"Origin of the Species" is Theistic

[Polymath257]

I struggle deeply with coming to terms with the randomness of evolution.

Deep down, I ultimately just cannot accept it.

How about the randomness of quantum mechanics?

 

[Cooky]

How about the randomness of quantum mechanics?

I don't think so. Something can't be both random and predictable at the same time.

...Right?

 

[blü 2]

Even science can be wrong!

Nothing can match personal experience. Thus, the ultimate evidence for the supernatural (GOD) are in the billions of testimonies from those who've had experience(s) with Him!

But if, instead of What do I like? the question is, What's true in reality? then nothing can match the objective, impartial, skeptical view ─ and that brings us back to science and the other forms of reasoned enquiry.

 

[ChristineM]

Somehow people at that time were incapable of not believing God exists? Can you explain how that works? You'd think understanding that evolution really is what was responsible for the origin of the species, the title of his work, that would have made him realize God doesn't exist. Perhaps science and evolution has nothing to do with proving or disproving God? Perhaps atheism has something to do with something other than the data?


So you're saying that someone who is an atheist will look at evolution and "of course flavored it with [their] core values", since that is what somehow explains Darwin's understanding? In other words, both the theist and atheist will take their core values and interpret evolution to fit their views about God. Correct?


And people who believe in God see God at work in evolution, and people who do not believe in God don't. I'm not seeing a lot of support for atheism over theism because of evolution here.

They were capable, if they could escape from the clutches of the church.

I am not Darwin, i am only going on what is published about him. Sorry you dont like it. And maybe you have a problem with the catholic church who accept evolution so long as it does not discredit gods plan.

Darwin was not atheist. So you can throw in as many straw men as you like, you can even tell me what i am saying. Are you saying you dont write as you have been raised to write? Looking at your post i very much think you are driven by how you were raised.

You may see whatever you want to see, whatever massages your ego, luckily the facts dont need your approval

 

[Windwalker]

Anyway, the Bible is not meant to be a science book.....HOWEVER, modern science happens to confirm some Biblical passages. As an example, who would've thought the "stretching heavens" isn't just a figure of speech - that, it can be taken literally!

In the context of the original authors and their limited understandings of the natural world, they would not have been imagining it in the way you would reading it literally. Reading that as though somehow they had magical knowledge of the world without the aid of modern tools, such as telescopes and radio spectrometers, is simply a reading back your understanding of today and superimposing it on them back then. That trick is nothing new. The Muslims like to play that game with the Koran too. And it's the same fallacy there as well.

You could "choose" to read it that way yourself, if that means something to you. However, I think it's best to not imagine that's what the authors themselves were thinking. That's too magical and has to ignore this is a common feature of modern man reading themselves and their truths backing into ancient times.

Science was created for a reason, and I believe it was created for the glorification of God.

I agree. So why so many deny evolution then? Why not glorify God through accepting what has been overwhelming confirmed, and continues to be confirmed? I think the problem is the Christians and their faith in God, and not the science.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't think so. Something can't be both random and predictable at the same time.

...Right?

Depends on what you mean by the terms. For example, the toss of a coin is often considered to be random. But the odds of heads or tails is quite predictable.

 

[Audie]

But if, instead of What do I like? the question is, What's true in reality? then nothing can match the objective, impartial, skeptical view ─ and that brings us back to science and the other forms of reasoned enquiry.

This "what is actually true" question is going way too deep.
Our godies found "reality" on the rock that god (Christian flavour)
Is reality. God is true, from there, everything is evidence of god.

 

[Cooky]

Depends on what you mean by the terms. For example, the toss of a coin is often considered to be random. But the odds of heads or tails is quite predictable.

As the animated matter that we animals all are, even the tiger can predict that surrounding prey will result in a greater likelihood of dinner.

Everything life does is predictable based on staying alive. Even evolution with natural selection is predictable.

There is nothing random.

 

[Windwalker]

They were capable, if they could escape from the clutches of the church.

He could have simply chosen to not mention God and it would not have put him at risk of the stake. You would think if evolution should be seen as disproving God, Darwin would have omitted that he saw God's handiwork through it. But he chose instead to see in as a positive about a God he clearly believed in. Unless you think he was just faking it?

Darwin was not atheist. So you can throw in as many straw men as you like, you can even tell me what i am saying. Are you saying you dont write as you have been raised to write? Looking at your post i very much think you are driven by how you were raised.

Then you would be very wrong. You don't know how I was raised. And I highly doubt you have any idea what it is I believe. I heard a lot of assumptions and projections on your part. FYI, I was not raised in a religious home with a set of beliefs about God and creation. In fact, that was never really spoken about. So, out of the gate, you err.

You may see whatever you want to see, whatever massages your ego, luckily the facts dont need your approval

Oh yes, make it personal about "massaging my ego" (which is a forum rules violation) when your argument gets deflated. Always a sign of a weak position. When I hear that card pulled out of the deck, I know the person is now operating in personal defensive mode, which is in fact completely about the ego defending itself, and not the argument.

That one finger pointing at others supposed ego, is pointing three back at yourself and your own, and that becomes obvious to the observer. You had no argument, and this is the dying gasps of that.

 

[tosca1]

Truth is seen as truth by whoever is seeing it as truth.

A ball is square. It may be the "truth" to me....but it's not really the truth. I may be deluding myself, or I may be on medication, or may be suffering from an illness, or maybe, I'm just ignorant.
But we know that is wrong! The truth is, a ball is not square.

 

[Audie]

A ball is square. It may be the "truth" to me....but it's not really the truth.

That pretty generally applies to all of your posts.

 

[Polymath257]

As the animated matter that we animals all are, even the tiger can predict that surrounding prey will result in a greater likelihood of dinner.

Everything life does is predictable based on staying alive. Even evolution with natural selection is predictable.

There is nothing random.

Mutations are random.

 

[Cooky]

So why should anyone think a mutation is random?

[EDIT] WOW, @Polymath257, we went to the same place at the same time! What does that tell you!?

...It tells me nothing is random.

 

[Cooky]

What evidence is there that anything random exists?

Even a coin flip could be predicted based on the force thrust of the thumb and wind calculation.

 

[blü 2]

This "what is actually true" question is going way too deep.
Our godies found "reality" on the rock that god (Christian flavour)
Is reality. God is true, from there, everything is evidence of god.

But until it's too late to wake up, it's never too late to wake up.

Or so I like to think.

 

[tosca1]

OK, this is a viewpoint I find quite strange. A single personal experience is *one* data point. A hundred would be a hundred data points. You can *interpret* experiences as being due to some deity, but that is a *hypothesis* about that data. It still needs to be challenged, tested, used to make predictions, etc.

In my viewpoint, personal experience, because of the possibility of self-delusion, is one of the *least* useful sources of information. The scientific method is far, far, far better as far as I can see.

I'm not talking about a single testimony, am I?

Reconsider your viewpoint.

If a person came to you, and said, "Hey, there's an elephant in your garage!" I'd understand if you just wave him away and ignore. I'd do the same.
BUT - if a dozen people came to you and tell you the same thing - wouldn't you at least go out to your garage and see for yourself?


Anyway, how do you know it's just a delusion? On what ground do you base your conclusion?

Many people - of credible, impeccable backgrounds - have talked about their experiences with God!
Some of them were passionate atheists who deliberately went to do their research to DEBUNK CHRISTANITY!
Many of them not only ended up believing in the existence of God - they also converted to Christianity!
Some of them didn't just become Christians - they turned around and had become activists for Christianity!
James Tour, William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, etc are just some of the current names I could think of right now.

 

[Polymath257]

What evidence is there that anything random exists?

Even a coin flip could be predicted based on the force thrust of the thumb and wind calculation.

Like I said. Quantum phenomena are random. Even theoretically, there is no way to predict the results of certain experiments.

 

[Cooky]

Like I said. Quantum phenomena are random. Even theoretically, there is no way to predict the results of certain experiments.

Indeed you did.
I struggle coming to terms there.

Just to make clear, I'm not suggesting that 'humans' can predict results, but rather, the possibility exists.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not talking about a single testimony, am I?

If a person came to you, and said, "Hey, there's an elephant in your garage!" I'd understand if you just wave him away and ignore. I'd do the same.
BUT - if a dozen people came to you and tell you the same thing - wouldn't you at least go out to your garage and see for yourself?

Anyway, how do you know it's just a delusion? On what ground do you base your conclusion?

Well, at some point, an experience is far out enough that delusion is more likely than the alternative.

Also, we can all agree that a cloud looks like a dragon. But believing it really *is* a dragon is a different thing.

Many people - of credible, impeccable backgrounds - have talked about their experiences with God!
Some of them were passionate atheists who deliberately went to their research to DEBUNK CHRISTANITY! Many of them not only ended up believing in the existence of God - they also converted to Christianity!
Some of them didn't just become Christians - they turned around and had become activists for Christianity! James Tour, William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, etc are just some of the current names I could think of right now.

Yes, I have read material by them. And I find it remarkably unconvincing. To me, it looks like people *want* to believe and then construct arguments to convince themselves and others.

 

[tosca1]

Believe it or not, faith in Christianity is based on critical thinking.

How can it not be? When it's repeatedly written in the Scriptures that we are supposed to discern?