Evolution vs. Intelligent Design/Creationism

[WALMART]

:beathorse :

THERE we go!

 

[Werewolfen]

I disagree with him, but I think Chris Langan has a unique belief unlike any other that I've ever read or heard about. I've watched a few of the videos on youtube of him being interviewed. One video he says God created evolution and I thought if that's not a paradox then I don't know what is.

Even though I disagree with him I still think he's entertaining.

Anyone ever read his Cognitive Theoretical Model of the Universe >

http://www.ctmu.org/

http://www.megainternational.org/

I'd like to see Chris Langan and Hugh Ross get into a long winded debate. That would be entertaining and interesting and most probably would be long and drawn out. I would agree more with Hugh Ross than Chris Langan.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I disagree with him, but I think Chris Langan has a unique belief unlike any other that I've ever read or heard about. I've watched a few of the videos on youtube of him being interviewed. One video he says God created evolution and I thought if that's not a paradox then I don't know what is.

I don't understand how that's a paradox. To hold that view would require a definition of God as a micromanager. Why can't a God have seeded the planet with life and designed the evolutionary process into his creation? Humans have created AI that learns and gets smarter, I don't see why a God couldn't do the same. I don't think you need to accept the dichotomy of either God-free evolution or the instantaneous creation of fully-evolved humans. Sprinkles is right - evolution and creationism aren't logically incongruent. It's only the dogmatism on both sides of this debate that force it to be so.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=4451]Werewolfen[/MENTION]

I haven't seen his material but that doesn't really strike me as a paradox.

If there is a god that made everything it would be sensible that god made evolution as well. If you've ever 'played' Conway's Game of Life you can kind of see how chains of events can possibly unfold leading to various stages of automata. It's quite possible that a random blob turns into a whole galaxy, and there's a probability of getting a highly complex life form that even duplicates itself or generates other stuff, but it's much easier and more impressive to knowingly draw a shape and watch it progress into something amazing.

 

[Ginkgo]

I don't understand how that's a paradox. To hold that view would require a definition of God as a micromanager. Why can't a God have seeded the planet with life and designed the evolutionary process into his creation? Humans have created AI that learns and gets smarter, I don't see why a God couldn't do the same. I don't think you need to accept the dichotomy of either God-free evolution or the instantaneous creation of fully-evolved humans. Sprinkles is right - evolution and creationism aren't logically incongruent. It's only the dogmatism on both sides of this debate that force it to be so.

Agreed. IMO God is the uncaused cause and everything from then on followed, including the big bang. Or, perhaps if time is irrelevant then God is giving rise to all things simultaneously. Macromanaging, and therefore micromanaging. I think it's necessary that a person with intellectual integrity accepts at least one paradox as true. Our theories are never going going to add up perfectly, but in this there is perfection in our ability to investigate on assumptions. If our assumptions are found to be wrong, we can always apologize later... To assume we are forgiven.

 

[Werewolfen]

It's beyond my understanding to understand. I just don't have the brainpower.

 

[Ginkgo]

[MENTION=4451]Werewolfen[/MENTION]

I haven't seen his material but that doesn't really strike me as a paradox.

If there is a god that made everything it would be sensible that god made evolution as well. If you've ever 'played' Conway's Game of Life you can kind of see how chains of events can possibly unfold leading to various stages of automata. It's quite possible that a random blob turns into a whole galaxy, and there's a probability of getting a highly complex life form that even duplicates itself or generates other stuff, but it's much easier and more impressive to knowingly draw a shape and watch it progress into something amazing.

 

[Werewolfen]

I'm going to need a lot of time to process this.

 

[Little_Sticks]

I don't understand how that's a paradox. To hold that view would require a definition of God as a micromanager. Why can't a God have seeded the planet with life and designed the evolutionary process into his creation? Humans have created AI that learns and gets smarter, I don't see why a God couldn't do the same. I don't think you need to accept the dichotomy of either God-free evolution or the instantaneous creation of fully-evolved humans. Sprinkles is right - evolution and creationism aren't logically incongruent. It's only the dogmatism on both sides of this debate that force it to be so.

Because it doesn't really answer anything: Begging The Question

If God is a micromanager, he exists in another plane of existence just like we do and has the same question of who micromanages him. The only difference is you're suggesting he's our creator, but technically our creator is the one that created him, which never sufficiently answers anything, because there is always someone who created someone infinitely (not that the concept of infinity is flawed, but the reasoning of infinity here is circular as well). There are better explanations that avoid these fallacies.

 

[Society]

I don't understand how that's a paradox. To hold that view would require a definition of God as a micromanager. Why can't a God have seeded the planet with life and designed the evolutionary process into his creation? Humans have created AI that learns and gets smarter, I don't see why a God couldn't do the same. I don't think you need to accept the dichotomy of either God-free evolution or the instantaneous creation of fully-evolved humans. Sprinkles is right - evolution and creationism aren't logically incongruent. It's only the dogmatism on both sides of this debate that force it to be so.

while at face value i agree that it's a false dichotomy, i don't think you appreciated the degree to which this devalues creationism:
unlike agnostics, for which the mere possibility of god coinciding with current scientific paradigms might suffice, for creationism there is a deep seeded belief that in order to explain the splendor, diversity, complexity and seeming order emerging out of the chaos, which defines life as we know it, as well as it's very existence, god is not merely a side dish, but a major requirement, that a miracle is required to explain all of this.

evolution comes in, the miracle is pushed to the laws of nature
DNA chemistry comes in, the miracle is pushed to biogenesis
the RNA world comes in, the miracle is pushed to the still mysterious emergent of cellular membranes
eventually that will probably be recreated in a lab as well... the miracle would be pushed to the primordial soup.
solar system evolution is already starting to comes in into planetary levels, and the miracle is pushed to the big bang.
now out of quantum physics, the multiverse is testing the waters, which means that the required universe to support life conditions isn't a miracle, it's just an unavoidable result of every physically possible universe existing, and we just happens to be in one of those things with life in them, because where else could we emerge in the first place?

god can coincide on an agnostic level, as a possibility, but the deeper and more through the understanding goes, the less he seems to be needed.

i think believers are NOT a bunch of idiots incapable of healthy self doubt and reason, they include the same vast diversity of levels of intelligence as the rest of the human species, do in fact ask themselves why they believe... and natural science, well, its stripping them of their best answers, and quite a few of the older generations might fear for their children's faith. this might seem irrelevant to an agnostic PoV, after all they should accept their children no matter what, right? but if for a moment you consider a religious parent's PoV, a belief that your children will actually suffer and experience an infinity of torment for not believing, would you want to save your child from that at all cost? for those and probably many other reasons, scientific theories devaluing the role of the miracle pose both a personal and a sociological threat.

it is ironic, that simply believing you believe because it depicts the universe in a more meaningful way to you, is in itself not a very meaningful enough belief for most.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Because it doesn't really answer anything: Begging The Question

If God is a micromanager, he exists in another plane of existence just like we do and has the same question of who micromanages him. The only difference is you're suggesting he's our creator, but technically our creator is the one that created him, which never sufficiently answers anything, because there is always someone who created someone infinitely (not that the concept of infinity is flawed, but the reasoning of infinity here is circular as well). There are better explanations that avoid these fallacies.

That's all well and good, but unless I'm misunderstanding your point, I think you thought I was arguing on a larger scale than I was. I wasn't advocating a specific belief about how we all got here. I was simply trying to demonstrate that there is space to hold a logically consistent worldview that includes both a creator God and evolution. Yes, that is going to necessarily assume the existence of God, but for rhetorical purposes only.

 

[Kaizer]

came across this yesterday : The nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin

 

[DoubleHelix]

I really hope that those of you on the fence will take this post seriously. There is a lot of misinformation out there. Hell, there is a lot of misinformation in here. I was going to correct some people - I had quotes and refutations set up. It's a waste of time. Who cares if you know the details if you are unaware of the central principles? They will do you no good - and you have no tools by which you can judge their truth.

I will tell you two hopefully interesting bits of evidence, so at least you will know with certainty that the evidence is out there - after you independently verify what I am about to say. Afterward, I will propose an unusual challenge that should be helpful to some of you.

1) The contiguous relationship between layers of rock are uniform. Furthermore, they are easy to identify. Long before we thought up how to date rocks radiometrically, we still knew their order. No fossils - let this sink in - NO fossils have been found out of place in the rocks. This is not a "usually," or "statistically likely" occurrence. No fossils of animals that are too highly evolved for the age of the rock layer that they were found in have been located. People are digging every day, in many countries. Really, let the gravity that this one (out of so many) line of evidence holds. Imagine the statistical improbability, out of so many fossils from so many layers. If you hear otherwise, check your source very carefully.

2) In America, up through Canada, the age of marsupials are found in a gradient. They are as old as ~80 million years in the far north, but as young as 50 - 40 million years at the lower tip of South America. In Australia, on the other side of the world, where marsupials are still found today, the fossils are comparably young. Actually, they are 30 million years and younger.

What? How could this happen? The marsupials migrate south through the Americas, spend ten million lost years crossing an ocean, and then wind up in Australia?

The problem was predicted to be solved through the use of another, also well verified theory called "Plate Tectonics," which describes for one the movement of bodies of land, and why the Americas and eastern land such as Africa fit together like puzzle pieces. Plate tectonics strongly suggests that between 40 and 30 million years ago, South America and Australia were connected by Antarctica, which was further north at the time, and thus habitable (not so cold) to a menagerie of animals. This would include marsupials.
Running with this hypothesis, some visited the northern coast of Antarctica digging for marsupials that fit the bill. They found no less than seven species, all dating from 40 - 30 million years, even though Antarctica is far too cold for marsupial life. Verify this yourself.

And now the challenge: Don't take this question as an attack of any kind. Just look at your life and answer it. For those of you who are either on the fence about whether evolution occurred or even think that it did not - have you ever read one, single book on it that was written by an author (a scientist) who held a view totally opposed to your own? If not, you risk looking foolish by opening your mouth even once.

Remember, this is science. Would you express a dissenting opinion about nuclear fission - or about DNA replication - or about entropy - or about the human digestive process - or about the neuroscience of cognition - without once reading at an absolute minimum, ONE book on the subject written by an eminent researcher in the field? These subjects don't hit so close to home with some people the way evolution does, so they don't express opinions that make people think that they might have done the adequate research. Don't believe one side or the other unless you know them both. That's the only rational and intelligent way to form an opinion.

For those of you who are not sciencey, Here are three book recommendations written for the layperson. They tell you what's up and give you sources so you can verify those things that seem questionable to you on your own. Here they are, in the order of simplicity and efficacy for informing the uninitiated. If you have an opinion, I highly recommend you read at least one of these books, especially one of the first two, since they are dedicated to evidence. The third is dedicated to the process of natural selection, dispelling myths, and really telling you all you need to know to have an intelligent conversation about natural selection.

1) Why Evolution is True - Jerry Coyne

2) The Greatest Show on Earth - Richard Dawkins (you may not think he's a likable guy, but he has done great things for science)

3) The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins - this is a book from '76 or '73. It was translated into many languages and put him on the map.

For primary sources on Creationism and Intelligent Design, read Genesis I and II, and Darwin's Black Box.

Ok, thanks for hearing me out. I really hope you accept this advice with an open mind and a hunger for knowledge.

 

[Little_Sticks]

That's all well and good, but unless I'm misunderstanding your point, I think you thought I was arguing on a larger scale than I was. I wasn't advocating a specific belief about how we all got here. I was simply trying to demonstrate that there is space to hold a logically consistent worldview that includes both a creator God and evolution. Yes, that is going to necessarily assume the existence of God, but for rhetorical purposes only.

I wasn't really assuming that. I just don't understand why people are willing to stop at half-truths and wanted to criticize what's missing from it (because that's how I think). Because if there's more that needs to be understood, then what do the rhetorical purposes really matter for (other than trying to shut up the highly ignorant) for someone who wants to understand all that's missing? Doesn't what's missing make you curious?

 

[ilikeitlikethat]

As a Brit, I'm reminded of this guy everytime I hold a £10 note.

 

[Totenkindly]

I don't understand how that's a paradox. To hold that view would require a definition of God as a micromanager. Why can't a God have seeded the planet with life and designed the evolutionary process into his creation? Humans have created AI that learns and gets smarter, I don't see why a God couldn't do the same. I don't think you need to accept the dichotomy of either God-free evolution or the instantaneous creation of fully-evolved humans. Sprinkles is right - evolution and creationism aren't logically incongruent. It's only the dogmatism on both sides of this debate that force it to be so.

I don't see an issue with this from a theoretical standpoint; it more just becomes a matter of Occam's Razor and over-explaining. If evolution as a process can be self-spawning, then deity would just be a tagalong kept in the picture more for the convenience of the believer than because deity is a necessary part of the equation, and usually the goal is to condense the equation down to its simplest form.

 

[Mole]

Darwin

As a Brit, I'm reminded of this guy everytime I hold a £10 note.

As an Aussie, I'm reminded of this guy everytime I visit the Capital of the Northern Territory of Australia, called Darwin.

The Capital City of Darwin sticks up like an enlightened finger tickling the soft underbelly of Asia.

 

[Mole]

I like Intelligent Design because the world does appear designed, just as the Sun appears to go round the Earth.

 

[sprinkles]

I don't see an issue with this from a theoretical standpoint; it more just becomes a matter of Occam's Razor and over-explaining. If evolution as a process can be self-spawning, then deity would just be a tagalong kept in the picture more for the convenience of the believer than because deity is a necessary part of the equation, and usually the goal is to condense the equation down to its simplest form.

That's a problem if a deity of some kind actually does exist though.

It's kinda like how in Minecraft, if you live in a desert for a long time, you will notice that the cacti there strangely multiply for no apparent reason. Some days there's just a new cactus where it wasn't there before.

This isn't supposed to happen - it's not in the game code, cacti only grow vertically and do not spread. There's also no need for cacti to spread, since if you want more to grow you can plant some yourself.

Well, how do the cacti spread? Endermen. Endermen like to pick up blocks and walk around with them for no reason. Eventually an enderman will pick up a cactus, walk around with it, and there's a probability that it will place it down again on sand, which grows a new cactus.

Why? Just because it does. It isn't necessary, and endermen didn't always exist until recently anyway. It seems pointless and redundant, but yet it does happen as perhaps an unintended side effect of enderman behavior.

 

[Totenkindly]

That's a problem if a deity of some kind actually does exist though.

"It's a problem going with the odds if the odds happen to be wrong."

Well, yeah. Of course.

I could say believing in gravity in every circumstance is a problem if gravity is not always correct. But it seems like a good bet it is; it's observable and explains the behavior of objects adequately. [In your example, endermen are also part of the system, not some violation of the system.]

The "But what if it's not???" argument doesn't have much weight. That kind of rationale is not substantial enough to make people change how they bet or how they play the stock market or how they invest their energy/time/money. They still believe and invest in ways that they think will be most correct / have the best payoff.

Minecraft is also different because you know it was created by human beings who are still changing the source code. You already know all the information, you're not being forced to figure out what is true without being able to see into the black box. In the example you describe, it comes down to (1) Is there some mysterious figure who is writing and changing reality around me or (2) are there rules of the reality that I yet don't understand but that I possibly can if I keep on studying it, since so many things in the past that seemed indecipherable are now understandable and even replicable through careful-enough study?

Big problem with ID is that it's not replicable, and it shuts down exploration by its nature; it just makes up answers to questions rather than actually trying to find the real answers if they exist.