The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

AtomicHorror

JoBlog wrote: »

During that long interval after the discovery of the cliff niche and before the gun, there would have been natural variation in the offspring reproduction rate of the eagles. We know from other birds that a much higher rate of reproduction is biologically feasible. I cannot see why the variations towards higher reproduction rates within the feasible range would not be selected at the expense of the current ideal reproduction rate (for the pre-gun environment).

All that is needed is a suitably strong selective pressure in favour of low reproduction rates. I'm no expert on birds, but we can imagine a number of possible pressures that would produce this result.

1. Growth rate of the juvenile: We see this in humans and it could certainly follow for any other species. The juvenile is relatively slow to reach the point at which it can fend for itself, thus survival is best served by having fewer offspring and tending to them for longer (rather than trying to spend that extended time on many offspring, or reducing the time spent with each individual offspring). Failing to have the low rate of reproduction increases the risk that all of the offspring will die before maturation, and that the parent will die without bringing a child to maturation during its life. Golden eagles are big birds, so this is feasible for them.

2. Availability of food in the new niche: If the amount of food available to the bird and offspring is limited, larger groups of offspring will increase the risk that offspring and parents will die.

3. Nature and extent of predation: If a local predator habitually feeds upon the offspring, clutch size may impact on this. Large numbers of chicks might be more visible, noisier. Smaller, quieter nests may go unnoticed.

These are all just ideas, none of which may be the actual selective pressure. Or it might be combinations of these.

JoBlog wrote: »

The fact that it would be unnecessarily high would not affect the fact that there would be more birds with this variation entering the breeding stock constantly and causing this variation to predominate and develop towards the feasible limits.

Yes but the feasible limit is not defined by other bird species nor even entirely by this one. It is defined by likelihood of survival. The species meets the niche. When the niche changes, the selective pressures change. And that can change the range of feasible reproduction rates. At some point in the evolutionary history of the Golden Eagle, the uppermost feasible rate of reproduction was curtailed. It became the rate we see now.

It is possible that the factors which influenced this are now gone. However if the pressures were present and stable for some time, we would expect it to take some time for the reproductive rates to increase to the new upper maximum rate.

JoBlog wrote: »

The fact that the entire species would have to work harder for food as their numbers grew and would gradually die younger as the pressure mounted would not reflect back to somehow favour those practising wise birth control in the common interest.

That assumes the pressure is food and that the resource is uniform and entirely shared. Whilst a rapidly reproducing proto-Golden Eagle colony might wipe out the food resource within its range, and thus also wipe out other nearby colonies, this would not be true of isolated colonies. Whilst the food may still be limited, the lower reproduction rate will be favoured. They will then inherit the ranges once occupied by their extinct peers.

JoBlog wrote: »

The second part "the tougher question" was simply pointing out that the evotionary process would have had to somehow swim against this pressure of natural variation and selection in the first place as presumably the low birth rate birds on the cliffs were descendents of faster breeding birds from the pre cliff discovery era.

Mutation is the ultimate basis of variation. If the low birth rate were due to a simple mutation reducing the likelihood of conception, then the variation could arise within a single generation and within the normal bounds of evolutionary theory. All they had to do was survive by fluke long enough for their disadvantage to become an advantage. Remember that mutations can be beneficial, detrimental and every shade of grey between. This one would not have been utterly fatal, and though it's emergence 10,000 years prior to the "cliff discovery" era would no bode well for the mutant, if it emerged a mere few dozen generations prior, then it might not constitute a 100% hinderence before it became a benefit. If the mutation were recessive, then it might pass through even longer.

If the mutation were relatively common due to the DNA sequence in a given fertility gene, then it's possible that both scenarios occured. The mutation occurred "de novo" several times, but one time it stuck.

JoBlog wrote: »

I cannot see how the wise common interest birth control was maintained against the force of natural variation and selection which would favour the higher irresponsible level within the feasible limits, much less how this wisdom could have been evolved in the first place.

There is no wisdom here. There is survival to the point of reproduction or there is nothing. I think I've explain that above though.

JoBlog wrote: »

This is true in principle, it just seems that the actual current rate is too far from the feasible limits to be selected for. It all just seems a bit too relaxed and easy going

What it might seem like and what it was in recent evolutionary time may be two very different things. That low rate has become detrimental once again, but only recently. It is easy to imagine that it must once have been essential.

JoBlog wrote: »

- perhaps the wise limit of variation was set by some wise meddling?

Simply put, the "wise" limit of variation is actually the survival limit. You stray outside of it and your genes are not passed on.

I suspect that there are perhaps some conceptual issues with evolution that you may not be grasping fully. Perhaps we can tackle that. You may be under the impression that we claim evolution to be reactive in some manner, or perhaps even goal-oriented. It is neither. It is blindly pro-active. Whatever works, survives.

marco_polo

JoBlog wrote: »

Thanks Atomic H. I'll just explore the third question for the moment, maybe more on the other two questions later.






I agree fully that the 500 years of the gun is too short for noticeable changes in this case. You misunderstood this part of my question. I was not asking why there was no change since the gun but why there was such an ideal reproduction rate for the tens of thousands of years before the gun! (The mention of the gun was an unnecessary and perhaps confusing detail). Let me elaborate:

During that long interval after the discovery of the cliff niche and before the gun, there would have been natural variation in the offspring reproduction rate of the eagles. We know from other birds that a much higher rate of reproduction is biologically feasible. I cannot see why the variations towards higher reproduction rates within the feasible range would not be selected at the expense of the current ideal reproduction rate (for the pre-gun environment). The fact that it would be unnecessarily high would not affect the fact that there would be more birds with this variation entering the breeding stock constantly and causing this variation to predominate and develop towards the feasible limits. The fact that the entire species would have to work harder for food as their numbers grew and would gradually die younger as the pressure mounted would not reflect back to somehow favour those practising wise birth control in the common interest.

The second part "the tougher question" was simply pointing out that the evotionary process would have had to somehow swim against this pressure of natural variation and selection in the first place as presumably the low birth rate birds on the cliffs were descendents of faster breeding birds from the pre cliff discovery era.

I cannot see how the wise common interest birth control was maintained against the force of natural variation and selection which would favour the higher irresponsible level within the feasible limits, much less how this wisdom could have been evolved in the first place.



This is true in principle, it just seems that the actual current rate is too far from the feasible limits to be selected for. It all just seems a bit too relaxed and easy going - perhaps the wise limit of variation was set by some wise meddling?

I could answer all of this in detail. Or I could just say please read a few books on evolution (Especially about Eagles because you are either exceptionally interested in them or else you read something on about it on a creationist/ID website of tough questions to ask evolutionists that they may not be able to answer straight away.

Not all evolutionists are experts in Eagle reproductive rates, but if you are genuinely interested read the appropriate scientific journals and you will probably find satisfactory answers.

Húrin

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I suspect J C will contend that this is impossible. Now, he won't be able to give us any evidence, but much like his claims of the impossibility of abiogenesis I'm sure he'll be able to construct a suitable straw man.

This doesn't need to be about evidence, since evidence of both God and aliens is notoriously hard to come by.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

This doesn't need to be about evidence, since evidence of both God and aliens is notoriously hard to come by.

that is normally taken as a reason not to assert as fact that either exist

AtomicHorror

Húrin wrote: »

This doesn't need to be about evidence, since evidence of both God and aliens is notoriously hard to come by.

Yes, though the existence of aliens is at least a testable hypothesis.

Wicknight wrote: »

that is normally taken as a reason not to assert as fact that either exist

As a part of a scientific theory, yes. There's also the matter of utility and Occam's Razor.

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yes, though the existence of aliens is at least a testable hypothesis.

Silly AH, in outer space alien tests you! :pac:

AtomicHorror

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16341-first-vertebrate-eye-to-use-mirror-instead-of-lens.html

Why can't we have awesome mirroreyes?

JoBlog

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not an expert on eagles, but I imagine that the reproduction rate is controlled by the availability of food. Eagles often have to travel distance to get food, this increases energy expenditure and decreases the "worth" of the meal they catch. So would children. An eagle that has long periods of child raring decreases the energy they have available to themselves.

This is in contrast to other birds who often have food sources close by and do not require as much energy expenditure.

Yes, I agree that there is a potential feedback here to limit the fertility rate and that could explain my question. I'm not an expert on eagles so I do not know if they are in fact close to their energy limit. Thanks. Maybe someone can confirm whether this is so - I had the impression that they were having a nice easy unpressured existence (pre-gun) but that may not be right.

robindch

Mrs Darwin's cookbook gets published at last:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cambridgeshire/7795854.stm

Tortoise and finch soup, anybody?

Galvasean

What kind of soup?

JoBlog

AtomicHorror wrote: »

All that is needed is a suitably strong selective pressure in favour of low reproduction rates. I'm no expert on birds, but we can imagine a number of possible pressures that would produce this result.

1. Growth rate of the juvenile: We see this in humans and it could certainly follow for any other species. The juvenile is relatively slow to reach the point at which it can fend for itself, thus survival is best served by having fewer offspring and tending to them for longer (rather than trying to spend that extended time on many offspring, or reducing the time spent with each individual offspring). Failing to have the low rate of reproduction increases the risk that all of the offspring will die before maturation, and that the parent will die without bringing a child to maturation during its life. Golden eagles are big birds, so this is feasible for them.

It is a plausible idea - I wonder how it fits in a table of bird sizes against reproduction rates?

AtomicHorror wrote: »

2. Availability of food in the new niche: If the amount of food available to the bird and offspring is limited, larger groups of offspring will increase the risk that offspring and parents will die.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

3. Nature and extent of predation: If a local predator habitually feeds upon the offspring, clutch size may impact on this. Large numbers of chicks might be more visible, noisier. Smaller, quieter nests may go unnoticed.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

These are all just ideas, none of which may be the actual selective pressure. Or it might be combinations of these.

Agreed.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yes but the feasible limit is not defined by other bird species nor even entirely by this one. It is defined by likelihood of survival.

A fair point. I was using other bird species to define the feasible limits - however what other species can do is not entirely irrelevant. Again, more info like a table of size and reproduction rate might shed light on the issue.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That assumes the pressure is food and that the resource is uniform and entirely shared. Whilst a rapidly reproducing proto-Golden Eagle colony might wipe out the food resource within its range, and thus also wipe out other nearby colonies, this would not be true of isolated colonies.

I do not think the rapidly reproducing colony would wipe out the food supply entirely but it would be much harder for all to survive and the rapidly reproducing ones would still tend to predominate in the actual survivors. Eventually, through interbreeding, all colonies would be contaminated by the "faster genes".

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Mutation is the ultimate basis of variation. If the low birth rate were due to a simple mutation reducing the likelihood of conception, then the variation could arise within a single generation and within the normal bounds of evolutionary theory. All they had to do was survive by fluke long enough for their disadvantage to become an advantage. Remember that mutations can be beneficial, detrimental and every shade of grey between. This one would not have been utterly fatal, and though it's emergence 10,000 years prior to the "cliff discovery" era would no bode well for the mutant, if it emerged a mere few dozen generations prior, then it might not constitute a 100% hinderence before it became a benefit. If the mutation were recessive, then it might pass through even longer.

If the mutation were relatively common due to the DNA sequence in a given fertility gene, then it's possible that both scenarios occured. The mutation occurred "de novo" several times, but one time it stuck.

That is helpful - I had only considered the lower rate evolving after the cliff discovery

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Simply put, the "wise" limit of variation is actually the survival limit. You stray outside of it and your genes are not passed on.

Yes what it seems to come down to is whether the impression I gained from some article I read on the golden eagle years ago that the eagle is having an easy time of it breeding well below the feasible limit is true or whether it is already (pre-gun of course) at this limit for a variety of possible reasons. If the former it does pose a difficulty for the theory.

The possible reasons advanced are not rigorous [- that's not a complaint! as another reply said - go and study it up for yourself! Unfortunately time does not permit that at present] and so this is a little inconclusive for me, but certainly I can see now the outlines of possible solutions to the problem whereas before the answers I could see no possible answer - some progress.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I suspect that there are perhaps some conceptual issues with evolution that you may not be grasping fully. Perhaps we can tackle that. You may be under the impression that we claim evolution to be reactive in some manner, or perhaps even goal-oriented. It is neither. It is blindly pro-active. Whatever works, survives.

I do not think there are conceptual issues, however I do not know what is meant by reactive and proactive in this context so maybe... I really appreciate your offer to tackle that.

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

All that is needed is a suitably strong selective pressure in favour of low reproduction rates.

You're describing r/K selection theory -- basically, the spectrum of selection algorithms which extend from (rapid growth, many offspring, small body size) to (slow growth, few offspring, large body size). Basically, the variation in selection algorithms which that arise in environments which either vary rapidly, or don't vary at all.

More here.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by JoBlog
James Lovelock in one of his recent books on global warming and Gaia theory recounts discussions he had with Richard Dawkins on the incompatibility of his Gaia theory with evolution. Gaia is the theory that the earth's physical systems and biological systems work together to provide an environment which tries to conditions for life. Dawkins naturally felt that this was not "the blind watchmaker" at work and Lovelock concedes that Dawkins "won" the discussions (both are aetheistic evolutionists). But Gaia is now widely accepted as fact by the scientific community, but there is no satisfactory theoretical bridge between the force of natural selection and the gaian outcome of the process. In the book, Lovelock quotes two of the UK's top scientific establishment figures saying that "we need another Newton" to figure the answer to this conundrum. But some purposeful meddling from on high would do the trick.

Reply Posted by J C

.....and isn't it an amazing admission that "Gaia is now widely accepted as fact by the scientific community".....so a pagan Godess is now widely accepted by the 'Atheists' ... as the ultimate 'cause' of life .... and they still loudly proclaim that 'religion' and 'science' can never mix!!!!!

.....and isn't it also quite amazing that many Mainstream Christian Church members now accept the theory (of Materialistic Evolution)....which relies on a Pagan Greek Godess for it's ultimate credibility!!!!


Flamed Diving

According to... Jo Blog?

Where is the source for this 'theory' being widely accepted? Or is this a load of nonsense that you are pulling from the usual places?

....Jo Bloggs was quotiing NASA Scientist James Lovelock .... so he has quite a good basis for his assertion that the "Gaia (hypothesis) is now widely accepted as fact by the scientific community"....just like the so-called 'fact' of Evolution is ALSO widely accepted by the self same 'scientific comunity'.
The following article on the Gaia Hypothesis confirms that the Gaia Hypothesis was "originally proposed by James Lovelock as the earth feedback hypothesis, it was named—at the suggestion of his neighbor William Golding—Gaia Hypothesis, after the Greek supreme goddess of Earth. The hypothesis is frequently described as viewing the Earth as a single organism. Lovelock and other supporters of the idea now regard it as a scientific theory, not merely a hypothesis, since it has passed predictive tests."
..and you can read all about it here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....Jo Bloggs was quotiing NASA Scientist James Lovelock .... so he has quite a good basis for his assertion that the "Gaia (hypothesis) is now widely accepted as fact by the scientific community"....just like the so-called 'fact' of Evolution is ALSO widely accepted by the self same 'scientific comunity'.
The following article on the Gaia Hypothesis confirms that the Gaia Hypothesis was "originally proposed by James Lovelock as the earth feedback hypothesis, it was named—at the suggestion of his neighbor William Golding—Gaia Hypothesis, after the Greek supreme goddess of Earth. The hypothesis is frequently described as viewing the Earth as a single organism. Lovelock and other supporters of the idea now regard it as a scientific theory, not merely a hypothesis, since it has passed predictive tests."
..and you can read all about it here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

Cool- so what? The opinion of a NASA scientist does not make the Gaia hypothesis widely accepted. I'm not dismissing the concept, but it just doesn't have the support you're describing. I simply never hear my fellow biologists talk about.

kiffer

Wolfsbane and I have at several points in other threads touched on the age and nature of creation (aka the universe, the world).
I have expressed the opinion that the most objectionable part of YE creationism is the young part.
Wolfsbane has presented some scripture that would support the idea that the glory of creation is proof enough that the Creator must exist...
The idea that the creator is evident in the existence of physical reality makes the disregard of the nature of that creation a bit insulting to the Creator...
Here is this glorious universe and you throw away so much of it...

kiffer wrote:

wolfsbane wrote:

Well, I can see how the age of the earth might be vast without contradicting the Bible - the prior creation theory, for example. Just seems very unlikely, and doesn't solve most of the evolution problems anyway.

So I'll hold you to that deal!

It might seem very unlikely to you, but I imagine that we both understand the idea that sometimes the human mind balks at things it does not immediately understand... and I will grant that deep time can seem very counter-intuitive, we are not built to cope with huge numbers... it is also very difficult to cope with the vastness of space, even within the solar system.

You've got a problem with evolution... I'm not planing on talking about biology much at all (although I might)... I'm more interested in presenting Deep Time in a manner in which you can accept.
And deconstructing the YE interpretation of timescales involved... >10,000 years.

kiffer wrote:

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, kiffer, He is. It's not all an amazing coincidence and purposeless.

Well... there in lies the rub...
I can see there is the possible need of a god to start the whole mess off... but everything after the basic laws of physics are established then everything else can come to be via emergent properties.

This can sound like a bit of a cop out, especially if you misunderstand some details... People start to ask things about entropy and how you can get order out of disorder...
How "blind chance" can create interesting and complex things... which is why I don't get upset by guided evolution proponents as apposed to YE creationists.
(ie beliefs that remain with in the demonstrable time frame, as apposed to the less than 10,000 year time frame of Young Earth Creationism)

wolfsbane wrote:

Quote:
Logically, that is one possibility. The one the Bible presents is quite different - God who made the universe and all in it, has revealed Himself to us in the Bible. He sent this word by His servants, the prophets and apostles.

A good point, nevertheless. Yes, tampering with the Bible account gives rise to many things that directly would undermine the whole thing. The Bible is totally true or it is not the word of God.
Yes... and this a major sticking point... and some of it stems from the question of what parts are metaphors and what parts are literal...
That the Bible must be completely true or else the whole thing collapses makes it seem that you are over invested in the parts that might be metaphor... 6 day Creation, Talking/Walking Snakes, Global flood, Tower of Babel and so on.

BUT if it's revealed knowledge which is inerrant at the initial time of writing then it doesn't matter when in human history it actually arrived does it?
There would be little point in revealing information about complex physics and chemistry to people wandering in the middle east thousands of years before the ground work that allows us to understand it was carried out...
And it's not information that they need either.

I'd rather you respond to these quotes here rather than in the threads where they were inappropriate.

At one point I said, "to be a young earth creationist you must either believe that there is a massive conspiracy of lies with in the scientific community, or believe that all these scientists are incompetent/don't know what they are talking about, or believe that the evidence is real but has been planted by the devil to trick us or God to test us"...
I guess you could add... "or have not really thought about it at all"

What is your stance? Conspiracy of lies, cover up of incompetence or tricked/tested by Satan/God? Or something else/milder?

Flamed Diving

I think his stance is the Satan one.

kiffer

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I think his stance is the Satan one.

Let the man speak for himself.

AtomicHorror

kiffer wrote: »

Let the man speak for himself.

Flamed is not wildly speculating on that one kiffer- Wolfie has previously suggested that our position as evolutionists is at least partially based upon a delusion enforced by Satan or even due to our own wilful rebellion against the Word.

He'd have to say that, since there's pretty much zero motive for disingenuously pushing evolution otherwise. Even as an attack on God, it's not very comprehensive.

JoBlog

JoBlog wrote: »

James Lovelock in one of his recent books on global warming and Gaia theory recounts discussions he had with Richard Dawkins on the incompatibility of his Gaia theory with evolution. Gaia is the theory that the earth's physical systems and biological systems work together to provide an environment which tries to conditions for life. Dawkins naturally felt that this was not "the blind watchmaker" at work and Lovelock concedes that Dawkins "won" the discussions (both are aetheistic evolutionists). But Gaia is now widely accepted as fact by the scientific community, but there is no satisfactory theoretical bridge between the force of natural selection and the gaian outcome of the process. In the book, Lovelock quotes two of the UK's top scientific establishment figures saying that "we need another Newton" to figure the answer to this conundrum. But some purposeful meddling from on high would do the trick.

Just for the record:

The book I read was "the revenge of Gaia". I do not have it in my possession now so I cannot check but from memory I was a bit sloppy in the above quote: I recall that there is James Lovelock's formulation of Gaia but that there are other schools of scientific thought converging on his position but not in full agreement - these other schools are not calling their theories "Gaia". So I was incorrect to say that Gaia is now widely accepted as fact - widely maybe but certainly not yet orthodoxy.

I suspect that the two UK scientific establishment figures were responding to an emerging concensus rather than the Gaia theory or hypothesis as such. These imprecisions do not affect the argument I made. Basically top scientific establishment figures are saying that another Newton is needed to adapt Darwin's theory to the now accepted facts. I note that the meddling which seems plausible to me as an explanation seems not to be considered.

AtomicHorror

JoBlog wrote: »

Basically top scientific establishment figures are saying that another Newton is needed to adapt Darwin's theory to the now accepted facts.

This is not a popular opinion amongst evolutionary biologists. Now that does not mean that it is incorrect, but for myself I can say that I have yet to see anything within evolution that cannot be accommodated within the theory as it currently stands. The next significant changes I see to the theory are likely to be the inclusion of one of the abiogenesis models and eventually the development of a non-earth specific theory of life, assuming we can actually collect the relevant data.

JoBlog wrote: »

I note that the meddling which seems plausible to me as an explanation seems not to be considered.

Because it is firstly a very ill-defined concept, is secondly a complex addition that would require strong justification and finally is not warranted by the evidence at hand at this time.

Let's assume for a moment that the idea had utility (i.e. there was some gap in the data that it would fill). For it to be science, it must be fully naturalistic and must have implications that are testable. For us to consider it a priority over other hypotheses, it must have simplicity. There's a good reason for that, it makes little sense to pursue every notion we have simply because we like the idea. We have to think of what is most likely to be true and start testing there. See the issues?

JoBlog

AtomicHorror wrote: »

He'd have to say that, since there's pretty much zero motive for disingenuously pushing evolution otherwise. Even as an attack on God, it's not very comprehensive.

It seems to me that aetheism depends on some version of evolution being true or its untenable. Motive enough for pushing evolution? Certainly a cause for being less than objective. But that would be operating at an unconscious level - not conscious dishonesty.

(PS I do not for one second think that the evidence for deep time is anything but valid. )

Zombrex

JoBlog wrote: »

It seems to me that aetheism depends on some version of evolution being true or its untenable.

Only if the assertion holds that if evolution is false therefore God exists and made all life. Which it doesn't.

It isn't an either or situation.

JoBlog

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Because it is firstly a very ill-defined concept, is secondly a complex addition that would require strong justification and finally is not warranted by the evidence at hand at this time.

Let's assume for a moment that the idea had utility (i.e. there was some gap in the data that it would fill). For it to be science, it must be fully naturalistic and must have implications that are testable. For us to consider it a priority over other hypotheses, it must have simplicity. There's a good reason for that, it makes little sense to pursue every notion we have simply because we like the idea. We have to think of what is most likely to be true and start testing there. See the issues?

Yes I agree with all you say except that I'm not yet convinced that the difficulties with the theory are so easily explained within the theory.

AtomicHorror

JoBlog wrote: »

It seems to me that aetheism depends on some version of evolution being true or its untenable. Motive enough for pushing evolution?

Why? Most people's definition of God is not threatened by evolution at all. If that were really the motive, would we not be much more interested in presenting abiogenesis as if it were an accepted theory?

JoBlog wrote: »

Yes I agree with all you say except that I'm not yet convinced that the difficulties with the theory are so easily explained within the theory.

Well there certainly wasn't anything worrying in the golden eagle argument. Is there more that is causing you doubts?

Flamed Diving

JoBlog wrote: »

It seems to me that aetheism depends on some version of evolution being true or its untenable. Motive enough for pushing evolution? Certainly a cause for being less than objective. But that would be operating at an unconscious level - not conscious dishonesty.

(PS I do not for one second think that the evidence for deep time is anything but valid. )

I was an atheist long before I ever heard of evolution. Am I some kind of freak case? Or is it possible for someone to come to the conclusion that religion is complete and utter nonsense without science?

Of course, evolution doesn't disprove the existence of a god/s.

rockbeer

JoBlog wrote: »

It seems to me that aetheism depends on some version of evolution being true or its untenable.

So do you regard 'god' as the default position then?

Is it not possible (not likely, as all the evidence suggests that evolution is a valid theory, but possible) that evolution is false but there is some other naturalistic explanation for the development of life? Why drop god into the gap? It's like saying oh, turns out the earth isn't flat after all so it must be made from balsa wood.

Besides, as AH points out, abiogenesis would seem to be more critically damaging to god than evolution. If - as seems almost certain - life can start from inorganic matter without god than what function remains for him?

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Let's assume for a moment that the idea had utility (i.e. there was some gap in the data that it would fill). For it to be science, it must be fully naturalistic and must have implications that are testable. For us to consider it a priority over other hypotheses, it must have simplicity. There's a good reason for that, it makes little sense to pursue every notion we have simply because we like the idea. We have to think of what is most likely to be true and start testing there. See the issues?

....BUT Intelligent Design IS the MOST LIKELY hypothesis for the 'production' of the highly complex tightly specific lifeforms that we observe on Earth...in fact, it is the ONLY mathematically valid hypothesis under our current understanding of the physical sciences!!!!

...you are basically saying that SOME Atheists don't wish to even consider the most likely hypothesis for the origin of life (i.e. its design by an 'Intelligence' or 'Intelligences')... and that is fair enough... and I can understand why a committed Atheist would have personal difficulties pursuing such a course of scientific enquiry...
.....BUT it is not acceptable that these Atheists should be allowed to veto other scientists (of all religious persuasions and none) from scientifically pursuing the Intelligent Design hypothesis ... and 'going' wherever the objective physical evidence leads THEM!!!!

....could I also remind you that the scientific validation of the 'Intelligent Design' of life isn't an exclusively Young Earth Creationist issue ... because the establishment of such a scientific fact DOESN'T prove that the 'Intelligence' involved was the God of the Bible.

If the Intelligent Design of life was to be accepted by most Biologists tomorrow ... Creation Scientists would still have a very serious scientific challenge to prove that the God of the Bible was the 'Intelligence' involved.:D


.....and here are a few 'brain expanding' quotes on the subject at hand:-
Robert Jastrow (b. 1925) PhD Theoretical Physics recipient of NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement
"At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief." Until the Sun Dies (1977) pp. 62-63

"The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy ... For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." God and the Astronomers (1992) pp.106-107


Phillip Johnson (b. 1940) Professor of Law at Berkeley
"Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives. Absent that insistence, they would have to concede that their commitment to naturalism is based upon faith rather than proof. Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that faith in naturalism is no more "scientific" (i.e. empirically based) than any other kind of faith. " Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism First Things October 1990

"If some powerful conscious being exists outside the natural order, it might use its power to intervene in nature to accomplish some purpose, such as the production of beings having consciousness and free will. If the possibility of an "outside" intervention is allowed in nature at any point, however, the whole naturalistic worldview quickly unravels.

Occasionally, a scientist discouraged by the consistent failure of theories purporting to explain some problem like the first appearance of life will suggest that perhaps supernatural creation is a tenable hypothesis in this one instance. Sophisticated naturalists instantly recoil with horror, because they know that there is no way to tell God when he has to stop. If God created the first organism, then how do we know he didn't do the same thing to produce all those animal groups that appear so suddenly in the Cambrian rocks? Given the existence of a designer ready and willing to do the work, why should we suppose that random mutations and natural selection are responsible for such marvels of engineering as the eye and the wing? " Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism First Things October 1990

Flamed Diving

J C wrote: »

....BUT Intelligent Design IS the MOST LIKELY hypothesis for the 'production' of the highly complex tightly specific lifeforms that we observe on Earth...in fact, it is the ONLY mathematically valid hypothesis under our current understanding of the physical sciences!!!!

Wow!! With all those exclamation marks, it must be true! Please provide the mathematical proof you refer to. I'm very intrigued!

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqXMRzkq37g

Help support the cause at:

http://www.youtube.com/dmcaabuse

J C

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Wow!! With all those exclamation marks, it must be true! Please provide the mathematical proof you refer to. I'm very intrigued!

....done it several times already.....but here it is again!!

.....the probability of non-intelligently directed systems producing the SPECIFIC amino acid sequence for a SPECIFIC functional protein of a chain length of just 100 amino acids is 10^^130 to one against it occurring...and this is a number vastly greater than the number of electrons in the 'Big Bang' Universe (10^^80)!!!!

....if the sequence for a specific functional protein cannot be produced fairly readily by non-intelligently directed chemistry then the production of anything approaching a living cell spontaneously is TOTALLY impossible!!!:pac::):D

...so Intelligent Design IS the MOST LIKELY hypothesis for the 'production' of the highly complex tightly specific lifeforms that we observe on Earth...
.....in fact, it is the ONLY mathematically valid hypothesis under our current understanding of the physical sciences!!!!:D


.....HAPPY NEW YEAR guys!!!:D