Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[Guy Threepwood]

Still not sure what you are saying here.

If seeing God in the physical world is a matter of personal faith (to which I wholeheartedly agree), do you then agree with Lemaitre that science is right to continue to exclude supernatural hypotheses?

like many discussions here it is liable to fall foul of semantics. It depends what you label 'supernatural' Again was the process which created the Rosetta stone supernatural?

A lake may be considered 'natural' unless it is a reservoir - does that make it 'super-natural'? or just intelligently designed?

Then again- when we are looking for an explanation for nature itself, arguably 'super-natural' is a box you want to be able to check. In that the explanation must by definition transcend nature as we know it. Otherwise you are restrained to the laws of nature ultimately being accounted for by... those very same laws.

In that sense we can also consider any form of creative intelligence 'super-natural' as its capabilities fundamentally transcend what 'nature' alone can ever achieve

 

[exchemist]

like many discussions here it is liable to fall foul of semantics. It depends what you label 'supernatural' Again was the process which created the Rosetta stone supernatural?

A lake may be considered 'natural' unless it is a reservoir - does that make it 'super-natural'? or just intelligently designed?

Then again- when we are looking for an explanation for nature itself, arguably 'super-natural' is a box you want to be able to check. In that the explanation must by definition transcend nature as we know it. Otherwise you are restrained to the laws of nature ultimately being accounted for by... those very same laws.

In that sense we can also consider any form of creative intelligence 'super-natural' as its capabilities fundamentally transcend what 'nature' alone can ever achieve

Ah no. Science looks to explain nature only in terms of nature. That is what Lemaitre was keen the pope should understand.

Even if some new natural observation were to be made that seemed to break all the "laws" of nature, i.e. was as inexplicable as you can imagine, science would react by saying that there is something wrong with our models of the laws of nature. Science would never reach for a God explanation. That would not be science.

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose,

I would suggest we are splitting hairs.

A presumption is "an idea that is taken to be true, and often used as the basis for other ideas"
An Inference is "a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning"

As I previously stated, If science allows gods into the picture, then LastThursdayism is as good an explanation as...

...so why bother doing any research?

I suppose so, but it's more accurate to say that science doesn't take any position on the existence of gods, rather than to say that science presumes that gods don't exist.

 

[Polymath257]

Well time as we understand it would be one of God's creations, he is not restrained by his own laws. He created the future along with the past- So I think the distinction between theism and deism is something of a false dichotomy

At that point, things just get silly, in my mind. If anything is possible, nothing is explained.

Agreed, but if they did, again this automation of functionality would not particularly suggest, far less prove, automated origin would it?

Once we get past the functioning of the laws to the laws themselves, all bets are off. Since the way we test for intelligence is to compare to what happens 'naturally' and we have absolutely no way to know what happens 'naturally' when it comes to the formation of natural laws, no conclusion of any sort is possible. For that matter, I'm not convinced it is even meaningful to talk about the 'origin' of natural laws: what laws govern their formation to make causality even meaningful?

Certainly, at this point, the hypothesis of an intelligence has no explanatory value at all. If anything can happen, no explanation is better than any other.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Ah no. Science looks to explain nature only in terms of nature. That is what Lemaitre was keen the pope should understand.

Even if some new natural observation were to be made that seemed to break all the "laws" of nature, i.e. was as inexplicable as you can imagine, science would react by saying that there is something wrong with our models of the laws of nature. Science would never reach for a God explanation. That would not be science.

and science looks to explain artifacts only in terms of artificial origins, right?

An archaeologist however might be faced with figuring out which is which. nature or artifact?... and likewise a forensic scientist cannot conduct their science properly if they are eliminating intelligent agency from the get go.. are these scientists all dabbling in the supernatural?

Likewise for cosmogony, we have no precedent, no reference for how universes are 'usually' created, that would allow us to eliminate either possibility from scientific investigation

 

[Guy Threepwood]

At that point, things just get silly, in my mind. If anything is possible, nothing is explained.

Not really, Tolkien was not imprisoned in Middle Earth, he transcended it.

If anything is possible, nothing is explained- are you talking about multiverse theory? then I'd agree

Once we get past the functioning of the laws to the laws themselves, all bets are off. Since the way we test for intelligence is to compare to what happens 'naturally' and we have absolutely no way to know what happens 'naturally' when it comes to the formation of natural laws, no conclusion of any sort is possible. For that matter, I'm not convinced it is even meaningful to talk about the 'origin' of natural laws: what laws govern their formation to make causality even meaningful?

Certainly, at this point, the hypothesis of an intelligence has no explanatory value at all. If anything can happen, no explanation is better than any other.

As above, as Krauss said about Hawkings' multiverse ' if your theory involves an infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear that you even have a theory'

I don't believe anything is possible, but unlike multiverses, creative intelligence IS a known phenomena and we are proof of that.

 

[Polymath257]

and science looks to explain artifacts only in terms of artificial origins.

No. They look to explain things in terms of *testable* hypotheses.

An archaeologist however might be faced with figuring out which is which. nature or artifact?... and likewise a forensic scientist cannot conduct their science properly if they are eliminating intelligent agency from the get go.. are these scientists all dabbling in the supernatural?

And in those areas, we *know* there are potentially intelligent agents. We know their characteristics, we know their potentials, etc. And, in spite of this, it is often quite difficult to decide whether specific artifacts are, in fact, made by humans or not.

Likewise for cosmogony, we have no precedent, no reference for how universes are 'usually' created, that would allow us to eliminate either possibility from scientific investigation

Much more than that....you are proposing not that an intelligent actor is acting within the natural laws, but that this intelligent actor actually *created* such laws. That is a *huge* difference.

if you propose that this actor was bound by the physical laws, and was not a universal actor, it would at least be possible to create a testable hypothesis. But, as you have set things up, there is no possibility of testing against what happens in a non-created universe vs a created one.

And, the point is that science is limited to studying the physical laws and their properties. If the physical laws are sufficient to explain what we see, then that is sufficient. To go beyond and ask how those laws were formed, especially with no possibility of testing any hypotheses, is to go way beyond science.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do not point this out any more often than somebody makes the claim; that atheist scientists never let their personal beliefs interfere with their scientific conclusions

It is unfortunate that it needs to be brought up so often yes. There are other examples, but this one is particularly stark, involving arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time.

The point is, you are citing a poor example, given that it was EVIDENCE that convinced this particular atheist you always want to bring up.

And I'm not sure I've seen anybody declare that atheists never let their personal beliefs interfere with anything. Atheists can and do believe all sorts of things. The only thing they all hold in common is lack of belief in god(s).

his BEST selling book, his book that sold the most- correct me if I am wrong- was 'the God Delusion', the numbers may have changed for all I know- but the substance of the point is the same- don't lapse into ad hom of calling people dishonest here, I know you are capable of decent substantive arguments, those are far more interesting

Like I said last time, another of his best selling books is about the evidence for evolution. It would be more honest of you to refer to that one in a discussion about the evidence for evolution, rather than a book that is about something else entirely.

Please don't give me this ad hom stuff. I said if you are trying to be honest, you should address it in an honest fashion. Since I know we've already had this exact conversation in the very recent past, I know that you know of the existence of the book I referenced. And yet, you've just gone back to the same talking point that was refuted the last time. And I'm sorry but if I find an argument to be a dishonest one, I'm going to point it out.

I don't believe in naturalistic mechanisms explaining our universe until proper evidence is produced

We know the natural world exists. Evolution is demonstrable.

We do not know that the supernatural world exists, so attributing any mechanism to something that is going on in the supernatural world is akin to just making things up. That is, unless and until somebody can demonstrate the existence of a supernatural world and/or god(s). I could just as easily say that fairies did it, and I'd have just as much evidence as people who claim God did it.

 

[Polymath257]

Not really, Tolkien was not imprisoned in Middle Earth, he transcended it.

If anything is possible, nothing is explained- are you talking about multiverse theory? then I'd agree

As above, as Krauss said about Hawkings' multiverse ' if your theory involves an infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear that you even have a theory'

I don't believe anything is possible, but unlike multiverses, creative intelligence IS a known phenomena and we are proof of that.

Creative intelligence under the action of physical laws is a known phenomenon. Creative intelligence outside of such laws is not.

Truthfully, the *only* reason I consider multiverse theories at all is that they arise naturally under quantum mechanics and especially when attempting to reconcile QM and general relativity. In such cases, I consider the testable aspects of the theories, not the untestable ones. I do find it interesting how easily such arise in these attempts, though.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No. They look to explain things in terms of *testable* hypotheses.

which can be natural or artificial.

we can't test multiverses, we can't test a single cell design morphing into a human being through random copying errors.

But we can test the ability of creative intelligence to design new information systems


'testable hypotheses' are great where available, but obviously scientists speculate far beyond this limitation

[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact: Mark Twain.

And in those areas, we *know* there are potentially intelligent agents. We know their characteristics, we know their potentials, etc. And, in spite of this, it is often quite difficult to decide whether specific artifacts are, in fact, made by humans or not.

exactly, that is why you must assert that an intelligent designer has zero potential, in order to allow chance to win out- we simply do not have good cause to enforce this limitation on reality. Likewise with HELP written on the deserted island beach in rocks, an intelligent agent must be not only 'unlikely' but utterly impossible, before we would be forced to conclude the random action of the waves

Much more than that....you are proposing not that an intelligent actor is acting within the natural laws, but that this intelligent actor actually *created* such laws. That is a *huge* difference.

if you propose that this actor was bound by the physical laws, and was not a universal actor, it would at least be possible to create a testable hypothesis. But, as you have set things up, there is no possibility of testing against what happens in a non-created universe vs a created one.

And, the point is that science is limited to studying the physical laws and their properties. If the physical laws are sufficient to explain what we see, then that is sufficient. To go beyond and ask how those laws were formed, especially with no possibility of testing any hypotheses, is to go way beyond science.

By that rational, a watch is self explanatory- it possesses sufficient laws to govern it's own function. Of course the origination of the watch, by necessity, must transcend the watches own laws. And of course the creator, be it another machine or intelligent agent, does likewise. This does not leave us powerless to deduce intelligent agency, because like the archaeologist, there are certain fingerprints we can recognize

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Creative intelligence under the action of physical laws is a known phenomenon. Creative intelligence outside of such laws is not.

Truthfully, the *only* reason I consider multiverse theories at all is that they arise naturally under quantum mechanics and especially when attempting to reconcile QM and general relativity. In such cases, I consider the testable aspects of the theories, not the untestable ones. I do find it interesting how easily such arise in these attempts, though.

Right, so we know of both creative intelligence and natural laws existing within our universe.... neither are 'supernatural' at this point

But either phenomena existing outside our universe, by definition would transcend what we can ever observe within, natural or intelligent phenomena as we can observe and understand them

So allowing one phenomena to transcend as still 'natural' and prohibiting the other as now 'supernatural' is an entirely arbitrary double standard- and it only applies to the materialist belief system.

A theist has no need to prohibit natural laws existing outside the universe, let both be merely potentially possible. We have no scientific basis to presume any further than this

Like the rocks on the beach, the 'natural' argument must utterly prohibit intelligent agency. But the ID argument does not have to prohibit the waves, because ID has the superior power of explanation for the observation regardless

 

[Guy Threepwood]

must run and do something far less fun for now, but I appreciate the civil debate!

 

[Polymath257]

which can be natural or artificial.

Nope. All within natural laws. Even the intelligent actors do so within such laws.

we can't test multiverses,

Some versions we can. More importantly, we can test the underlying theories that naturally lead to multiverses.

we can't test a single cell design morphing into a human being through random copying errors.

But we can test whether copying errors provide survival benefits and model how such would lead to increased complexity while also looking at the fossil record to see if the results are consistent and predictable.

But we can test the ability of creative intelligence to design new information systems

Only for those intelligences subject to natural laws.

'testable hypotheses' are great where available, but obviously scientists speculate far beyond this limitation

Yes, *speculate*. But it isn't accepted until the evidence comes in, except as speculation.

exactly, that is why you must assert that an intelligent designer has zero potential, in order to allow chance to win out- we simply do not have good cause to enforce this limitation on reality. Likewise with HELP written on the deserted island beach in rocks, an intelligent agent must be not only 'unlikely' but utterly impossible, before we would be forced to conclude the random action of the waves

We know the language ahead of time. We know that such messages would be the result of intelligent agents. And we know the likelihood of humans being stranded on such islands. We also know the *types* of patterns that waves are likely to make. That is what makes the probability larger than that waves produced it.

But, for example, it is common for religious figures to claim images in toast or in clouds are evidence of an intelligent agent. Random chance is a better explanation.

What is necessary is to understand what a natural environment produces and how that contrasts with what an intelligent actor produces. Only after that comparison can a probability be made.

But that requires knowledge of the natural effects and thereby the action of natural laws.

By that rational, a watch is self explanatory- it possesses sufficient laws to govern it's own function. Of course the origination of the watch, by necessity, must transcend the watches own laws. And of course the creator, be it another machine or intelligent agent, does likewise. This does not leave us powerless to deduce intelligent agency, because like the archaeologist, there are certain fingerprints that can be recognized

No, it does NOT possess sufficient laws to govern its own function. We need the laws of motion, the laws of springs, the laws of heat conduction, etc. These are larger, natural laws that govern how the watch works. The origination of the watch does NOT transcend those laws. In fact, the watch can be made at all only by working within those laws.

And once again, we *know* that the larger laws do not produce such things as watches naturally. there is no mechanism for the production of such. In contrast, the complexity of living things *does* have a mechanism: mutation and natural selection, for one.

 

[Polymath257]

Right, so we know of both creative intelligence and natural laws existing within our universe.... neither are 'supernatural' at this point

Yes, good.

But either phenomena existing outside our universe, by definition would transcend what we can ever observe within, natural or intelligent phenomena as we can observe and understand them

That completely depends on the laws governing 'outside our universe'. Are you talking about a multiverse? Such might be testable if the underlying theory is testable.

And I'm not sure what you mean by 'transcend' here. Just that it is different? Why would you assume intelligences are even possible outside of our universe and the laws that made intelligences possible?

So allowing one phenomena to transcend as still 'natural' and prohibiting the other as now 'supernatural' is an entirely arbitrary double standard- and it only applies to the materialist belief system.

Nope. Even the multiverse scenarios are based on generalizations of known physical laws. Those generalizations naturally lead to multiverses in those theories. Given the evidence we have for the known laws, minor generalizations are completely reasonable to consider (as speculation).

A theist has no need to prohibit natural laws existing outside the universe, let both be merely potentially possible. We have no scientific basis to presume any further than this

And no way to test, which eliminates science at all.

Like the rocks on the beach, the 'natural' argument must utterly prohibit intelligent agency. But the ID argument does not have to prohibit the waves, because ID has the superior power of explanation for the observation regardless

Not at all. The 'natural' argument simply needs a way to distinguish the action of 'natural' forces and 'intelligent' forces. Without knowledge of how natural forces *can* act, it is not reasonable to assume a non-natural force is at work. This is especially true when nothing else can be tested concerning that supposed intelligence.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes, good.



That completely depends on the laws governing 'outside our universe'. Are you talking about a multiverse? Such might be testable if the underlying theory is testable.

And I'm not sure what you mean by 'transcend' here. Just that it is different? Why would you assume intelligences are even possible outside of our universe and the laws that made intelligences possible?



Nope. Even the multiverse scenarios are based on generalizations of known physical laws. Those generalizations naturally lead to multiverses in those theories. Given the evidence we have for the known laws, minor generalizations are completely reasonable to consider (as speculation).

"Even the multiverse scenarios are based on generalizations of known physical laws."

Yes just like steady state and big crunch were, it's not too difficult to make your theory fit the math, when unencumbered by direct empirical evidence to comply with..

but these are also known physical laws that apparently led to creative beings bent on reverse engineering their own universe.. oops!

That's where the multiverse ultimately shoots itself in the foot. In order to produce our universe by chance, you need an infinite probability machine which can produce anything at all...... except anything that could ever be described as God, which would obviously defeat the entire purpose.

As Andre Linde said, (and others agree) it is feasible that even we can one day produce our own universe, and it's impossible to rule this out as being the origination of our own. So in order to maintain strict belief in an undesigned universe, you must also presume that we are living in that original miraculous 'virgin birth' universe, not one of the ultimately infinite artifacts that would follow from the 'anything possible' scenario.

And no way to test, which eliminates science at all.

Not at all. The 'natural' argument simply needs a way to distinguish the action of 'natural' forces and 'intelligent' forces. Without knowledge of how natural forces *can* act, it is not reasonable to assume a non-natural force is at work. This is especially true when nothing else can be tested concerning that supposed intelligence.

who created the Rosetta Stone? We can deduce creative forces without directly testing the creator because we DO know something about how both act, increasingly so in the information age

natural laws act according to their laws. That's a restriction. Creative intelligence is the only phenomena we know of that breaks this cause-effect paradox, because it is the only one that possesses the capacity to anticipate, to act according to a future result as the driving force, as opposed to preexisting law. Desire, will, purpose. It's not clear anything could ever exist without it. in short : creation without creativity, is problematic

 

[ecco]

Darwin! You neglected to mention Darwin. Why? Didn't Darwin set out to figure out how god did it?

In any case, people like Darwin and Galileo didn't believe the simplistic biblical interpretations - that's what inspired them.

Because he didn't, that's the problem. he tried to figure out a way for it to happen without God, which is what led to all the problems, failed predictions, false assumptions

Wrong again.

Religious views of Charles Darwin - Wikipedia

Darwin had a non-conformist Unitarian background, but attended a Church of Englandschool.[1] With the aim of becoming a clergyman he went to the University of Cambridge for the required BA degree, which included studies of Anglican theology. He took great interest in natural history and became filled with zeal for science as defined by John Herschel, based on the natural theology of William Paley which presented the argument from divine design in nature to explain adaptation as God acting through laws of nature.[2][3] On the voyage of the Beagle he remained orthodox and looked for "centres of creation" to explain distribution, but towards the end of the voyage began to doubt that species were fixed.[4][5] By this time he was critical of the Bible as history, and wondered why all religions should not be equally valid. Following his return in October 1836, he developed his novel ideas of geology while speculating about transmutation of species and thinking about religion.[6]​

Ultimately, the problem here with materialism is as always- that it inherently seeks the neatest simplest 'God refuting' explanation for anything and everything, and so is inherently shy about opening new cans of worms, finding ever deeper layers of sophistication with their unsettling implications.

There is nothing simplistic about science. Science is the one continually opening new cans of worms and finding ever deeper layers of sophistication. This is only upsetting to biblical literalists.

A skeptic of atheism has no such reservations

Dare you turn your skepticism onto your religious beliefs? Ya know, like Darwin eventually did.

 

[ecco]

Again, It was quite explicitly, unambiguously, refutation of God that caused Hoyle and other atheists to reject and mock the primeval atom as 'Big Bang' and 'religious psuedoscience'

Hubble's expanding universe theories were in direct contradiction to Hoyle's steady state universe theory. Hoyle, like any ego driven scientist, attacked vigorously, in any way he could including making comments like you quoted above. He also spouted utter nonsense like:

"The reason why scientists like the "big bang" is because they are overshadowed by the Book of Genesis. It is deep within the psyche of most scientists to believe in the first page of Genesis".​

 

[ecco]

There is, in my opinion, a problem created by militant atheists such as Dawkins on the one hand and by militant creationists, such the ID movement, on the other.

Militant Creationists who falsely label anyone who believes in ToE as atheists.

 

[exchemist]

Militant Creationists who falsely label anyone who believes in ToE as atheists.

....and, equally despicably, militant atheists who falsely claim to ridicule Christianity by ridiculing the bible's utility as a science textbook.

 

[ecco]

Intelligent design explicitly examines the evidence for an intelligent designer. Concluding that the Rosetta Stone involved ID is not a religious or supernatural conclusion.

Who concluded the Rosetta Stone has anything to do with ID?

Andre Linde (principle in modern inflationary theory) considers it possible that our universe was created by scientists in another universe.

And you further believe that Your God created that universe too.