Evolution discussion

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10923
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Contact:

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by dualstow » Mon Aug 18, 2014 7:03 am

Mountaineer wrote: It seems to me the answer "God did it" is a valid hypothesis that unbelievers should not rule out until they can  prove that God had no part in it (however one wishes to define "it").
The existence of God cannot be disproven, and therefore can never be a part of science.
- Karl Popper
forcemeat, ie stuffing, is etymologically related to ‘farce’. When you say something is a farce, a joke, you’re saying something is a bunch of stuffing.
tennpaga
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 3126
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:44 pm

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by tennpaga » Mon Aug 18, 2014 7:13 am

At some point, I realized that so much of the discussion about evolution among the masses (i.e. people like me, and probably most of us here) is some sort of dog whistle for identifying political viewpoints.  So, for the most part, I don't really pay attention.

That said, I *don't* think that is what is going on in this thread.

I do sympathize with the two points moda mentions:
moda0306 wrote: how people look to God when they can't figure something out. And why it's so harmful. And he's right.

frustration with when religion tries to silence scientific truth. His has happened so many times in history that it's not even funny. 
That is, people being prohibited from or persecuted for investigating things by religion is wrong, IMO, and detrimental to the human species.  That said, I don't see any of that happening today, at least in the U.S.

And while I personally accept the evidence for evolution, I don't have an issue people who don't.  And this is mainly because I don't really see how it matters in the bigger scheme of things.
* Gresham's Law: Bad behavior drives out good.
* Gresham's corollary: Avoid participating in systems where good behavior cannot win.

https://fs.blog/2009/12/mental-model-greshams-law/
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4144
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Mountaineer » Mon Aug 18, 2014 7:27 am

dualstow wrote:
Mountaineer wrote: It seems to me the answer "God did it" is a valid hypothesis that unbelievers should not rule out until they can  prove that God had no part in it (however one wishes to define "it").
The existence of God cannot be disproven, and therefore can never be a part of science.
- Karl Popper
OK if you wish to believe that.  But I still don't understand how that makes it "right" to rule out "God did it" as an alternative to evolution.

But, I must give my view:  God will always be a part of science since He created man and our ability to understand our surroundings via science.  Science is a wonderful, useful gift from God.  But worshiping science or making it ones religion should never replace worshiping the Creator.  If we define the word "god" as whatever or whomever we trust for our identity, security, or meaning in life, then all of us have a god!  The question becomes, "How's your 'god' working for you in the 21st century?"

... Mountaineer
I marvel at the creation - its beauty, its endurance, its complexity. I marvel that man can make complex things but is incapable of making even the simplest living organism - a blade of grass, a tree, an ant, an amoeba.
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4026
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by pugchief » Mon Aug 18, 2014 7:48 am

Desert wrote: 4.  Evolution was birthed by man's need to explain the wonder of ourselves and our surroundings in the absence of a designer.  It's the foundation of humanistic, materialistic thought.  There is a lot riding on it, and the huge secular "science" industry will do anything to support it and defend it, even in the face of huge problems or holes in the evidence.  But they must support it, because if it dies, there isn't much to take its place: we're then down to aliens or God.
And you don't think the biblical story of creation was birthed by early man's need to explain something they couldn't understand? At least the theory of evolution tries to show the path from which the conclusion is derived. Creationism simply makes a statement and expects one to believe it without any other proof or logic than faith.
"Congressmen should wear uniforms, you know, like NASCAR drivers, so we could identify their corporate sponsors."
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10923
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Contact:

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by dualstow » Mon Aug 18, 2014 7:53 am

I don't want to derail from evolution, but briefly:
Mountaineer wrote: OK if you wish to believe that.  But I still don't understand how that makes it "right" to rule out "God did it" as an alternative to evolution.
Think of it this way: if you have to rule out everything proposed that cannot be disproven, there are an infinite number of ideas that cannot be ruled out. Maybe Satan created the universe and the God in the Hebrew Bible is the bad guy, and a pretender. Maybe Kim Kardashian created the universe... Maybe it's a big test and only those who offer their allegiance to the biblical God will be punished.
But, I must give my view:  ... But worshiping science or making it ones religion should never replace worshiping the Creator.
That comparison is often made, but science includes replacing old conclusions with new ones in light of new evidence. Therefore, conclusions drawn from science can't be said to be "worshipped."  Evolution, Darwinism, survival of the fittest and nature in general can appear to be pretty cold and cruel sometimes. Somehow, though, unbelievers still find their way to morality.
forcemeat, ie stuffing, is etymologically related to ‘farce’. When you say something is a farce, a joke, you’re saying something is a bunch of stuffing.
User avatar
Desert
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3233
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:39 pm

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Desert » Mon Aug 18, 2014 8:24 am

moda0306 wrote: Why don't we leave behind Tyson, as he's obviously long on stories and his controversial "perspective," and short on objective deductive analysis.

I think one of the more useful areas will be focusing on irreducible complexity, which a HUGE portion of the intelligent design communities argument rests upon.  I think this is going to be a huge area of debate.  Should be interesting.
I agree moda.  I was too harsh last night, obviously.  I'll come back for more calm discussions tonight!  :)
Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at something that doesn't really matter. 
- D.L. Moody

Diversification means always having to say you're sorry.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4144
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Mountaineer » Mon Aug 18, 2014 8:59 am

dualstow wrote: I don't want to derail from evolution, but briefly:
Mountaineer wrote: OK if you wish to believe that.  But I still don't understand how that makes it "right" to rule out "God did it" as an alternative to evolution.
Think of it this way: if you have to rule out everything proposed that cannot be disproven, there are an infinite number of ideas that cannot be ruled out. Maybe Satan created the universe and the God in the Hebrew Bible is the bad guy, and a pretender. Maybe Kim Kardashian created the universe... Maybe it's a big test and only those who offer their allegiance to the biblical God will be punished.
But, I must give my view:  ... But worshiping science or making it ones religion should never replace worshiping the Creator.
That comparison is often made, but science includes replacing old conclusions with new ones in light of new evidence. Therefore, conclusions drawn from science can't be said to be "worshipped."  Evolution, Darwinism, survival of the fittest and nature in general can appear to be pretty cold and cruel sometimes. Somehow, though, unbelievers still find their way to morality.
Re. point one.  There are literally thousands of manuscripts that deal with Judaism and Christianity with more being discovered all the time, including non-Biblical sources that substantiate Jesus.  I have not run across (m)any authorative texts that have evidence that Kim Kardashian created much of anything of value ... ditto Satan.  As you say though ...... maybe; we shall see on the Last Day.  :)

Re. point two.  Thanks be to God for giving mankind a conscience so we can all struggle our way to "find" morality.  I agree there is much overlap between God's moral law that is described in the Christian Bible and the teachings of other cultures.  That is another case for the Creator.

... Mountaineer
I marvel at the creation - its beauty, its endurance, its complexity. I marvel that man can make complex things but is incapable of making even the simplest living organism - a blade of grass, a tree, an ant, an amoeba.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10923
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Contact:

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by dualstow » Mon Aug 18, 2014 9:14 am

Ah, you're taking a page from my grandmother's book. She used to say, "If it weren't true, they wouldn't print it!"  ;)
forcemeat, ie stuffing, is etymologically related to ‘farce’. When you say something is a farce, a joke, you’re saying something is a bunch of stuffing.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4144
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Mountaineer » Mon Aug 18, 2014 11:38 am

Here is a question for the evolution supporters:  Is this the next "natural" step in human evolution?  Why or why not and/or any other thoughts you have on the subject? 

My perspective is this is just one example in a very long string of examples on how "cursed" mankind is after the incident in the Garden of Eden and how thankful I am to have a way out of this world's messes to a new perfect creation of eternal joy and peace.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/ ... more-19636

... Mountaineer
I marvel at the creation - its beauty, its endurance, its complexity. I marvel that man can make complex things but is incapable of making even the simplest living organism - a blade of grass, a tree, an ant, an amoeba.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7619
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by moda0306 » Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:02 pm

Mountaineer wrote: Here is a question for the evolution supporters:  Is this the next "natural" step in human evolution?  Why or why not and/or any other thoughts you have on the subject? 

My perspective is this is just one example in a very long string of examples on how "cursed" mankind is after the incident in the Garden of Eden and how thankful I am to have a way out of this world's messes to a new perfect creation of eternal joy and peace.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/ ... more-19636

... Mountaineer
No, that is not the next step in human evolution. IMO, of course. I don't know why anyone would think so, though.


And you mean eternal joy and peace to those who accept Jesus as their savior with little evidence that he is... While the rest of us suffer internal damnation... Right? :)
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
iwealth
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:45 pm

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by iwealth » Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:22 pm

Mountaineer wrote:... how thankful I am to have a way out of this world's messes to a new perfect creation of eternal joy and peace.
Did this desire influence your decision to believe in (a) God? Or did your belief in (a) God come first?
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7619
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by moda0306 » Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:33 pm

Desert wrote:
moda0306 wrote: Why don't we leave behind Tyson, as he's obviously long on stories and his controversial "perspective," and short on objective deductive analysis.

I think one of the more useful areas will be focusing on irreducible complexity, which a HUGE portion of the intelligent design communities argument rests upon.  I think this is going to be a huge area of debate.  Should be interesting.
I agree moda.  I was too harsh last night, obviously.  I'll come back for more calm discussions tonight!  :)
But seriously... if you've seen Neil's less politically charged stuff, I don't see how you can't love the guy.  He just friggin' loves science and discovery, and explaining it to folks... which, yes, means he has to be somewhat affable and (gasp) entertaining in his delivery.  If he's simply an "entertainer," though, worthy of nothing more than an MSNBC slot, than I shudder at what we should call most religious "leaders" :).

If you get a chance to watch any of his stuff on Netflix (Cosmos & some other documentary series), he's one interesting dude.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
Post Reply