Part 2, an attack on creationism

[Scuba Pete]

You're assuming there is a "why" to find.

While you seem to assume that there is no "why". That's OK, as it makes this an interesting world!

That's because the process takes millions of years to happen naturally.

That's how long we have DEDUCED that it takes using SWAG rules of computing times!

Apparently we're both taking a leap of faith here.

Without such leaps, life would grind to an almost standstill!

and your leap of faith is that somewhere along the line they'll have to conclude that "god did it".

Close, but not really. I don't expect scientists, or even laymen to conclude anything of the sort. I don't see a specific conclusion as a given by any means.

My real goal is that we all begin to understand that this life we enjoy is MYSTERIOUS and that our individual paradigms explaining the mystery rely on our personal observations (evidence) as well as those giant leaps of faith. All too often, we view the "other side" with disdain at how ignorant, stupid, unevidenced or (put your favorite descriptor here) their understanding of reality is, when in actuality we all have the same limitations. The Scientist's understanding of life is not superior to the clergy's or the layman. To that end, we should respect those belief systems that do not mirror our own.

Again, I have no issues with Science, be it evolutionary or empirical chemistry. I believe most of what I understand. But Science can only tell us HOW. Personally, I am more interested in the "why" of our existence, and so have no need of furthering my understanding of science, unless it concerns my diving. I never thought that understanding those gas laws would ever be useful. Now, I find them fun!

 

[camanintx]

I'm not sure what you mean by objective morality, but I do agree with absolute morality (as opposed to relative morality).

Can you give us an example of this "absolute morality"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

While you seem to assume that there is no "why". That's OK, as it makes this an interesting world!

There's a difference between not assuming that there must be a "why" and assuming that there must not be a "why".

My real goal is that we all begin to understand that this life we enjoy is MYSTERIOUS and that our individual paradigms explaining the mystery rely on our personal observations (evidence) as well as those giant leaps of faith. All too often, we view the "other side" with disdain at how ignorant, stupid, unevidenced or (put your favorite descriptor here) their understanding of reality is, when in actuality we all have the same limitations. The Scientist's understanding of life is not superior to the clergy's or the layman. To that end, we should respect those belief systems that do not mirror our own.

The religious and scientific understandings of life are very different, but this is because they go about understanding life in different ways. When one intrudes on the territory of the other, though, bad things happen.

It'd be wrong for science to try to tell people what deeper, personal, spiritual meaning they should take out of evolutionary biology, and it's wrong when religions tell people what to believe on factual matters in opposition to the evidence at hand.

Anyhow, in general, I'd say that people who study a collection of facts do have a better understanding of those facts than people who don't, regardless of what religious beliefs they try to use to fill in the holes. I don't think that being clergy or a lay religious person is any more an expert on evolutionary biology by virtue of their religious beliefs than they are on pharmacology or auto repair.

Again, I have no issues with Science, be it evolutionary or empirical chemistry. I believe most of what I understand. But Science can only tell us HOW. Personally, I am more interested in the "why" of our existence, and so have no need of furthering my understanding of science, unless it concerns my diving. I never thought that understanding those gas laws would ever be useful. Now, I find them fun!

And if the religion of the day had decided that they needed to "teach the controversy" when it came to the ideal gas laws, it's quite possible that you would have died as a result. Evolutionary biology may be less "life critical" in a day-to-day sense, but that doesn't make it right when junk is taught as science in a biology classroom.

 

[Autodidact]

Quick shields up yet another attack on our beliefs...aww screw it they'll get tired of throwing the stones eventually right?

Apparently you find the search for truth objectionable as well? Don't you think that discussing alternatives is a good way to determine the truth? If your beliefs are correct, shouldn't it be easy to defend them? Or do you think your beliefs for some reason should be immune from questioning?

 

[Autodidact]

While you seem to assume that there is no "why". That's OK, as it makes this an interesting world!


That's how long we have DEDUCED that it takes using SWAG rules of computing times! Without such leaps, life would grind to an almost standstill! Close, but not really. I don't expect scientists, or even laymen to conclude anything of the sort. I don't see a specific conclusion as a given by any means.

My real goal is that we all begin to understand that this life we enjoy is MYSTERIOUS and that our individual paradigms explaining the mystery rely on our personal observations (evidence) as well as those giant leaps of faith. All too often, we view the "other side" with disdain at how ignorant, stupid, unevidenced or (put your favorite descriptor here) their understanding of reality is, when in actuality we all have the same limitations. The Scientist's understanding of life is not superior to the clergy's or the layman. To that end, we should respect those belief systems that do not mirror our own.

Again, I have no issues with Science, be it evolutionary or empirical chemistry. I believe most of what I understand. But Science can only tell us HOW. Personally, I am more interested in the "why" of our existence, and so have no need of furthering my understanding of science, unless it concerns my diving. I never thought that understanding those gas laws would ever be useful. Now, I find them fun!

I agree with all of this, but this thread is about the how. "Creation" or "creationism" when in opposition to "evolution" (as opposed to ideas such as theistic evolution, which is a religious, not a scientific idea) is about the how. It says that evolution didn't (or did, depending what side you're on) happen, and that God created the species via magic poofing, and that new species do not evolve.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Theistic evolution is covered in the OP as are the concepts of God of the Gaps and Occam's razor.

I believe it is important to ascertain what the various disciplines are hoping to accomplish. It is part and parcel of the attack of creationism or the converse attack of evolution.

 

[Autodidact]

Speaking for myself, I consider and treat the topic of evolution entirely separate from the existence of God. * It is a factual, scientific question: How did we get all the different species on earth? Biology says it is according to this theory. Is that true, or not? I think this clarifies the situation.

*Since this is an important question about life, it can have important theological consequences. For example, if you believe that Tawa, the God of the Sun, and Spiderwoman, The Goddess of the Earth, created all living things by Tawa thinking them, and Spiderwoman forming them out of clay, the ToE is going to conflict with that. Similarly, if you believe that Yahweh poofed each creature into existence, you're going to have a conflict. If you believe in any God who intervenes directly and tangibly in the natural world in ways that can be observed and measured, I think you're going to run into problems. This is the God of the Gaps problem, and why people who believe in such a God tend to be anti-science. It's because science reduces ignorance, and the God of the Gaps needs those gaps, those things we don't know, for God to fill.

Trying to look at it objectively, as though I were not an atheist, I think it results in a Deist sort of God, a super-powerful, ineffable, Divine and mysterious being who set the whole thing up, who designed evolution itself, set up the basic laws of nature, imposed order, a First Cause kind of a thing. That God is not disproved or disprovable by any science. In fact, if you believe in such a God, then the more science learns, the more powerful is your belief. Every regularity, every prediction, every law or theory expounds on His, Her or Its wonders. This God is impervious to, and encourages science. Of course, this God is not the God of the Bible.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Of course, this God is not the God of the Bible.

You were doing so well until you typed this poppycock. That is PRECISELY the God of the Scriptures. You fall into the trap that God must have WRITTEN the Scriptures, rather than coming to the realization that God only inspired men to write about him. Some were closer to the truth than others, but no one truly understands God.

 

[Wandered Off]

You were doing so well until you typed this poppycock. That is PRECISELY the God of the Scriptures.

The God of the scriptures is clearly understood as interactive with humanity in particular. The hypothetical deist deity Auto described is not, and this is one reason deism is not theism.

 

[Autodidact]

You were doing so well until you typed this poppycock. That is PRECISELY the God of the Scriptures. You fall into the trap that God must have WRITTEN the Scriptures, rather than coming to the realization that God only inspired men to write about him. Some were closer to the truth than others, but no one truly understands God.

Well of course, everyone interprets their Bible differently. I think however that most Christians would say that their God does intervene directly in the world, and even performs miracles. For example, they say, "Prayer works." This is not the God I'm referring to. (For ease of typing, let's give Her a name. Let's call the Deist, Grandly Ineffable God I refer to, "Sue.") While you meet some Christian theologians who equate Yahweh and Sue, you meet some theologians who say any whacky thing, including that God is dead. I do agree that your interpretation is possible, but:
(1) It is not the majority view.
(2) It is not at all a literal reading.
(3) There would be no need to attend church or pray to Sue, except for your personal enjoyment or self-improvement.
(4) One of Sue's important traits is that she is unknowable. She is way, way, beyond our understanding or our ability to conceive. She may not even be a being as we think of it. All we can know (if that) is that she set up the board and put the pieces on it. So any book that tries to tell us about her, that she is a jealous God, that she wants us to stop all activity and pray to her on Saturday--no, not possible to know that. "The Tao that can be told is not the Tao." Vahagiru is formless, eternal, and unobserved.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The God of the scriptures is clearly understood as interactive with humanity in particular. The hypothetical deist deity Auto described is not, and this is one reason deism is not theism.

Why? Because you say so? Because it's convenient for you to dismiss God in that way? Sorry, but that is just more poppycock.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Well of course, everyone interprets their Bible differently. I think however that most Christians would say that their God does intervene directly in the world, and even performs miracles. For example, they say, "Prayer works." This is not the God I'm referring to.

So now you get to define my God for me? I think this is just more poppycock. You may not believe in MY God, and that means WHAT to me? Nada. Squat. Zilch. Your loss.

(1) It is not the majority view.

First, please provide some corroboration for this view.
Second, this is a fallacious appeal to popularity. What the majority believes has little relevance on the truth.

(2) It is not at all a literal reading.

The Scriptures were never meant to be taken ultra literally. God is Spirit and the understanding of God must also be Spiritual. This is a non sequitur.

(3) There would be no need to attend church or pray to Sue, except for your personal enjoyment or self-improvement.

There is no need to attend church or to pray to Sue. This is the fallacy of the Red Herring.

(4) One of Sue's important traits is that she is unknowable. She is way, way, beyond our understanding or our ability to conceive. She may not even be a being as we think of it. All we can know (if that) is that she set up the board and put the pieces on it. So any book that tries to tell us about her, that she is a jealous God, that she wants us to stop all activity and pray to her on Saturday--no, not possible to know that. "The Tao that can be told is not the Tao." Vahagiru is formless, eternal, and unobserved.

This is the fallacy of the false dilemma. This is why Scriptures, written by HUMANS with the same limits to their understanding, have a hard time describing God without seemingly contradicting themselves. Rather than prove that there is no such God, your reasoning leads us to believe that he exists and is beyond our Ken.

You described my God, as I understand him, to a "T". That I happen to believe/rely on the Scriptures (more than most on here), this renders your claim that "obviously, this is not the God of the Bible" as not only faulty, but a complete distortion of what the Scriptures teach.

Isaiah 55:8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD. 9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts. NIV

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Can you give us an example of this "absolute morality"?

Murder is wrong...
Stealing is wrong...
Over-indulgence is wrong...

I will get to other posts soon....

 

[camanintx]

Murder is wrong...

Murder, the unlawful killing of another person, sounds like a subjective term. Can you define murder without being subjective?

Stealing is wrong...

Again, stealing, the illegal taking of another persons property, is a subjective term. If you steal food from a store during a natural disaster to feed your family, is that wrong?

Over-indulgence is wrong...

Yet another subjective term, or is there an objective measure of when someone is over-indulging?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, stealing, the illegal taking of another persons property, is a subjective term. If you steal food from a store during a natural disaster to feed your family, is that wrong?

The more objectivist/libertarian people I know claim that property rights are intrinsically sacrosanct, and that any involuntary or mandatory seizure of property without the express consent of the owner (e.g. taxation) is stealing and is immoral, even if it's permissible by law.

 

[Wandered Off]

Why? Because you say so?

Why what? Sorry, I don't understand your question. This whole deism issue is a bit of a tangent to the thread. Auto was just mentioning deism as a hypothetical example for you.

Because it's convenient for you to dismiss God in that way? Sorry, but that is just more poppycock.

Well because that's what deists believe. It's not a matter of convenience. As far as I'm concerned, a personal, loving God who watches over and helps out humanity would be a LOT more convenient.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Murder, the unlawful killing of another person, sounds like a subjective term. Can you define murder without being subjective?

Murder is killing when defense of yourself or someone you have authority over is not the reason for the kill. Btw, laws are generally not considered subjective.. this includes God's laws.

Law
1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.

Principle
1. an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.
2. a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.

Again, stealing, the illegal taking of another persons property, is a subjective term. If you steal food from a store during a natural disaster to feed your family, is that wrong?

That is where you have to choose moral priorities. You have a moral duty to provide for your family, and you have a moral duty not to steal. This doesn't mean the moral law is subjective... it shows that some moral principles might be against other moral principles and we have to choose the "lesser of two evils".

Yet another subjective term, or is there an objective measure of when someone is over-indulging?

To choose one's desires and appetites over the wisdom of what is best. The wisdom of what is best depends on what you are indulging in.

If we take gluttony for example, what is best is not eating beyond one's needs for good health. Indulging is ok when it does not have a significant impact on one's health (having a glass of wine--as opposed to seven glasses of wine). Eating McDonald's Double Quarter with Cheese meal, super-sized, is not attending to a person's health.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

This is a bold claim, especially considering the wealth of interdisciplinary work on this subject in the scientific literature, including geology, chemistry, biology, and physics.

Of course, while the particular configurations of molecules is not deterministic, constant environmental forces (such as electromagnetic fields or electrostriction) favor certain subsets of configuration space. Furthermore, in far-from-equilibrium systems (e.g. external source of energy flowing through the system, such as light from the sun or heat from geothermal vents) "improbable" configurations become more frequent.

But I invite you, Nick, to cite some examples from the peer-reviewed literature which support your assertion that the probability of self-replicating molecules arising from natural laws is virtually zero.

I have none.. it is based on my intuition of what seems reasonable. I am not an expert and don't expect to be taken as one, but to me any sort of self-replication is an incredible complex process. I can see some of these primitive organic substances forming interesting configurations, but there are so many synchronized moving parts in self-replication that it seems very strange for it to exist out of a chaotic system.

Note that this is a distinct claim from: 'self-replicating molecules arise from pure random chance'. No one says that happens, any more than the Grand Canyon or volcanoes or the northern lights happen from 'pure random chance'. Electrons, protons, and neutrons bouncing around randomly won't produce these things, it's true. Instead, these phenomena result from an interplay of random chance and the non-random external forces being applied to non-equilibrium, non-thermally isolated systems.

True... I was in error of stating "pure random chance". I should be speaking of the perceived randomness in chaotic systems.

Yes, it's true, thermally isolated systems that aren't too far from equilibrium won't do anything interesting by "random chance". Liqiud water confined to a cooler won't randomly form billions of unique, complex structures. But that same water, when unconfined in the turbulent atmosphere, and subject to all sorts of environmental conditions--fueled ultimately by energy expended by the Sun--will spontaneously self-organize into beautiful, complex structures that we call snowflakes. Most people take it for granted that the probability that any one of these structures would form from "pure random chance" is virtually zero; yet we also take it for granted that natural forces have been busy producing countless trillions upon endless trillions of unique snowflakes, every day, all across the globe, for billions of years. And that's just on this one planet.

Yes, snowflakes are interesting, as is the formations of clouds, mountains, crystals and other systems. But all of them lack the sheer complexity of the self-replication of a primitive RNA structure.

And yet, you say, categorically, that a certain set of amino acid configurations--a set which 'self-replicates' (though you don't specify with what degree of accuracy)--is impossible without a miracle. Show me this calculation. I would find it very impressive, especially considering the intense labor that has been devoted to far more modest calculations in the field of the molecular origins of life.

Again, I have not calculations... I am using my intuition to decide what is the more realistic explanation.

 

[yossarian22]

I have none.. it is based on my intuition of what seems reasonable. I am not an expert and don't expect to be taken as one, but to me any sort of self-replication is an incredible complex process. I can see some of these primitive organic substances forming interesting configurations, but there are so many synchronized moving parts in self-replication that it seems very strange for it to exist out of a chaotic system.

It only needs to happen once.

True... I was in error of stating "pure random chance". I should be speaking of the perceived randomness in chaotic systems.

A chaotic system can be considered a random one. It is a fair comparison because there is no such think as pure randomness: or total unpredictability. We instead go by something unpredictable in the short run.

Yes, snowflakes are interesting, as is the formations of clouds, mountains, crystals and other systems. But all of them lack the sheer complexity of the self-replication of a primitive RNA structure.

Do you admit they are complex though? Because if a system can randomly reach a certain level of complexity, the only thing stopping it from reaching a higher level is time, unless there is another constraint on the system

Again, I have not calculations... I am using my intuition to decide what is the more realistic explanation.

Intuition fails us whenever we deal with probability. It takes a very very long time to be able to think in probability quickly and properly.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

While a complete RNA molecule may be complex, RNA itself is really rather simple, built from three basic components: ribose, a five-carbon suger, phosphate, and a family of four heterocyclic bases. Snowflakes exhibit highly complex structure as well but can be easily explained through the physics of freezing water.

RNA is really rather simple? Compared to what? What other "structure" stores complex, organized information? And what about all of the complimentary enzymes involved in the replication process?

The economy on the other hand is a very complex system with many components that organizes itself based on changes in those components.

Can you elaborate on this?

I wouldn't be surprised if you found more agreement amongst biologists about how RNA works that you do amongst economists about financial markets.

Regarding how RNA works, I agree, but how it originated is a different question.