Do you support evolution? (atheism, Baptist, Christianity, miracles)

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by Aeroman

LOL.
I should stop trying to joke around on these forums.

I put the little faces after my sentences hoping they’d be read in a light hearted way.

Cheers
Aeroman.

Sorry, Aeroman. Even using Poe's Law, it's sometimes difficult to ascertain the intent of a post.

Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

I guess I should have considered the "blatant display of humor" regarding your reproductive choice.

[doss1]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

Actually, something that hasn't been brought up to my knowledge is this:

How would a Creationist test for the validity of evolution assuming all they had was a theory written by Charles Darwin?

Hey folks, didn't read the entire thread here, so forgive me if this was already mentioned, but we need to remember this that was said by Darwin himself:

"The extreme difficulty, or rather the impossibility, of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity for looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist."


Darin also stated:
"I see no good reason why the views given in this volume [his book] should shock the religious feelings of anyone....A celebrated author and divine has written to me that he 'has gradually learned to see that it is just as noble a conception of the deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that he required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws.' "

[Tricky D]

It doesn't matter if I support evolution or not, or if I do believe in God or not.
Evolution, like life, just happens. Whether you believe in it or not.

[Mooseketeer]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

It doesn't matter if I support evolution or not, or if I do believe in God or not.
Evolution, like life, just happens. Whether you believe in it or not.

Yep ! Absolutely right.

[doss1]

Rats, looks like I may have gone off topic again....<hides from June>

[The Matrix]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

I've seen several people state that "something cannot come from nothing". Given our limited understanding of physics, we cannot say it can, but we cannot say that it can't, either.

This isn't a question of physics. There is nothing that physics can say to illuminate or otherwise cope with this issue. And I think you are mistaken to say that it is still an open question. The probability of something coming from nothing is exactly zero.

Now, about evolution. I don't have time to read all these posts (though I am sure they're really good!), so I'm just going to step in it. I have no problem with evolutionary theory, in itself. It's more or less neutral as far as natural theology is concerned. My problems stem from the attempt to explain the origin of life, consciousness, or the information in the cell--that sort of thing. I don't think there is any conclusive evidence that all of life evolved from the same pre-biotic "life form". And there are many bits of evidence that can be construed as supporting the connection of all life in terms of evolutionary ancestry--but evidence can be read in different ways. And we must not keep our eyes too tightly shut to competing views of how to make sense of evidence. And it disturbs me that the "scientific community" is, in some ways, dogmatic about evolutionary findings. The argument is really over three things: what is allowed to count as evidence, how we are to read the evidence, and what sorts of theories are allowed in order to explain the evidence. And science should not have a built-in bias against religious or metaphysical explanations.

So on the whole, I'm not hostile to the theory of evolution, but I am sometimes hostile to the way in which people try to use this theory to further naturalistic ends ("naturalism" is the view that only nature exists, and there is nothing supernatural). Naturalism is not science. It's a philosophical position, a worldview. And science can do just fine without it.

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by The Matrix

And science should not have a built-in bias against religious or metaphysical explanations.

So on the whole, I'm not hostile to the theory of evolution, but I am sometimes hostile to the way in which people try to use this theory to further naturalistic ends ("naturalism" is the view that only nature exists, and there is nothing supernatural). Naturalism is not science. It's a philosophical position, a worldview. And science can do just fine without it.

Science is DEFINED as naturalistic, therefore, your statements are nonsensical. You may as well state that the color red should also reflect light from the blue spectrum. Of course, it would no longer be red; it would be purple. If science accepted supernatural explanations, it would no longer be science.

[The Matrix]

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

Science is DEFINED as naturalistic, therefore, your statements are nonsensical. You may as well state that the color red should also reflect light from the blue spectrum. Of course, it would no longer be red; it would be purple.

That's false. Science does not have a definitional commitment to the metaphysical position of naturalism. If you define science like that, you're just begging the question. Science is concerned with natural processes--but that's a very different thing from saying it rests on naturalism as a metaphysical commitment.

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

If science accepted supernatural explanations, it would no longer be science.

Why?

[ParkTwain]

Originally Posted by The Matrix

So on the whole, I'm not hostile to the theory of evolution, but I am sometimes hostile to the way in which people try to use this theory to further naturalistic ends ("naturalism" is the view that only nature exists, and there is nothing supernatural). Naturalism is not science. It's a philosophical position, a worldview. And science can do just fine without it.

Where have you read that the scientific community or any significant school of science teaching or practice insists on ruling out any particular theory or understanding of 'reality' as long as that theory does not contradict well established scientific facts and understandings?

I think you might be very surprised to know what "model of reality" is held on a personal level by the world's more sophisticated scientists. I think that all experienced scientists are by their vocation open to learning about all relevant aspects of reality ('observable' reality, which includes human behavior, intuitions, sensitivity, and awareness). All experienced scientists would tell you that what human beings know about the universe is dwarfed by the size and scope of what is unknown. But of course, this doesn't mean that a dedicated scientist is open to considering that literally ANYTHING is possible to believed about the key metaphysical issues discussed in human history (the existence of 'God' or 'gods', etc.).

One problem with some conceptions of the nature of 'God' is that because God exists, literally anything is possible for God to do. This is problematic in several ways:

* Conceptual (by definition, theological) conundrums, such as the idea of God making a rock so heavy that he cannot life it, though he is by definition 'omnipotent'

* Supernatural 'intrusion' into the natural world, such as the difficulty of conceiving of the conditions under which 'God' would intervene in the natural world, not to mention why this does or does not happen more or less often than humans would expect

* Historical uncertainty, such as the issue that the claims by some religious traditions that God performed certain 'miraculous' deeds in space and time cannot be further investigated, verified and made subject to falsification

[The Matrix]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

Where have you read that the scientific community or any significant school of science teaching or practice insists on ruling out any particular theory or understanding of 'reality' as long as that theory does not contradict well established scientific facts and understandings?

I think you might be very surprised to know what "model of reality" is held on a personal level by the world's more sophisticated scientists.

I pretty much agree with you. In the post that you're quoting from me, I had originally started to write something about "the dangers of over-generalizing about any particular community," but I deleted it. Often, generalizations are not helpful, and I mine wasn't too helpful here.

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

I think that all experienced scientists are by their vocation open to learning about all relevant aspects of reality ('observable' reality, which includes human behavior, intuitions, sensitivity, and awareness). All experienced scientists would tell you that what human beings know about the universe is dwarfed by the size and scope of what is unknown. But of course, this doesn't mean that a dedicated scientist is open to considering that literally ANYTHING is possible to believed about the key metaphysical issues discussed in human history (the existence of 'God' or 'gods', etc.).

Agreed. I don't think what you write here is controversial.

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

One problem with some conceptions of the nature of 'God' is that because God exists, literally anything is possible for God to do. This is problematic in several ways:

* Conceptual (by definition, theological) conundrums, such as the idea of God making a rock so heavy that he cannot life it, though he is by definition 'omnipotent'

I don't know how this is relevant. Though, most people don't usually point to this as a serious example of a problem with the idea of God (if this is, in fact, what you're doing). I think Swinburne gave a pretty good logical analysis of why this isn't really a problem.

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

* Supernatural 'intrusion' into the natural world, such as the difficulty of conceiving of the conditions under which 'God' would intervene in the natural world, not to mention why this does or does not happen more or less often than humans would expect

Yes, it's difficult to set up parameters as to how God will or did act in the world. I don't know if there can be such conditions for us to decide upon.

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

* Historical uncertainty, such as the issue that the claims by some religious traditions that God performed certain 'miraculous' deeds in space and time cannot be further investigated, verified and made subject to falsification

Agreed.

However, though I agree with most of what you say, I don't agree that this is contrary to what I said. Science is not a priori committed to metaphysical naturalism, any more than it is committed to theism.

Let's distinguish between "metaphysical naturalism" and "methodological naturalism." Metaphysical naturalism is the position that only the natural world exists, there is nothing outside of nature, no supernatural causes or effects, etc., and nature is a "closed system" of natural causes. Science guided and driven by metaphysical naturalism would hold (without evidence, since this would be a metaphysical assumption) that there are only natural causes, so we can only look for physical causes, and naturalistic theories are the only true ones.

But "methodological naturalism" is a view about which method is the best method for finding out about the physical world, namely, that science ought to primarily be concerned with physical or natural causes and theories. So, for example, a biologist may not think the best way to learn about cells is to psycho-analyze them! That method may work on the couch with your therapist (I'm not suggesting you go to a therapist), but it doesn't work well with a microscope. Modern science, understood to be a discipline that tries to learn more about the physical world, should be guided by this method. I think this is perfectly legitimate. There is no dogma or a priori bias against theism. It's just a way of defining the mission of science: to learn as much as we can about the physical world, on its own terms.

So I have no problem at all with methodological naturalism (I think it is important to science). But I have a big problem with metaphysical naturalism, which assumes far too much.