitable.

So, what prevents evolution from occuring? If if it does occur, how can you claim that it "isn't science" ?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Evolution is inevitable


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think your premises establish this. You would need another one, somthing like - Some genetic differences produce advantageous survival characteristics in the phenotype.

[ QUOTE ]

So, what prevents evolution from occuring? If if it does occur, how can you claim that it "isn't science" ?


[/ QUOTE ]

I've never made either of these statements. It's possible I've said evolution isn't science without qualifying it, but what I've meant and as far as I know have always said is atheistic evolution isn't science. There is no possible way any scientist can know whether or not God is ultimately responsible for any evolution that does occur. People like Dawkins say that evolution makes God unnecessary. People like Sagan say the cosmos is all there is, was or will be. These statements and others like them are unscientific.

Much depends on what you mean by evolution. I've said before no one I know doubts that black moths transform into white moths, that the beaks of finches change over time, that the modern horse is somewhat different from the prehistoric horse, etc.

At one level I seriously doubt what is sometimes called macro evolution which is basically that all life forms have a common ancestor. I see no way whatsoever this can be scientifically established. I think the fossil record tends to disprove this rather than prove it. If one of the requirements of science is that it make accurate predictions I don't see how the one common ancestor theory can ever rise above the theoretical level.

At another level, even this isn't the real issue. I take on the fossil record at times, especially the human fossil record, because I think it's bogus from what I've seen, and also because I really want to know if it does establish the descent of man from primates. I discuss other aspects of evolution as well. But these are all side issues. The only real issue that matters is the question of God. The Bible doesn't say that evolution didn't occur anymore than it says the earth is the center of the universe, the earth is not a sphere or the earth is 12000 years old. These are all errors in interpretation, sometimes reasonable errors, sometimes intentionally false misrepresentations. One of the problems is that the word evolution is a red flag. It has a history and stands for more than simple change in life forms. It's also often used in a vague, ill-defined and equivocal manner. The opponents are often talking about two different things. Also, many vocal evolutionists, like Dawkins, are also stridently anti-religious. They directly and indirectly assert that evolution proves that God doesn't exist. When you put it like that I will deny evolution every time.

I submit to you that if science got rid of its insistence on ascribing evolution to chance, if Dawkins would retire to a chicken farm, and if scientists would do science and stop preaching against a God they can never prove doesn't exist, much of the controversy between ID and evolution would disappear. I firmly believe there is no conflict whatsover between genuine science and genuine Bible interpretation.

[MidGe]

Heya NotReady,


I think your bove post makes your position eminently clear and whilst I diagree strongly with many of your conclusions (about evolution from primates and the single cell ancestor), I think you are missing the very point of much of the dabate between theists and those not so inclned here. Altough you allude to in a couple of ways.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no possible way any scientist can know whether or not God is ultimately responsible for any evolution that does occur. People like Dawkins say that evolution makes God unnecessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

The two sentences above are quite different, I would say nearly apposite in meaning. Allow me to paraphrase them to put my interpretation of the meaning.
1. Science does not concern itself with the existence or not of such a thing as a god. Science concerns itself with natural laws (ie repeatable results).
2. The fact that evolution does make god unnecesary, does not say anything about its existence or absence. What will settle that question is faith.

The problem I see is when, for whatever reason, but I think mostly an insecurity vis-a-vis their "faith" or beliefs, theists start to argue that science does indicate a neccesity for a god. This is wrong. This is where they also loose the argument. There is a boundary between science and beliefs that ought to be kept intact for the survival of, both or either, imo.

As far as concerns for conflict between genuine science and genuine Bible interpretation, altough not a believer in any sense, as you probably know, it sorts of make sense that the interpretaion of the bible should be in accordance with what is observed even for a believer. Indeed to do anything else, would make for some very slippery and dangerous grounds.

Ok, that was my 2 cents worth. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I wished all theist brothers would post in as an itelligent manner as you do.

[Darryl_P]

I basically agree with what NR said (as usual), especially his last line. To phrase it slightly differently, the (intelligent) theist argument says that your conditions a,b,c, and d were created by God as part of intelligent design.

The problems arise when scientists claim that chance is an inherent component of the universe. I think NR is saying that "atheistic evolution" is evolution plus a belief about the primality of chance. This combination is not science, and when scientists claim it is, I believe they should have their credentials revoked for not understanding what science is and is not capable of establishing.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I basically agree with what NR said (as usual), especially his last line. To phrase it slightly differently, the (intelligent) theist argument says that your conditions a,b,c, and d were created by God as part of intelligent design.

The problems arise when scientists claim that chance is an inherent component of the universe. I think NR is saying that "atheistic evolution" is evolution plus a belief about the primality of chance. This combination is not science, and when scientists claim it is, I believe they should have their credentials revoked for not understanding what science is and is not capable of establishing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hiya Darryl_P

The only thing, I think, a respectable scientist should say, is that chance is sufficient to explain what happens. To me it clearly does whith regard to evolution. Occam razor takes me to take the position that the simplest sufficient explanation is enough, therfore I do not need posit the idea of a creator, but I would argue against that idea on a different basis. I would argue against the existence of a god on a moral basis, not on a scientific one, as I have done, in other posts.

We seem to be in rough [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] consensus except on the matter of belief in God. Am I correct? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Darryl_P]

G'day mate [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Yes I agree we are in rough consensus on this one, but I would change your word "sufficient" to "the best we have at the moment" because knowledge on something being sufficient implies no further study is needed. Science is all about never being satisfied with current levels of knowledge and constantly questioning everything we currently know in order to expand the frontiers of knowledge and thought. A true scientist should never say our knowledge is sufficient about anything. Or at the very least he should never claim that science establishes this sufficiency because it would show he does not understand the fundamental nature of science.

[MidGe]

Darryl_P,

Very happy with your correction. I have no problems with it. I was happy with "sufficient" without implying completeness.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Borodog]

Well, I was going to make a response, but I think Midge has pretty much said what I wanted to say on the subject, except for this (from NotReady):

"I don't think your premises establish this. You would need another one, somthing like - Some genetic differences produce advantageous survival characteristics in the phenotype."

That is a subset of this:

d) The differential reproductive success of individuals replicators within the population depends to any extent on phenotype.

[MidGe]

Borodog,

Interesting concept! You put reproductivity success ahead of adaptibility/suitability!? Or I am I missing something?

[Borodog]

I just think it's two sides of the same coin, that's all.