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