[_ Old Earth _] Evolution / Creation / Intelligent design

[stovebolts]

While I am not up on "Evolution" I am also not up on "Intelligent design" so I'll say right up front I can't hold a debate on the matter, nor would I want to.

However, I've read many debates not only this forum, but on other forums as well concerning "Creation" vs. Evolution and one thing I see that is consistent between the two, is that both try to explain the "How".

It seems to me that the Atheist has a desire to 'know' how the world around them is arranged, how it functions and I'm willing to bet that their is much in common between the athiest and the jew, the hindu the christian (and whoever else you want to throw in there) when as children, we looked into the sky at night with great awe and wonder.

The argument over how the universe was created is not a new argument, but it is asking new questions driven by technological advances and as such, I would argue that 1 and 2 Genesis was an apologetic, as well as a theological response to the questions of that time period. As an apologetic response, the creation account has won the debate over polytheism but as scientific theories speculate that all this was just one big accident, then I don't see much hope within that perspective as it appears to me void of awe and wonder, but rather consists of data bytes that are manipulated, arranged used and when found obsolete or incorrect, are thrown to the wayside. As such, our existence, our purpose must run along that same line as we too are thrown to the wayside upon our death void of purpose, void of existence.

So, to the athiest I would ask, does your hope lie in science which relies on your own understanding, or do you see something bigger beyond being able to wrap your head around? In other words, do you still have that awe? Do you still have that wonder when you look into the cosmos and intrinsically know that there is something out there so much bigger than yourself?

What our creation account attests to, is that when the cosmos was created, it was created orderly while attesting that not only is there something out there bigger than ourselves, but we are actually a part of that largeness.

 

[Barbarian]

I would suggest you learn what science has to say about the world in which we live. One good source, written by a devout Christian, would be "Finding Darwin's God", by Kenneth Miller.

Suffice to say, science doesn't say it was all one big accident.

 

[stovebolts]

That's interesting Barbarian... In a nutshell, what does Science say is behind the cosmos. I mean, what holds it all together? As far as I've read, one theory trys to explain the cosmos with a big bang. However, similar to trying to explain where God came from, the big bang theory doesn't explain where pre-bang came from either

 

[Barbarian]

That's interesting Barbarian... In a nutshell, what does Science say is behind the cosmos. I mean, what holds it all together?

Doesn't say. Science can only work on nature. What's beyond nature, is beyond the reach of science.

As far as I've read, one theory trys to explain the cosmos with a big bang.

We're almost certain that there was a huge expansion at "the beginning." (not a bang, actually) But what did that, science has no way of saying. That's not what it's for.

 

[logical bob]

the big bang theory doesn't explain where pre-bang came from either

Time, like space, is a property of the universe which started with the big bang. There was no pre-bang.

 

[logical bob]

In the OP you seem to equate awe and wonder with purpose and meaning, so to you the atheist view of creation seems lacking in awe because it doesn't involve a higher purpose. I don't see the connection here. The universe is certainly awe-inspiring, and the more we learn about how it works the more awe-inspiring I think it becomes. Can you really say that you only find the world around you impressive because you believe it's part of a plan? Doesn't it inspire awe just for what it is, irrespective of how you think it came about?

 

[TanNinety]

the big bang theory doesn't explain where pre-bang came from

True, because to explain pre-bang it takes a different theory. Evolution theory can be true without having to explain origin of life itself. To explain origin of life it takes another theory like abiogenesis.
To make my analogy more relevant, think of explaining the origin of our current universe as being created by God without having to explain pre-God. To explain pre-God it would take another theory. Just as you don’t have to define pre-God to understand that God created universe, Bigbang doesn’t have to define pre-bang to understand how universe came to be the way it is today.

There was no pre-bang

While this might be true superficially from human perspective of time, pre-bang has been speculated I would think through ekpyrotic universe model, mathematical universe hypothesis, multiverse and so on. Though these models can be hard to test for currently, I don’t think science quite allows us to say ‘there was no pre-bang’ without falsifying these speculations and taking them off the table.

The universe is certainly awe-inspiring, and the more we learn about how it works the more awe-inspiring I think it becomes.

I will speculate here about what StoveBolts means and correct me if I am wrong SB.

Let’s say we can explain away accurately through neuroscience the feeling of awe in a few chemical reactions in the brain. ‘Awe’ can now be bottled up in pills and sold to activate these reactions in the brain. How does this affect the reality to an atheist? Do we perceive the awe when we learn more about the universe the same as the awe we experience looking at the dot on the wall by taking these ‘awe’ pills? What would differentiate this ‘awe’? Is there a bigger picture than laws and reactions and nature that an atheist uses to differentiate this ‘awe’?

That is what I gathered from StoveBolts' question.

 

[stovebolts]

In the OP you seem to equate awe and wonder with purpose and meaning, so to you the atheist view of creation seems lacking in awe because it doesn't involve a higher purpose. I don't see the connection here. The universe is certainly awe-inspiring, and the more we learn about how it works the more awe-inspiring I think it becomes. Can you really say that you only find the world around you impressive because you believe it's part of a plan? Doesn't it inspire awe just for what it is, irrespective of how you think it came about?

Hi Bob,
Actually, I think that by nature, regardless of religion etc, we all get that awe inspiring feeling when we view the cosmos. If you read carefully, that is why I said, " do you still have that awe?"

TanNinety,
I wish I was that much of a thinker
Simply put, the more we learn about the cosmos, does it really put into perspective how little we really know and instead of trying to "Prove" this or that or having to have it all 'nailed down', can't we just be in awe for the things we're going to learn, or that our children, or our childrens children will learn and it will be driven off awe and wonder, not a debate.

 

[kpd560]

However, I've read many debates not only this forum, but on other forums as well concerning "Creation" vs. Evolution and one thing I see that is consistent between the two, is that both try to explain the "How".

Sorry but I have to disagree. Evolution and Creation have almost nothing in common. Evolution is a scientific theory of how. Creation is an assertion of who. As a theory, evolution is constantly being questioned on it's details to see how well it fits to all the evidence we continue to acquire. If creation had a theory of "how", we could do the same with it. It would be great if the Discovery Institute (or anyone) could come up with a theory of how for creationism. Then we'd actually have something to debate.
:ohwell

 

[coelacanth]

Regarding the OP, I'd like to throw out a piece by the late Carl Sagan, who said:

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."


And here is just a taste of the awe he experienced and the perspective gained by examination of the universe:
[youtube:2nz8l5qy]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g[/youtube:2nz8l5qy]

 

[logical bob]

I thought of this thread after I saw a documentary on the solar system the other night. Apparently stars can only form in areas of space that are particularly cold. This is because stars form when the hydrogen atoms that are thinly spread through space clump together. Gravity attracts all objects to each other and it gathers the hydrogen in. The bigger the clump gets, the more gravity pulls other atoms towards it and the faster it grows. When it reaches a critical size, nuclear fusion starts and it begins to burn.

Temperature is involved because at the start of the process only atoms which are moving slowly can be drawn together. Quick moving ones escape. At the atomic level, temperature is a measure of how fast things are moving. So the process only gets started when it's cold.

So stars can only begin in places that are especially cold. I think that's an amazing fact. Who says creation without God lacks wonder?

 

[freeway]

Seems pretty quite in the Science forum. I've read this post over several times. All I can say is of the big three in the OP. I myself will go with "creation" by a loving God.. for his glory " thus the heaven declare His glory." As for evolution, I just can't get it.. ID= if someone "IDer" came here or whatever the story might be, then who IDed the IDer?... other than God...

 

[truthlover]

A colleague of mine, back in the sixties posted this on his door:

THE ORIGIN OF SPECIOUS BY THE SELECTION OF NATURAL MEANS.

It took decades of study of the scientific method, but I finally got it. Darwin had a lot of evidence for artificial selection, and none for natural selection. So to present the latter in his book, and not the former, he broke both the rule of induction, and Occham's razor. The book should have been titled, THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF ARTIFICIAL SELECTION, and if written today would add, AND GENETIC ENGINEERING.

William James, writing just forty years later, summarized current thinking about "scientific theology," clearly indicating that incorporating "supernatural" or "higher" beings into the cosmos, beings who might be responsible for artificially selecting to produce biological diversity , was appropriate science.

If it had been done that way, the theory might be called "evolition" preserving the idea that the forms that we see were chosen from a will, volition, not emerging from a cycle, a volution.

This would have focused attention on the time problem, and the problem of how to read the scriptures. A number of prophetic sorts, asking God about what actuallt happened "In the beginning" believed that that they heard support for the gap theory. This says that there was a lengthy time of original creation, perhaps God working through artificial selection and genetic engineering, followed by angelic rebellion and destruction, and then, 6000 years ago, a rapid healing, with the creation and appointing of new authorities, human souls.

Two points: God's ways, and the importance of a prophetic approach. He appears in these thoughts as Someone who likes to build slowly, and someone who wants to be included in the discussion. Patience and hearing.

 

[Physicist]

A colleague of mine, back in the sixties posted this on his door:

THE ORIGIN OF SPECIOUS BY THE SELECTION OF NATURAL MEANS.

It took decades of study of the scientific method, but I finally got it. Darwin had a lot of evidence for artificial selection, and none for natural selection. So to present the latter in his book, and not the former, he broke both the rule of induction, and Occham's razor. The book should have been titled, THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF ARTIFICIAL SELECTION, and if written today would add, AND GENETIC ENGINEERING.

William James, writing just forty years later, summarized current thinking about "scientific theology," clearly indicating that incorporating "supernatural" or "higher" beings into the cosmos, beings who might be responsible for artificially selecting to produce biological diversity , was appropriate science.

If it had been done that way, the theory might be called "evolition" preserving the idea that the forms that we see were chosen from a will, volition, not emerging from a cycle, a volution.

This would have focused attention on the time problem, and the problem of how to read the scriptures. A number of prophetic sorts, asking God about what actuallt happened "In the beginning" believed that that they heard support for the gap theory. This says that there was a lengthy time of original creation, perhaps God working through artificial selection and genetic engineering, followed by angelic rebellion and destruction, and then, 6000 years ago, a rapid healing, with the creation and appointing of new authorities, human souls.

Two points: God's ways, and the importance of a prophetic approach. He appears in these thoughts as Someone who likes to build slowly, and someone who wants to be included in the discussion. Patience and hearing.

Not sure I quite understand your post. Darwin did indeed show evolution by natural selection in the finches of the Galapagos Islands. Of course, much better evidence exists to support natural selection in the 150 years since he proposed his theory. However, radioactive dating, cosmological studies and geological science rule out a young earth as a legitimate scientific hypothesis. To accept YEC, one must essentially reject modern science. Of course, millions of Christians are able to reconcile their beliefs with science by simply interpreting Genesis figuratively.

 

[Barbarian]

At the beginning of the Christian era, St. Augustine demonstrated that a literal Genesis could not be reconciled with Christian belief. Christians don't have to do anything but be true to their faith to realize that YE creationism is not true.

 

[logical bob]

Hi Barbarian. I'd be really interested if you could say a bit more about that. From a skeptic's point of view it always seemed to me that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were different stories, and that rather than go through the mental gymnastics involved in trying to reconcile them we should accept that the final redactor, because he included both, wasn't hung up on the literal truth of either. It would be great to hear your thoughts from a Christian point of view. Thanks.

 

[Ed the Ned]

At the beginning of the Christian era, St. Augustine demonstrated that a literal Genesis could not be reconciled with Christian belief. Christians don't have to do anything but be true to their faith to realize that YE creationism is not true.

- Barbarian

I know many Christians have different viepoints regarding creation and Genesis. One question I would like to know is as a Christian where do you take the Bible as being History from? Do you accept the flood as a reality? Did moses even exist? Did he part the red sea? Was Abraham an actual man? Where in your opininion did it all start? You made a very blatant comment that if Christians were true to their faith they would realize that creationism is not true. Could you explain that as well?

 

[truthlover]

Physicist,

Perhaps you are aware of the scientific method called "strong inference." In this method, two competing theories that explain some observation are pitted against each other, and each is challenged to make predictions that are opposite those of the competing theory. Then, further observations are made to see which predictions are confirmed.

So, we begin with the inductive hypothesis that biological diversity was created by God applying artificial selection (and now, genetic engineering) to nature. But, Darwin also proposes that the selection and genetic change were only natural, uninfluenced by any willful agent, including God.

What predictions can be deduced from both theories, that are different? Has this been done? To be sure, we see selection here and there, but was the selection uninfluenced by God's intervention? What does natural selection predict that is different from artificial selection? (How many generations needed to accomplish a change?)

The Darwin's finches are a particularly embarressing example for Darwin, for God has gone out of His way to point out that He is "watching" the selection process in sparrows.

In the absence of strong inference testing, Occham's razor advises us to prefer the inductively reasonable hypothesis. Natural selection, the hypothesis that no higher, willful being has influenced the selective process is a difficult theory to prove, anyway.

 

[truthlover]

This for barbarian,
Thanks for the heads up on Augustine's insight. "Christian faith," to me is defined as faith that comes from hearing the voice of Jesus. As His sheep, I understand that this hearing will be a part of my life, and indeed, when I an truly living, it is by "every word that proceeds out of His mouth," or the mouth of the Father. Searching the scriptures to find eternal life only works when I take them literally to get to Jesus. What I learn about history, that is true and life for me, must then come from His mouth to me.

As I noted, those who have asked Him when creation occured have gotten an old earth answer from His mouth.

 

[Barbarian]

So, we begin with the inductive hypothesis that biological diversity was created by God applying artificial selection (and now, genetic engineering) to nature.

Hypotheses must be testable. And the supernatural is not testable. So it can't be a hypothesis, although it's certainly a reasonable religious belief.

But, Darwin also proposes that the selection and genetic change were only natural, uninfluenced by any willful agent, including God.

Actually Darwin suggested that the first living things were created by God.

What predictions can be deduced from both theories, that are different? Has this been done? To be sure, we see selection here and there, but was the selection uninfluenced by God's intervention?

Without God's constant attention, we would not even exist. He doesn't tinker with nature; he does things through nature.

What does natural selection predict that is different from artificial selection?

Not much. We merely mimic natural selection to get what we'd like.

(How many generations needed to accomplish a change?)

One.

The Darwin's finches are a particularly embarressing example for Darwin, for God has gone out of His way to point out that He is "watching" the selection process in sparrows.

Watching all things, really. But Darwin's finches continue to evolve in Darwinian fashion.

In the absence of strong inference testing, Occham's razor advises us to prefer the inductively reasonable hypothesis. Natural selection, the hypothesis that no higher, willful being has influenced the selective process is a difficult theory to prove, anyway.

It would be impossible to prove, if that's what it's about. But of course, it isn't about the absence of God.