creationism and human races (adam and eve question)

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The theory of evolution is the support for chance producing us. If you don't think it was chance, if you think God was involved, then you don't believe in evolution

See my response to Wicknight above. Stripping out chances ability to produce no result ('us' being a result) is an area for potential involvement on Gods part.

There is no such thing as guided chance. If you think about it for a second it doesn't even make sense. It's like picking a card from a stacked deck. Chance is negated if the process was guided. Whether God guided it to produce humans exactly or just to produce some beings that could fulfil his plan, it's still intelligent design and not evolution

Evolution involves arrival at a particular destination by way of random mutation and survival of the fittest. That the result is confined in range by say, starting conditions, doesn't alter it being evolution. You'd agree that naturalistically set starting conditions confined the range of possible evolutionary results. So why not theistically set starting conditions doing same.

It's still evolution by random mutation and survival of the fittest.

Yes we can, that's the whole point of evolution and we can give fossil and DNA evidence for many of the steps along the way, each stage of which can be produced from the last through random genetic mutations guided by natural selection

We can't know whether naturalistic chance will produce us because we don't know whether naturalistic chance is what's at work. If it's not then that isn't what produced us. Is naturalistic chance at work? And if so, how do you tell?


(note: I'm not a theistic evolutionist - I'm just meandering through what might well be their argument. Personally I don't know how they reconcile their view with the Bible)

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

See my response to Wicknight above. Stripping out chances ability to produce no result ('us' being a result) is an area for potential involvement on Gods part.

Suggesting that those genetic patterns could not have formed is inconsistent with both the theory of evolution and the laws of physics. There is nothing preventing them from having formed, they just happened not to. It's like saying that you roll a dice, it lands on 3 and you say God prevent it landing on the other numbers. You are invoking a God to explain something that is explained perfectly adequately without one, saying that he guided a process that required no guidance

antiskeptic wrote: »

We can't know whether naturalistic chance will produce us because we don't know whether naturalistic chance is what's at work. If it's not then that isn't what produced us. Is naturalistic chance at work? And if so, how do you tell?

You tell by studying the mountains and mountains of evidence. And when you have completed your study you arrive at the theory of evolution, which states that life evolved through random genetic mutations guided by natural selection and does not require God at any stage. If you study the evidence and you find that you have no way of knowing if God was involved because it could have happened without his involvement then in reality the only reason God is even being mentioned is because you like to think he was involved and not because there is anything to suggest he was. That's not how science works I'm afraid, you have to provide evidence of a claim and saying "you can't prove he wasn't involved" doesn't cut it

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You tell by studying the mountains and mountains of evidence. And when you have completed your study you arrive at the theory of evolution, which states that life evolved through random genetic mutations guided by natural selection and does not require God at any stage.

Study can't inform you whether or not naturalistic chance is that which is at work. A theory might suppose that mutations are random/directionless but how would it go about deciding that - as opposed to a mechanism in which certain mutations are excluded from occuring under particular circumstances?

If you study the evidence and you find that you have no way of knowing if God was involved because it could have happened without his involvement then in reality the only reason God is even being mentioned is because you like to think he was involved and not because there is anything to suggest he was. That's not how science works I'm afraid, you have to provide evidence of a claim and saying "you can't prove he wasn't involved" doesn't cut it

You're in the same boat - and science isn't going to help you out. You have a philosophical foundation which assumes naturalistic chance at work when you have no way of telling that this is so. Ockhams Razor is no use because we can't say whether a naturalistic chance environment is a simpler system to one in which God reigns. For the simple reason that we haven't got a clear cut naturalistic environment available to us to see how well it would perform vs. one over which God reigns.

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

Study can't inform you whether or not naturalistic chance is that which is at work. A theory might suppose that mutations are random/directionless but how would it go about deciding that - as opposed to a mechanism in which certain mutations are excluded from occuring under particular circumstances?

You're in the same boat - and science isn't going to help you out. You have a philosophical foundation which assumes naturalistic chance at work when you have no way of telling that this is so. Ockhams Razor is no use because we can't say whether a naturalistic chance environment is a simpler system to one in which God reigns. For the simple reason that we haven't got a clear cut naturalistic environment available to us to see how well it would perform vs. one over which God reigns.

Ockham's razor advises us not to "multiply entities/explanations unnecessarily", so we could employ it here. How? We know that natural selection of random mutation is capable of generating the complexity and function of life. We have both a plausible process and evidence which shows that such a process is at work. To say that there is also a subtle guiding force working in addition to natural selection is to add something which isn't necessary. Now this doesn't mean we can say that there isn't a guiding force, but it does mean we aren't compelled to assume there is one.

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

Ockham's razor advises us not to "multiply entities/explanations unnecessarily", so we could employ it here. How? We know that natural selection of random mutation is capable of generating the complexity and function of life. We have both a plausible process and evidence which shows that such a process is at work. To say that there is also a subtle guiding force working in addition to natural selection is to add something which isn't necessary. Now this doesn't mean we can say that there isn't a guiding force, but it does mean we aren't compelled to assume there is one.

If you've been following the train of thought these last few posts you'll appreciate a point made that random mutation from a God-cut deck of possible mutations is still random mutation. From which some are naturally selected.

We would not be adding unnecessary entities if it necessitated Gods stripping a naturalistic deck of inopportune mutational possibilities in order to arrive at the situation we find ourselves in today.

We can't, as I say, decide naturalistic chance is capable of bringing about the current scenario for want of a way of knowing we are looking at naturalistic chance at work. And so can't really be all that sure about what constitutes "necessity"


ps: given that William of Ockham was a Christian monk, I think it unlikely that his razor can be wielded as you wield it.

antiskeptic

marco_polo wrote: »

But don't those explainations imply a deterministic universe?

I don't see how stripping a deck from 52 cards (representing the total sum of possible naturalistic outcomes) to 42 cards (the total sum of possible satisfactory-to-Gods-purposes outcomes) determines the card eventually picked. It'd be no more determined than a naturalistic universe would be.

/ *Carefully covers free will trap with leaves

How God manages to create a will free from God-determined choice is a mystery. It's the kind of thing you're better off taking as a given and getting on with the various consequences involved - rather than allow yourself to come to an unbelieving halt over.

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you've been following the train of thought these last few posts you'll appreciate a point made that random mutation from a God-cut deck of possible mutations is still random mutation. From which some are naturally selected.

We would not be adding unnecessary entities if it necessitated Gods stripping a naturalistic deck of inopportune mutational possibilities in order to arrive at the situation we find ourselves in today.

We can't, as I say, decide naturalistic chance is capable of bringing about the current scenario for want of a way of knowing we are looking at naturalistic chance at work. And so can't really be all that sure about what constitutes "necessity"

ps: given that William of Ockham was a Christian monk, I think it unlikely that his razor can be wielded as you wield it.

Ockham's razor is still applicable whether or not we consider a force which influences natural selection by introducing extra mutations to select from, or by removing mutations. Evolutionary biology is field which not only covers natural selection, but also the mechanisms of mutation. These mechanisms are naturalistic, and therefore allow us to calculate things like mutation rates and genetic drift (If mutations were generated both naturally and supernaturally, then assumptions regarding mutation rates would be insufficient, as God could shuffle the deck whenever He liked). Such natural mechanisms (along with the rest of Evolutionary Biology) are a sufficient explanation of life's complexity and development, even if there is still plenty of research to be done.

What you seem to be suggesting is that, in addition to these natural mutations, there might be supernatural mutations introduced by God, either directly or by tweaking laws at certain stages. We obviously cannot rule such mutations out, but we do not need to postulate them to explain natural history, as the rates calculated from natural mutations are enough. This is why such a postulate would be deemed unnecessary (and positively ill-advised from a scientific perspective). [EDIT]-I should emphasise that the concept of supernatural mutation would include the idea of restricting mutations by tweaking laws, as well as introducing new ones.

In short, atheistic evolution assumes mutations are caused by the laws of biochemistry, and theistic evolution assumes mutations are caused by laws of biochemistry and subtle divine intervention. Life can be explained without the need for divine intervention, which is an "unnecessary hypothesis" to borrow Laplace's phrase.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Study can't inform you whether or not naturalistic chance is that which is at work. A theory might suppose that mutations are random/directionless but how would it go about deciding that - as opposed to a mechanism in which certain mutations are excluded from occuring under particular circumstances?

you'd go about it through 150 years of intense scientific scrutiny


We know from studying evolution that any number of other combinations could have happened. We know that non-intelligent life is not prevented because there are billions of non-intelligent life forms. That means that God would have to intervene in a way that goes beyond the laws of physics to overrule natural selection and change it to divine selection. That is intelligent design, because an intelligent being would be directly influencing the form that life would take in order to reach a conscious goal. And that's not evolution
. In comparison, beer contains only naturally occurring chemicals, I don't need to do magic to create it but no one would suggest that because the processes are natural it wasn't intelligently designed. The only form of evolution that is not intelligent design is evolution that is not in any way influenced by intelligence

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're in the same boat - and science isn't going to help you out. You have a philosophical foundation which assumes naturalistic chance at work when you have no way of telling that this is so. Ockhams Razor is no use because we can't say whether a naturalistic chance environment is a simpler system to one in which God reigns. For the simple reason that we haven't got a clear cut naturalistic environment available to us to see how well it would perform vs. one over which God reigns.

Occams razor says that you should not multiply entities unnecessarily, ie if you can explain something with A and B that is preferable to explaining it using A, B and C. We can explain it with A) random mutation and B)natural selection making C) God an unnecessary entity

I can't say for sure that Santa Clause, the tooth fairy, the flying spaghetti monster and the disembodied soul of my mate Dave weren't involved in evolution either but the point is that I have nothing to suggest they were. And you have nothing to suggest God was involved other than you'd like to think he was. This is just the classic "you can't prove God doesn't exist" argument. It's not up to me to show that God wasn't involved, we have completely explained evolution without him. It's up to you to show he was involved

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

We would not be adding unnecessary entities if it necessitated Gods stripping a naturalistic deck of inopportune mutational possibilities in order to arrive at the situation we find ourselves in today.

All you've said there is that if God was necessary he would be necessary. The point is that there is nothing to suggest that he is necessary

antiskeptic wrote: »

We can't, as I say, decide naturalistic chance is capable of bringing about the current scenario for want of a way of knowing we are looking at naturalistic chance at work.

Yes we can and we do. It's called the theory of evolution and nowhere in that theory is there a step where God intervenes to influence nature

antiskeptic wrote: »

ps: given that William of Ockham was a Christian monk, I think it unlikely that his razor can be wielded as you wield it.

William of Ockham was neither the first nor the only person to use the idea, he just used it a lot so people started to call it after him. This guy is one of many people who used it long before him, as did Aristotle when he said "The more perfect a nature is, the fewer means it requires for its operation". And his reasoning for why it couldn't be used for theology was dependent on the assumption that theology is revealed by God. Unfortunately for William that assumption is unfounded until the day when the existence of the Christian God and his involvement in the bible is conclusively proven. He thought it couldn't be applied to theology but he was wrong because he reached his conclusion using faulty assumptions

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Natural selection guided by whatever happens to be in the prevailing environment, not by God. If someone thinks that evolution was in any way guided to facilitate the formation of the human genome, what they believe in is not evolution

It seems to me (and that's not to say my observation is correct) that there are two lines of thought within theistic evolution (including maybe a fudge between the two). Those whould believe that evolution continues undisturbed until God decides to interviene in some limited way. And those who think there there is no interaction in the evolution process, meaning that "mankind" could have take any form if it was run all over again.

The first line of thought seems very close to the sitiuation domesticated animals and cultivars find themselves in. For example, presumably one doesn't believe that the dog is somehow not, or never will be, subject to evolution because we have apparently bent its evolutinary course to meet our ends and we have ostensibly guided the unguided (at least over the merest fraction of time ).

The second line of thought - where God merely set the whole thing in motion and stepped back - should remove any objections along the lines of "theistic evolution is not 'real' evolution". However, it does raise some interesting, but nevertheless tricky, theological and ontological questions.

I would lean towards the first line.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It seems to me (and that's not to say my observation is correct) that there are two lines of thought within theistic evolution (including maybe a fudge between the two). Those whould believe that evolution continues undisturbed until God decides to interviene in some limited way. And those who think there there is no interaction in the evolution process, meaning that "mankind" could have take any form if it was run all over again.

The first line of thought seems very close to the sitiuation domesticated animals and cultivars find themselves in. For example, presumably one doesn't believe that the dog is somehow not, or never will be, subject to evolution because we have apparently bent its evolutinary course to meet our ends and we have ostensibly guided the unguided (at least over the merest fraction of time ).

If I use a natural process in order to deliberately produce something for a reason it's still intelligent design, which was the point I was making. Labradoodles were bred for blind people who were allergic to the hair of Labrador guide dogs but not that of poodles. Labradoodles were intelligently designed. It doesn't have to involve supernatural powers to be intelligent design

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The second line of thought - where God merely set the whole thing in motion and stepped back - should remove any objections along the lines of "theistic evolution is not 'real' evolution". However, it does raise some interesting, but nevertheless tricky, theological and ontological questions.

I would lean towards the first line.

The second line of thought would be real evolution but that's more the cosmological argument because everything except the setting in motion can currently be explained by science without the necessity of a God. People who say that are basically just saying God was involved in evolution because they like to think he was and not because there is anything to indicate that he was.

AtomicHorror

In response to the OP, some Young Earth Creationists hold to the concept that the races are the descendants of the sons of Noah. Ken Ham's Creation Museum over in the US claims for example that North African blacks are the descendants of Canaan's son Ham. Ham, incidentally, was cursed by God.

The curse of Ham, rather like the curse of his father Canaan, was used by some Christians (important emphasis there) as a justification for slavery during the 19th century. The North Africans were "cursed", and the rest were not actually descendants of Noah, ergo not human but another "species". Ironically a lot of this was a perversion of emerging ideas regarding evolution, and was a particular annoyance to Darwin who believed in a single origin for the human species (and was an abolitionist to boot).

Ken Ham's lot apparently still hold to the Hamite hypothesis, which means that his sponsors Answers In Genesis do also:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/the_creation_museum_1.php

Now, they're not racist but...

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Suppose chance on it's own can produce 100 different outcomes. And suppose that 50 of those outcomes have no suitability for Gods purposes. So he strips out the possibility of those useless 50 outcomes. And leaves chance to produce one of the remaining 50 (potentially useful to him) outcomes - by the same process of evolution that you hold to.

So what you're saying is that god intelligently designs the universe so that there is no chance for any outcome other than what he actually wants, but that this is still evolution?

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's not intelligent design. It's limiting the boundaries of chance. Unless your supposing intelligent design by way of random mutation and survival of the fittest.

I think you are looking at this all wrong. There is only two types of outcome: Those god want and Those god doesn't want. It doesn't matter if there are ninety nine individual outcomes that god would find acceptable and only one which he wouldn't, they still fall into two categories. If god removes all chance for one category, then he is designing reality so that only one type of outcome is possible, thus intelligent design.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Study can't inform you whether or not naturalistic chance is that which is at work. A theory might suppose that mutations are random/directionless but how would it go about deciding that - as opposed to a mechanism in which certain mutations are excluded from occuring under particular circumstances?

Well if those particular circumstances are supposed to be"intelligent design" then you just have to show the lack of intelligence in the "design". Things like the odd "choices" of which systems are redundant in a body, the structure of the eye, pointlessly long nerves in the neck of giraffes all go to refuting the idea that any creature was designed by something intelligent.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're in the same boat - and science isn't going to help you out. You have a philosophical foundation which assumes naturalistic chance at work when you have no way of telling that this is so.

I just showed you above how you show naturalistic chance is at work-just show the that there is no intelligence, just blind chance.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Ockhams Razor is no use because we can't say whether a naturalistic chance environment is a simpler system to one in which God reigns.

Considering people still cant define god, I would have say a naturalistic chance enviroment is simpler than one ruled by god.

antiskeptic wrote: »

For the simple reason that we haven't got a clear cut naturalistic environment available to us to see how well it would perform vs. one over which God reigns.

But you also havent got a clear cut enviroment ruled by your god to see how well it would perform vs. one over which Allah reigns, or one which Vishnu reigns, or Zenu or Ra or Odin etc.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

ps: given that William of Ockham was a Christian monk, I think it unlikely that his razor can be wielded as you wield it.

So what?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see how stripping a deck from 52 cards (representing the total sum of possible naturalistic outcomes) to 42 cards (the total sum of possible satisfactory-to-Gods-purposes outcomes) determines the card eventually picked.

It determines that the card eventually picked is satisfactory to god. Thats like saying fixing a poker deck so that any of the 10 cards that you could use to make a winning hand will come out isn't really cheating because no one hand is favoured by you over the others once any of those hands will win.

antiskeptic wrote: »

How God manages to create a will free from God-determined choice is a mystery. It's the kind of thing you're better off taking as a given and getting on with the various consequences involved - rather than allow yourself to come to an unbelieving halt over.

Yes, instead of examining a claim that seems to show a contradiction in the whole god idea, just ignore it and stay a believer :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

How God manages to create a will free from God-determined choice is a mystery. It's the kind of thing you're better off taking as a given and getting on with the various consequences involved - rather than allow yourself to come to an unbelieving halt over.

Exactly. Anything that you think suggests there is a God is lauded and anything that suggests otherwise is a 'mystery'. This is what's known as confirmation bias.

Bottle_of_Smoke

PDN wrote: »

While I have no problem if Adam & Eve were black, white or blue - I fail to see the logic of what you're saying.

Just because Africans are mainly black today it doesn't follow that the original ancestors of all races were also black.

+1

Look at apes. most of them white. Besides the apes we evolved from are extinct. My own opinion is the original humans were closer in skin colour to whites/arabs/orientals and the ones who travelled south and west evolved black skin to deal with the very high levels of UV light.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote:

Study can't inform you whether or not naturalistic chance is that which is at work. A theory might suppose that mutations are random/directionless but how would it go about deciding that - as opposed to a mechanism in which certain mutations are excluded from occuring under particular circumstances?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Occams razor says that you should not multiply entities unnecessarily, ie if you can explain something with A and B that is preferable to explaining it using A, B and C. We can explain it with A) random mutation and B)natural selection making C) God an unnecessary entity

My apologies for the delay in replying.

The last part of your response is the piece which most directly addresses the objection raised: how do you know naturalistic chance is that which is at work? It might be helpful to rephrase this objection in the light of Occams Razor being wheeled out if I were to ask you: how do you know that what you see around you now is "fittest"?

That is to say; random mutation + natural selection would, were they the only mechanisms operating, produce a result about which it could be said "that which has survived is fittest". But to suppose we (for example) are fittest because we are surviving is to engage in circular reasoning (if trying to argue rm+ns only to be operating). You assuming part of which you're trying to demonstrate in other words.

Regarding your other points.

We know from studying evolution that any number of other combinations could have happened. We know that non-intelligent life is not prevented because there are billions of non-intelligent life forms. That means that God would have to intervene in a way that goes beyond the laws of physics to overrule natural selection and change it to divine selection. That is intelligent design, because an intelligent being would be directly influencing the form that life would take in order to reach a conscious goal. And that's not evolution

The number of combinations possible in a naturalistic environment is finite. The number of possible combinations in a God stripped deck is less than the above figure and finite. The deck stripping would have to do with design as limiting the designs possible. Evolution isn't so much concerned with the starting conditions leading to the result as it is the mechanism by which the result is achieved given starting conditions.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So what you're saying is that god intelligently designs the universe so that there is no chance for any outcome other than what he actually wants, but that this is still evolution?

Whether the universe is naturalistic or not, there are starting conditions which limit the number of potential outcomes in the evolutionary scenario. The evolutionary scenario isn't concerned with the starting conditions which determine the number of potential outcomes. It's concerned with the mechanism whereby the outcome is achieved.

I think you are looking at this all wrong. There is only two types of outcome: Those god want and Those god doesn't want. It doesn't matter if there are ninety nine individual outcomes that god would find acceptable and only one which he wouldn't, they still fall into two categories. If god removes all chance for one category, then he is designing reality so that only one type of outcome is possible, thus intelligent design.

See above. You seem to me to be stretching the remit of evolution to cover your own philosophical leanings.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well if those particular circumstances are supposed to be"intelligent design" then you just have to show the lack of intelligence in the "design". Things like the odd "choices" of which systems are redundant in a body, the structure of the eye, pointlessly long nerves in the neck of giraffes all go to refuting the idea that any creature was designed by something intelligent.

Fitness-for-purpose doesn't require a perfect outcome. Indeed, an imperfect outcome (to our mind) might well add fitness for purpose.

I just showed you above how you show naturalistic chance is at work-just show the that there is no intelligence, just blind chance.

Although not a theistic evolutionist, I've been having a bit of fun supposing things from their position. And that position has no problem with (apparently) redundant elements - given that evolution is the mechanism by which an outcome is arrived at

Considering people still can't define god, I would have say a naturalistic chance enviroment is simpler than one ruled by god.

None of which addresses the objection. We don't know what a naturalistic environment would produce for want of an iron-clad one to examine.

But you also havent got a clear cut enviroment ruled by your god to see how well it would perform vs. one over which Allah reigns, or one which Vishnu reigns, or Zenu or Ra or Odin etc.

The starting point for the discussion was "how a theist reconciles evolution with his belief in God". The issue of his God ruling the environment is a given for him.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Exactly. Anything that you think suggests there is a God is lauded and anything that suggests otherwise is a 'mystery'. This is what's known as confirmation bias.

Physician, heal thyself.




(the theist has the advantage in that it is a logical and rational possiblity for him to know that God exists whereas the atheist can never know God doesn't. Such a theist has as much use for confirmation bias regarding the existance of God as the orbiting astronaut has in convincing himself that the earth is round.)

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

My apologies for the delay in replying.

The last part of your response is the piece which most directly addresses the objection raised: how do you know naturalistic chance is that which is at work? It might be helpful to rephrase this objection in the light of Occams Razor being wheeled out if I were to ask you: how do you know that what you see around you now is "fittest"?

That is to say; random mutation + natural selection would, were they the only mechanisms operating, produce a result about which it could be said "that which has survived is fittest". But to suppose we (for example) are fittest because we are surviving is to engage in circular reasoning (if trying to argue rm+ns only to be operating). You assuming part of which you're trying to demonstrate in other words.

Evolution isn't perfect and what survives often is not the fittest. It's not so much the complexity and efficiencies in animals that indicate for random mutations naturally selected as the inefficiencies and legacy features that no intelligent designer would think of putting in. An example I've given before from the Channel 4 show Inside Nature's Giants

Many species have a nerve that comes out of their brain and down their neck, which then splits into two. One part continues to the heart (I think it was) then the other part goes back into the head.

In most animals this is fine because the nerve is only about 6 inches long but a giraffe also has this nerve, which runs all the way down its neck and then all the way back up. It travels about 8 feet to get to a point 3 inches from where it started.

In fish where this nerve originated it was fine but in a Giraffe it's a terribly inefficient design. If an engineer was designing it, he would realise this, go back to drawing board and move the nerve to the more efficient place. But evolution can't go back to the drawing board because it has no foresight. Instead it gradually lengthened the nerve over millions of years because it has no way of knowing that rewiring it would be more efficient and it had no intelligence guiding it to do so.

This inefficiency in the body of a giraffe and in millions of other animals is not what you would expect from an intelligent designer but it's exactly what you'd expect from a non-intelligent process that gradually changes and only "knows" it's got something wrong because nature kills it and doesn't allow it to reproduce to pass on it's "wrong" variations. Luckily for giraffes, this inefficiency was not bad enough for its ancestors to be wiped out by predators but the dodo, who gradually lost the ability to fly because it didn't need it as it had no natural predators - until man arrived - was not so lucky

Also, we can't know for sure that it's only nature driving it because if it was driven by God it wouldn't necessarily look any different but since it can be completely explained by nature driving it I see no reason to suppose that God was driving it.....unless my religious beliefs require that he drove it and my preconceived world view collapses if he didn't. That's not how science works, no ideas are sacred and any idea, no matter how well established, will be dropped if the evidence suggests it's not true or in this case that it's unnecessary

antiskeptic wrote: »

The number of combinations possible in a naturalistic environment is finite. The number of possible combinations in a God stripped deck is less than the above figure and finite. The deck stripping would have to do with design as limiting the designs possible. Evolution isn't so much concerned with the starting conditions leading to the result as it is the mechanism by which the result is achieved given starting conditions.

And my point is that that theory is not evolution, it's intelligent design. It's the teleological argument, the belief that God "fine tuned the universe for life", which I have covered at length in this forum. Basically it's a form of confirmation bias where you look at the tiny bit of evidence that might suggest fine tuning and ignore the vast amounts that suggest nothing of the sort. If the laws of the universe were fine tuned for life, there would not be trillions upon trillions of galaxies of pointless, lifeless planets and stars. Far from being the main purpose, life appears to be a freak accident, a by-product of a universe that otherwise chugs along quite nicely without it.

The argument also fails because it assumes that this is the only kind of life that can exist. The laws of the universe are such that they support this kind of life (very very rarely). If the universe had different laws it's entirely possible that a completely different and incompatible kind of life would have evolved. If such a thing had happened the glaxions with 17 eyes and mercury in their veins (assuming they had eyes and veins and assuming that mercury could exist) would be sitting on their 6 dimensional planet under their purple cuboidal sun and remarking how the universe seems so precisely designed for them. The universe did not adapt for life, life adapted for the universe.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It determines that the card eventually picked is satisfactory to god.

Which is not the same as determing the card picked.

Yes, instead of examining a claim that seems to show a contradiction in the whole god idea, just ignore it and stay a believer :rolleyes:

It's not possible to contradict the whole god idea by admitting that human (I repeat human) level intelligence operating in a time/space environment encounters mystery.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

(the theist has the advantage in that it is a logical and rational possiblity for him to know that God exists whereas the atheist can never know God doesn't. Such a theist has as much use for confirmation bias regarding the existance of God as the orbiting astronaut has in convincing himself that the earth is round.)

There are only a tiny number of people on the planet who don't think the world is round. Their religious beliefs are the motivator for denying the blatantly obvious of course but my point is that 99.9999999999999% of people believe the world is round but the same cannot be said of believers in your particular version of God. If it was possible to objectively be that sure the figures would be about the same so that's not really true is it?

From 24 years of talking to theists I have yet to see any evidence that would be accepted as fact by anyone who was not already inclined to believe, ie people using confirmation bias. Could you please present this evidence that is as solid as the knowledge that the world is round?

edit: also if it was possible to objectively be that sure then religious people would have no use for the word "faith"
edit2: and christianity would be taught in history class with all the other facts of history

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which is not the same as determing the card picked.

If all the cards that can come up are satisfactory to God then the outcome is being determined. The fact that several outcomes are satisfactory does not change that

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which is not the same as determing the card picked.

Considering God knows what the picked card is going to be I fail to see the difference.

God either interacts or he doesn't. Interacting half arsed doesn't work considering God is supposed to be omniscient

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's not possible to contradict the whole god idea by admitting that human (I repeat human) level intelligence operating in a time/space environment encounters mystery.

Considering the "whole god idea" is a human concept (even if God is real) yes it is.

You can't say we can understand him well enough to rationally determine he exists but not well enough to rationally determine he doesn't. :rolleyes:

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Evolution isn't perfect and what survives often is not the fittest. It's not so much the complexity and efficiencies in animals that indicate for random mutations naturally selected as the inefficiencies and legacy features that no intelligent designer would think of putting in. An example I've given before from the Channel 4 show Inside Nature's Giants

Remember that I'm arguing from the (potential) position of a theistic evolutionist - which would have me consider God to arrive at his goal via a process of evolution. That God might strip the deck of cards, which would result in an outcome which doesn't suit his purposes, is a far cry from supposing he need strive for perfection in mechanical design.

An apparent goal of God is to give every man a balanced choice w.r.t. to mans eternal relationship with God. With or without God: that is the question (to put it crudely). In stage setting the realm in which this choice is made (which includes this time/space/earth environment of ours) there must be as much effort given by God to enabling a 'no' vote as there is in enabling a 'yes' vote - if balance in our choice is to be maintained.

For someone who is travelling the 'no' vote path, intellectual satisfaction for their choice need be supplied by God if that choice is to be maintained. Inside Natures Giants (and naturalistic evolution at large) is, I feel, part of that intellectual support. Enabled by God for those whose choice is currently 'no'. Some would cry foul that God would disguise himself so. But that's what balanced choice requires.

Also, we can't know for sure that it's only nature driving it because if it was driven by God it wouldn't necessarily look any different but since it can be completely explained by nature driving it...

You can't know for sure that it's only nature driving it because you don't know what only nature driving it is capable of producing on it's own. This, for want of having a card-carrying God-free nature whose products you can examine.

You look at the products of evolution, suppose them produced naturalistically (assumption) and then apply Occams Razor to trim off elements whose influence has been rendered unnecessary by that assumption.

I see no reason to suppose that God was driving it.....unless my religious beliefs require that he drove it and my preconceived world view collapses if he didn't. That's not how science works, no ideas are sacred and any idea, no matter how well established, will be dropped if the evidence suggests it's not true or in this case that it's unnecessary

I would have thought science unconcerned with pronouncing on any role of God in evolution. "Natural" is what is observed to occur. Not what causes it to occur as it does (whether natural or divine)

And my point is that that theory is not evolution, it's intelligent design. It's the teleological argument, the belief that God "fine tuned the universe for life", which I have covered at length in this forum. Basically it's a form of confirmation bias where you look at the tiny bit of evidence that might suggest fine tuning and ignore the vast amounts that suggest nothing of the sort. If the laws of the universe were fine tuned for life, there would not be trillions upon trillions of galaxies of pointless, lifeless planets and stars. Far from being the main purpose, life appears to be a freak accident, a by-product of a universe that otherwise chugs along quite nicely without it.

The argument also fails because it assumes that this is the only kind of life that can exist. The laws of the universe are such that they support this kind of life (very very rarely). If the universe had different laws it's entirely possible that a completely different and incompatible kind of life would have evolved. If such a thing had happened the glaxions with 17 eyes and mercury in their veins (assuming they had eyes and veins and assuming that mercury could exist) would be sitting on their 6 dimensional planet under their purple cuboidal sun and remarking how the universe seems so precisely designed for them. The universe did not adapt for life, life adapted for the universe.

See my remarks above regarding God's provision enabling the unbeliever to remain one. And that self-same provision enabling an unbeliever to fall to his knees.

The extent and nature of the universe enables your continuing unbelief as self-described above. For many others, a knowledge of the extent and nature of that self-same universe has been one of the elements which has brought about the humility necessary before any man can encounter God. All the worlds a stage and we're all players in the same play. Until the final curtain falls.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

You can't know for sure that it's only nature driving it because you don't know what only nature driving it is capable of producing on it's own. This, for want of having a card-carrying God-free nature whose products you can examine.

But we do know that nature is capable of producing it on its own, that's the point of evolution. We can't know for sure that it did do it on it's own, that no one guided it but we most certainly can know that it is capable of it on its own

antiskeptic wrote: »

You look at the products of evolution, suppose them produced naturalistically (assumption) and then apply Occams Razor to trim off elements whose influence has been rendered unnecessary by that assumption.

No I don't. I look at the results of 150 years of scientific scrutiny

antiskeptic wrote: »

Remember that I'm arguing from the (potential) position of a theistic evolutionist - which would have me consider God to arrive at his goal via a process of evolution. That God might strip the deck of cards, which would result in an outcome which doesn't suit his purposes, is a far cry from supposing he need strive for perfection in mechanical design.

An apparent goal of God is to give every man a balanced choice w.r.t. to mans eternal relationship with God. With or without God: that is the question (to put it crudely). In stage setting the realm in which this choice is made (which includes this time/space/earth environment of ours) there must be as much effort given by God to enabling a 'no' vote as there is in enabling a 'yes' vote - if balance in our choice is to be maintained.

For someone who is travelling the 'no' vote path, intellectual satisfaction for their choice need be supplied by God if that choice is to be maintained. Inside Natures Giants (and naturalistic evolution at large) is, I feel, part of that intellectual support. Enabled by God for those whose choice is currently 'no'. Some would cry foul that God would disguise himself so. But that's what balanced choice requires.

So you're telling me that anything that suggests that there might not be a God is put there as a test of faith. Firstly I would point out that that that contradicts your earlier statement that "it is a logical and rational possibility for [a believer] to know that God exists" because in order to do that you must ignore the contradictory evidence that you just acknowledged must exist for balance, which is an irrational thing to do.

And secondly I would point out:

If what you're saying is true it would confirm a previous statement I made that God rewards credulity and punishes rational enquiry. You say that there is sufficient evidence to be intellectually satisfied that there is no God. This means that as somebody digs deeper and deeper into the nature of the universe, the more convincing will be the case against God. Contrast this to someone who is told that God exists, believes it and never questions it.

The person who has done their best to try to understand the universe around them will end up burning in a lake of fire because they accepted the evidence they were presented with where the person who never bothered their hole questioning anything or ignored the evidence presented by the person who spent their life dedicated to uncovering it will be given eternal bliss.

That doesn't sound like a God I would want anything to do with tbh

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

The evolutionary scenario isn't concerned with the starting conditions which determine the number of potential outcomes. It's concerned with the mechanism whereby the outcome is achieved.

Think of it like this: I have two computers and they are perfect random number generators. The first computer can pick a random number from any number by running through a list of all numbers, starting from a random point and ending at a random point, while the second computer can pick a random number from any even number by running through a list of all even numbers, starting from a random point and ending at a random point. Now while both computers obviously run exactly the same method for picking numbers (random starting and stopping of scanning of numbers), because the starting conditions have been changed in the second one, it is running a fundamentally different process with different probability functions deciding the outcome.
The same goes for god vs nature evolution. Evolution may run the same in both situations, but the evolution process is fundamently different if the number of outcomes are changed.
We dont claim that the biological changes of the banana from the original wild green variety to the cultivated yellow variety used today are a product of evolution as the enviromental changes used to change the plant were themselves artificially induced.