Evolution, Intelligent Design, and stuff

[noeticknight]

Pelathais,

So as not to continue hijacking Apocrypha’s thread, I would like continue our dialogue (which has diverged into a more scientific tone) on a fresh strand. If our readers are interested, the prequel can be viewed here: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=26662
(I’m hoping this thread title will encourage the more hesitant posters to get involved). Coadie and Timmy, please continue to chime in, but I also invite more voices like Digging4Truth and MissBrattified, who were baited and snubbed by clgustaveson here: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=24443

To prove that I can be dispassionate as well as being a man of reason, I concede to your point that I am indeed limited in my understanding, (particularly on issues of quantum mechanics, biochemistry, and crocodile handling). It is also my wish to properly acknowledge the truth of certain of your statements. It is indeed the case that:
1. Macroevolution is a widely accepted concept within the scientific community.
2. There exists a general consensus among scientists that populations evolve.
3. There exists a general consensus that evolution is the primary mechanism.

So moving on, I would like to go back to my contention with the proliferation of scientific labels. Many times, the terms “macroevolution” and “species” are grossly misused, i.e., the same terms can oft describe two different phenomena. I look no further than many scientific articles on the newsstands as a reference. So I will level the same accusations at evolutionists who employ these tactics that you earlier tried to thump me for (concerning my usage of “complexity”). Also, evolutionists need to clearly define the term “species” once and for all. Explain it clearly beforehand, especially when discussing with scientifically-challenged folk like myself. I may need to elaborate more.

Now what is it exactly that I believe? Glad you asked.
A) I do not ascribe any credence to abiogenesis, the “Primordial soup” theory, the Clay theory, or similar ones. I believe in the creation model wholeheartedly. I must add here that I am not dogmatic about my view of how this occurred. I can fully appreciate God utilizing any of the above mechanisms to bring about our universe, if he so desired. He is sovereign, is he not? I think you would agree that it becomes mostly conjecture after that. And frankly, I don’t think a dichotomy should be forced for either the allegorical or literal Genesis account.
B) I am not, and will probably never be completely convinced of the exact age of the Earth. I think the numbers have been revised several times during my schooling, (understandably so). With that said, I am totally open-minded to the idea that it could be 4.5 billion years old. After all, I am not ignorant of the general consensus among professional scientists, and the mounting evidence (such as what you and others have presented). I don’t completely rule out the idea of a young earth either, as God can manipulate the laws of nature if he so pleases, right? I don’t pretend to understand God’s mind or his reasoning, (1 Corinthians 1:27-29), (Isaiah 55:8) and hope I’m not alone. Honestly, it really isn’t something that I’m that passionate about, especially since other topics require more of my attention, such as salvation, relationships, and banana-pineapple milkshakes. (p.s., I’m a biz major anyway, why would I care, right?).
C) At this point in time, I cannot agree with certain conclusions of (micro-) or macroevolution. I personally do not choose to operate from the viewpoint that we are descended from other life forms (of a different genus). It cannot be demonstrated conclusively that we are even descended from our most similar primate, apes. As I stated, theoretically, manipulation of the human genome is so sensitive, that even 3-5% could produce a creation resembling a banana with lobster arms! So 98% isn’t really that close in my opinion. Gaps in the macro, discontinuity in the micro…I have other reasons, but for space sake, I’ll hold for now.
D) I also agree with the implicit conclusion of Intelligent Design, obviously! It is only logical to present the argument, and is no less scientific considering how the fields of design, physics, biochemistry, and others are becoming more and more integrated as we attempt to understand our environment. I definitely don’t see a reason to limit our perception to evolution. We say that folks in the I.D. movement have the burden of proof, but what about the holes in the evolutionary fossil record? Maybe Irreducible Complexity shouldn’t be shunned so quickly, either. What does the data necessitate?

Perhaps our beliefs are closer than you think. I like to think of myself as fitting nicely somewhere among the moderates. The issues have become deeply polarized over the years, and for the wrong reasons in my opinion. Well, I think I heard the hammers being cocked somewhere about midway through, so I’ll shut up now…

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by noeticknight

Pelathais,

So as not to continue hijacking Apocrypha’s thread, I would like continue our dialogue (which has diverged into a more scientific tone) on a fresh strand. If our readers are interested, the prequel can be viewed here: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=26662
(I’m hoping this thread title will encourage the more hesitant posters to get involved). Coadie and Timmy, please continue to chime in, but I also invite more voices like Digging4Truth and MissBrattified, who were baited and snubbed by clgustaveson here: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=24443

To prove that I can be dispassionate as well as being a man of reason, I concede to your point that I am indeed limited in my understanding, (particularly on issues of quantum mechanics, biochemistry, and crocodile handling). It is also my wish to properly acknowledge the truth of certain of your statements. It is indeed the case that:
1. Macroevolution is a widely accepted concept within the scientific community.
2. There exists a general consensus among scientists that populations evolve.
3. There exists a general consensus that evolution is the primary mechanism.

Thanks for pointing me over toward this. I generally just hang out and yak it up in the Fellowship Hall. I didn't mean to ignore you - and when you see me just sort of standing there staring out into space with drool on my chin, a tap on the shoulder is always appreciated.

And a another thing, you don't need to "prove" anything about yourself to me. I'm just some guy on the Internet. I trust that your hopes and identity are well taken care of in Christ. In Him we are priests and kings and all of this academic stuff just becomes... academic.

Originally Posted by noeticknight

So moving on, I would like to go back to my contention with the proliferation of scientific labels. Many times, the terms “macroevolution” and “species” are grossly misused, i.e., the same terms can oft describe two different phenomena. I look no further than many scientific articles on the newsstands as a reference. So I will level the same accusations at evolutionists who employ these tactics that you earlier tried to thump me for (concerning my usage of “complexity”). Also, evolutionists need to clearly define the term “species” once and for all. Explain it clearly beforehand, especially when discussing with scientifically-challenged folk like myself. I may need to elaborate more.

Now that would be nice... but don't count on it. It's sort of like a Trinitarian demanding a "once and for all definition of 'Oneness.'" Or Oneness people demanding the same from Trinitarians. Everybody's got a nuance.

For "species" - the general definition is: "... that stage of evolutionary progress at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms becomes segregated into two or more separate arrays which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding." (Dobzhansky 1937)

That article will show also the many other ways a "species" can be understood. But having such a sloppy overlap is pretty much what we should expect to see if biological evolution had been at work, and is still taking place.

How about for purposes of discussion we settle on the old Russian's definition? A species is any population of organisms that can breed and produce breeding offspring. The horse/donkey=mule thing is kind of a gray area because the mule is almost always infertile.

Originally Posted by noeticknight

Now what is it exactly that I believe? Glad you asked.
... I don’t think a dichotomy should be forced for either the allegorical or literal Genesis account.

I generally agree, and people are certainly free to reach whatever conclusions they choose; however, it is my opinion that the church - and by that I mean "people" - will be hurt if the current program of "Creation Science" is allowed to go unchallenged. I've stated my reasons, and will continue to do so but I'm afraid of how long this post will look already.

Originally Posted by noeticknight

B) I am not, and will probably never be completely convinced of the exact age of the Earth. I think the numbers have been revised several times during my schooling, (understandably so). With that said, I am totally open-minded to the idea that it could be 4.5 billion years old. After all, I am not ignorant of the general consensus among professional scientists, and the mounting evidence (such as what you and others have presented). I don’t completely rule out the idea of a young earth either, as God can manipulate the laws of nature if he so pleases, right? I don’t pretend to understand God’s mind or his reasoning, (1 Corinthians 1:27-29), (Isaiah 55:8) and hope I’m not alone. Honestly, it really isn’t something that I’m that passionate about, especially since other topics require more of my attention, such as salvation, relationships, and banana-pineapple milkshakes. (p.s., I’m a biz major anyway, why would I care, right?).

Well, at least you'll be employable when you're done.

For me, there's the matter of "can I trust my senses?" Not always, obviously, but generally, can I trust that the universe I see around me is actually what it purports to be? Otherwise, why not tell the diabetic to throw out the insulin?

Why not have folks dance on their eyeglasses at the altar? I knew a guy when I was a teen who did that, not once but twice! It took him two rounds of dancing and stomping on his eyeglasses to realize that this probably was not an approved treatment for myopia. We need science, otherwise guys like this will run into the back of your car.

Originally Posted by noeticknight

C) At this point in time, I cannot agree with certain conclusions of (micro-) or macroevolution. I personally do not choose to operate from the viewpoint that we are descended from other life forms (of a different genus). It cannot be demonstrated conclusively that we are even descended from our most similar primate, apes. As I stated, theoretically, manipulation of the human genome is so sensitive, that even 3-5% could produce a creation resembling a banana with lobster arms! So 98% isn’t really that close in my opinion. Gaps in the macro, discontinuity in the micro…I have other reasons, but for space sake, I’ll hold for now.

That's fair to "hold for now." That's what most folks do and I did for years and years. But I disagree with your reasoning here. The question isn't "what can we create" (unless you work in the weapons development lab at Stark Industries) the question is, "what happened?"

Originally Posted by noeticknight

D) I also agree with the implicit conclusion of Intelligent Design, obviously! It is only logical to present the argument, and is no less scientific considering how the fields of design, physics, biochemistry, and others are becoming more and more integrated as we attempt to understand our environment. I definitely don’t see a reason to limit our perception to evolution. We say that folks in the I.D. movement have the burden of proof, but what about the holes in the evolutionary fossil record? Maybe Irreducible Complexity shouldn’t be shunned so quickly, either. What does the data necessitate?

The issue of Irreducible Complexity attempts to hurdle and ignore a huge array of data points. The ID people don't even try to engage on the question of "the RNA world" and the molecular origins of life's history. Remember, the ID movement arose by the conscious desire of its proponents to "shun" all of the scientific literature of the last 100 years. And the "holes" in the fossil record are not quite as gaping as some would have you believe.

Originally Posted by noeticknight

Perhaps our beliefs are closer than you think. I like to think of myself as fitting nicely somewhere among the moderates. The issues have become deeply polarized over the years, and for the wrong reasons in my opinion. Well, I think I heard the hammers being cocked somewhere about midway through, so I’ll shut up now…

The "Creationist" movement really arose in the 1960's with the publication of Whitcomb and Morris' "The Genesis Flood." Before that, for almost 100 years the only arguments against evolutionary biology coming from the "Christian right" was "nuh-uh!" To understand the tone and the polarity involved, just read the (so-called) Creationist literature. To understand the natural history of the earth, and to understand the earth itself, study science.

[noeticknight]

Thanks for responding!

Well then, let us examine why science rejects the creation model as being scientific. Critics claim that it fails in one or more of these areas (I will substitute “it” for “the theory”):
1. It must be consistent.
2. It must be parsimonious.
3. It must be useful.
4. It must be empirically testable.
5. It must be based on repeatable experiments.
6. It must be correctable.
7. It must be progressive.
8. It must be tentative.
Gathered from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science)

Based on the above rules, let me explain the reasons as to why I believe it cautionary before precluding any notion or idea of the creation model being true.
1. Regarding falsifiability, we can say “God created the world” is unfalsifiable, since it cannot ever really be disproven (in this lifetime). However, we can say that “Men descended from other forms of life, and will continue to evolve into advanced "supermen" 1 million years from now.” And strangely enough, that statement is considered falsifiable, in principle.
2. Regarding parsimony, this should be considered more heuristic rather than a logical principle (or rule).
3. Regarding a useful explanation, this is ambiguous and subjective, and can favor either camp depending on the definitions.
4. Regarding empirical testing, this is the major limitation of science, albeit, the most useful in checking one’s opinions or weird interpretations at the door. However, this severely limits our view to the naturalistic view of things, and does a disservice to those who blindly follow its conclusions.
5. Regarding repeatable experiments, this assumes everything can be explained in this fashion. The hypocrisy is that we choose to operate from certain implicit platforms of perspective whether we acknowledge it or not. We can say that the “Primordial soup” theory or the “Big Bang” theory is scientific, because they might be repeatable or observable experiments. But design by this definition is scientific, and yet is painted over as being presumptuous.
6. Regarding the quality of being correctable, this should be applied to any school of thought, and shouldn’t be considered exclusive to the scientific community.
7. Regarding progressiveness, at some point there may have to be an admission that supernatural causes are the ultimate conclusion to the mounting evidence, which is slowly being synthesized by every field of academic study.
8. Regarding tentativeness, there is really no room for dogmatism, but this should be applied across the board, consistently.

I hold that my views can be defined as tentative, not fully set in stone, which certainly qualifies me as honoring the scientific worldview. I refuse, however, to be polarized by science and the supernatural, as I believe a balance can be established between the natural and spiritual experience.

So Pel, my first question is, how do you harmonize your espousal of macroevolution and universal common descent with the creation model?

[noeticknight]

*bump*

(For Professor P, since it looks like he's in the mood to discuss).

[noeticknight]

"Others would lump me into that category - and it would be no big deal. But it's sort of like saying "Theistic tornados" or "Theistic apple harvests." Sure, ultimately we can trace all things back to God and to His purposes, but it's not like (IMHO) He's sitting in heaven with a magic wand and thunder bolts.

A lot of philosophical energy has been expended on the "Why's" of nature. For example, why did a flood carry away innocent children and leave dangerous criminal safe and dry. Why did lightning strike a tree where some kids from a vacation bible class had sought shelter and not the local porn shop?

These are tough questions and the answers leave us to conclude that there are a lot of things that happen in nature that God is really involved with - at least not directly. There's just this natural world and things happen according to natural laws, and at times for no apparent reason at all.

Same thing with evolution. Ultimately, God did set all things into motion, and in the end He will have all things consummate His plan. In the mean time, there's a lot of things happening that we'd have a hard time directly attributing to God.

"Man" (and the ladies!) was made in God's image. But did He arrange the freckles on your forearm, or was that a result of the sun and your charismatic short sleeves? Ultimately, yes, it's God! Along the way though, a lot of stuff just happens."...Pelathais



Why, thank you for responding P! My overall impression is that you have chosen to implicitly operate from the naturalistic, macroevolution platform, since you resort to extreme, humorous imagery and rhetoric regarding God’s divine involvement. But more specifically, you espouse the idea of God as a "passive creator", setting up an experiment, and letting the chips fall where they may. How does this harmonize with the rest of our universe though? How does that speak to the precise perfection of order (and diversity) in nature? How does that echo the God of Genesis who became the most perfect, awe-inspiring artist by creating our earth, and those who have inhabited it's glorious design? Why make the jump to a naturalistic, evolutionary worldview, especially in light of the magnificent gaps remaining in their theories?

And from your previous statements, I take it that you have developed a great deal of “faith” in the so-called transitional forms that must have existed in the past. Currently, it does take a measure of faith to believe in common descent, and I’m not sure that this is the direction that would lead us into harmony with the creation model.

[noeticknight]

Not the LORD God.

There are other guys, though. Like this fellow.



He'll light up a mountain side just trying to quash one of his backsliders.

The thing is, it appears he's lost his weapon, so no one really knows for sure who he is - Zeus or Poseidon? Thunderbolt or trident? Nobody knows what's coming from where or why.

I prefer to ascribe such chaos to natural forces. I sleep better thinking that there's a nuturing God in ultimate control, even if I loose a few shingles off the roof in a storm. ...Pelathais




Could this statue have been designed, or should I sleep better knowing natural forces were responsible for "evolving" off the rough edges?