• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why is it Assumed Evolution and Creation are mutually exclusive?

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Absolutely false from the Methodological Naturalism perspective, which makes no assumption of whether evolution is guided or unguided.

Ontological Naturalism makes the assumption that evolution is unguided.

<clip - clip> the emotional nonsense and rubbish

You are losing your cool. Please focus, and do not look like those YEC when I attack them. i expect more from you. I can also see a difference among creationsists.

And that is what natural selection means. It does not read divinity selection. So, I don’t understand your point.
Ok, you think evolution is guided, right?

Ciao

- viole
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
You are losing your cool. Please focus, and do not look like those YEC when I attack them. i expect more from you. I can also see a difference among creationsists.

And that is what natural selection means. It does not read divinity selection. So, I don’t understand your point.
Ok, you think evolution is guided, right?

Ciao

- viole

Your the one that began with hookus bogus emotional post, and continue with your emotional rant rant. The fact is : Absolutely false from the Methodological Naturalism perspective, which makes no assumption of whether evolution is guided or unguided.

Ontological Naturalism makes the assumption that evolution is unguided.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Your the one that began with hookus bogus emotional post, and continue with your emotional rant rant. The fact is : Absolutely false from the Methodological Naturalism perspective, which makes no assumption of whether evolution is guided or unguided.

Ontological Naturalism makes the assumption that evolution is unguided.

Well, it is called “by natural selection” so I am not sure what you mean. It does not say “by Baha selection”, nor “by Apollo selection”, lol. Unless you think that natural selection is equivalent to some divinity selection, but that does not look too rational, prima facie.

Ok, let’s bite the bullet, for the sake of discussion. You scared me with your writing all that bold and underlined. It is not my wish to cause you emotional distress.

My next question is: do you believe that a purely unguided and naturalistic mechanism would equally account for what we see in the natural world? At least so good as by a guide from Baha or whatever other conscious entity?

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Fine with me.....strangely, I've heard it all before. You have presented nothing new. But you behave in a very predictable manner.

The main underlying truth is that you can back up adaptation with experimental data, witnessed and documented in real time....but anything that stretches the data outside of what is testable....is pure speculation....based on deduction and assertion. When scientists use the words "might have " or "could have" or "leads us to believe..." where has the scientific terminology gone? That is where the truth is.

I'm not a "him" BTW.

So, is you basic claim that we cannot know anything about the past because it is a deduction based on physical laws? Or is it that we cannot know about any processes that take longer than, say, 10,000 years, because nobody can study anything for that length of time? Or that it is impossible to test our understanding of events in the past?

If any of these, then I submit your standards are unreasonable and equivalent to 'Last Thursdayism'.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I have not study philosophy in depth, neither formally (as part of course, classes or lectures), nor privately.

To me, philosophy is more talks than actual works being done.

So correct me, if I am wrong.

Isn’t Ontological Naturalism another word for Metaphysical Naturalism?
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
First, keep in mind that these are not MY comments, these are the comments of a PhD -holding creation scientist.

Please do, it is so rare that someone on a discussion forum supporting the anti-evolution side deigns to condescend from on-high to instruct me about what is the case in my own field.


OK, let me stop you there.

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum*, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.



Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."

--------------------------------

Just a sampling.​


Show me where the "deduction, assertion and large amounts of suggestion" is in these.


Why is it that the most verbose anti-evolutionists also tend to be the ones that have never bothered to learn anything about it and have no relevant background to understand or discuss it?


Where is your real verifiable evidence for the existence of Yahweh? Any of the events claimed to have happened upon Jesus' crucifixion? And of the events attributed to Yahweh (e.g., creation, flood, etc.)? There cannot be suggestions or assertions....just real verifiable evidence. OK?






*I came across these citations in another forum.

Still waiting for the non-science person's explanation for where the "deduction, assertion and large amounts of suggestion" is in the provided examples of evidence...

No attempt made - even after I put it in Trump-style (8th grade) language as requested.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Fine with me.....strangely, I've heard it all before.
Me too - and also from creationists with zero scientific background, pretending to know things they clearly do not.
You have presented nothing new.
You have! Usually, creationists do not actually admit their ignorance of the material they pontificate on. They usually just double-down without acknowledging that they only understand the material at an 8th grade level. But you admit this, yet STILL have the ego to proclaim that your take on it trumps all. Such humility...
But you behave in a very predictable manner.
See above.
The main underlying truth is that you can back up adaptation with experimental data, witnessed and documented in real time....but anything that stretches the data outside of what is testable....is pure speculation....based on deduction and assertion.

So awesome how you support these claims with.... a reiteration of the same unsupported claims - even after I presented a nice explanation of the evidence that you are too under-educated to understand.
When scientists use the words "might have " or "could have" or "leads us to believe..." where has the scientific terminology gone?
Really... REALLY?

Did you not earlier COMPLAIN about the use of jargon?????

Did you not ask me to DUMB-DOWN the scientific abstracts - to explain and remove the jargon , the scientific terminology - I presented so you could 'understand' them?

Did you NOT declare that you really like Evolution 101, a website geared toward people with little or no science background? BECAUSE it uses little jargon?

Like I wrote earlier, you are a parody of yourself.

That is where the truth is.
And that truth is that unlike religionists, scientists understand that science is a tentative endeavor, that it is always possible that at some point, evidence may be found that confounds previous conclusions.

Sadly, the religionist will never allow for their ancient middle eastern tales to be understood as just that, they will never yield, and they will always dismiss and ignore that which undermines their ancient superstitions, and very often by dismissing or misrepresenting the evidence that they do not even understand.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
So, is you basic claim that we cannot know anything about the past because it is a deduction based on physical laws? Or is it that we cannot know about any processes that take longer than, say, 10,000 years, because nobody can study anything for that length of time? Or that it is impossible to test our understanding of events in the past?

If any of these, then I submit your standards are unreasonable and equivalent to 'Last Thursdayism'.
And she never did....
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Granted, I understand why YEC cannot fit within the context of Evolution (part of why I don’t adhere to a literal faith, I think scripture and religion often speaks in Metaphors as a way to display God in a more simplified fashion).

But what is it that leads people to the assumption that faith and science cannot exist in harmony with each other?

I view science as a means to have a better understanding of who God is. Yet I can’t view it as a method of proving or disproving God, simply a way of better understanding our natural world. How do others view this?

Can you cite any scientific papers referencing a god?

Science doesn’t care about a god one way or the other.

As to your desire to interpret the Bible to suit the beliefs you already hold, that is the way most people do it, anyway. It could be argued that in Christianity, there are nearly as many versions as there are Christians.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
If someone has a degree in science or even theology, I have to ask who taught them what they know, and how accurate was the information students received if it depended entirely on how their teachers were themselves trained to interpret their subject.

You never did answer -

...so tell us all then, won't you, regarding your position of evolution - who taught you what you know, and how accurate was the information you received if it depended entirely on how your teachers were themselves trained to interpret their subject?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You never did answer -

...so tell us all then, won't you, regarding your position of evolution - who taught you what you know, and how accurate was the information you received if it depended entirely on how your teachers were themselves trained to interpret their subject?
In science, the information taught follows observable, testable evidence. The facts and tests underlying the information is part of the lesson, as well as its flaws, weak points and competing interpretations. Challenging that evidence is encouraged. The students' jobs, as scientists, will be to test these interpretations.

This is pretty much the opposite of the theological approaches.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Absolutely false from the Methodological Naturalism perspective, which makes no assumption of whether evolution is guided or unguided.
In broad strokes, methodological naturalism identifies three key causal factors in the development of life:

- inheritance
- random mutation
- natural selection

None of these factors involve guidance from a god.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
In broad strokes, methodological naturalism identifies three key causal factors in the development of life:

- inheritance
- random mutation
- natural selection

None of these factors involve guidance from a god.

Actually, mutation is not really random. Fractal patterns best describe mutation. Also, whether fractal or random, these are observed patterns in mutation and not causal.

Methodological Naturalism as defined does not make the judgment as to whether 'these factors' in evolution involve God or no God. In the Baha'i view God Created by natural methods.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Actually, mutation is not really random. Fractal patterns best describe mutation.

Methodological Naturalism as defined does not make the judgment as to whether 'these factors' in evolution involve God or no God. In the Baha'i view God Created by natural methods.
Methodological naturalism makes the judgement that the factors involved in evolution are not guiding evolution to some predefined end result.

The idea that the evolution of species was being guided like this is called orthogenesis and it was supplanted - using methodological naturalism - by Darwinian evolution.

The evidence shows that evolution is not being guided in any particular direction, so the question of whether it's God who's guiding evolution is moot.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
You never did answer -

...so tell us all then, won't you, regarding your position of evolution - who taught you what you know, and how accurate was the information you received if it depended entirely on how your teachers were themselves trained to interpret their subject?

The same science and technology that is the basis for how computers work and airplanes fly is the accurate information that describes how evolution takes place, and billions of the history of the earth and our universe,
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Methodological naturalism makes the judgement that the factors involved in evolution are not guiding evolution to some predefined end result.

The idea that the evolution of species was being guided like this is called orthogenesis and it was supplanted - using methodological naturalism - by Darwinian evolution.


Bad use of the English language.

Actually no,orthogenesis is an old concept no longer accepted by science and has nothing to do whether God Created nor Natural evolution without God. It described evolution as 'internally guided,' and NOT Divinely guided,

From: https://www.google.com/search?q=ort...2.69i57j0l5.8292j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Orthogenesis, also known as orthogenetic evolution, progressive evolution, evolutionary progress, or progressionism, is the biological hypothesis that organisms have an innate tendency to evolve in a definite direction towards some goal (teleology) due to some internal mechanism or "driving force".

The evidence shows that evolution is not being guided in any particular direction, so the question of whether it's God who's guiding evolution is moot.

The evidence simply described the natural processes of evolution,and NOT whether it is Divinely guided nor Naturally occurred without God. This is how Methodological Naturalism is defined, despite your misuse of English and atheist agenda.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
@shunyadragon - if you're interested in learning more about how we know evolution is an unguided process, check out the essay "The Drunkard's Walk" by Stephen Jay Gould - it's in his book "Full House."

I tried to see if it's available online; any online versions I could find look to be bootlegs, so I'm not going to provide any links.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
@shunyadragon - if you're interested in learning more about how we know evolution is an unguided process, check out the essay "The Drunkard's Walk" by Stephen Jay Gould - it's in his book "Full House."

I tried to see if it's available online; any online versions I could find look to be bootlegs, so I'm not going to provide any links.

Read the book,no help, and neither is any links you can provide, but it may be comforting to justify your atheist agenda.

Like you, Stephan Jay Gould has and atheist agenda, and his book is Ontological Philosophical approach and the conclusions ARE NOT SCIENCE as Methodological Naturalism is neutral to any such conclusions and cannot by definition falsify the existence nor non existence of God nor whether the nature of our existence is Divinely Created or not,
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Bad use of the English language.

Actually no,orthogenesis is an old concept no longer accepted by science and has nothing to do whether God Created nor Natural evolution without God. It described evolution as 'internally guided,' and NOT Divinely guided,

From: https://www.google.com/search?q=ort...2.69i57j0l5.8292j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Orthogenesis, also known as orthogenetic evolution, progressive evolution, evolutionary progress, or progressionism, is the biological hypothesis that organisms have an innate tendency to evolve in a definite direction towards some goal (teleology) due to some internal mechanism or "driving force".
I'm sure that most of the proponents of orthogenesis thought that this "driving force" was placed there by God.

The evidence simply described the natural processes of evolution,and NOT whether it is Divinely guided nor Naturally occurred without God. This is how Methodological Naturalism is defined, despite your misuse of English and atheist agenda.
If evolution is not progressing to a particular end goal, then the question "is God what's causing evolution to progress to its end goal?" is wrong-headed.

If evolution was being guided in some way - e.g. to larger body sizes, or to bipedal creatures, or to having enough mental capacity to believe in gods and practice religion - we would see it in the data; we don't.

... but you do think that God is guiding evolution; so what do you think God is guiding evolution to?
 
Top