Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Shalom
Muck DeFuslims:
I have a personal belief in G-d and that G-d used natural processes (that he created) to form the universe and life. What I don't claim is that science can demonstrate G-d's presence. It's my opinion that science can't do that. It's a matter of faith, not science, to believe in G-d.
While science hasn't definitively proven or disproven the existence of G-d (and probably never will), I think it's erroneous to believe that scientific evidence pointing to the existence of G-d or an intelligent creator doesn't exist.
Physicists almost universally agree that complex order can not arise from total chaos.
Yet this is a pre-condition for the formation of the universe and life, without an intelligent designer's hand.
A good analogy would be a tornado striking the parts used to build an airplane and somehow assembling an airliner.
Could a billion chimpanzees banging away at typewriters eventually type out one of Shakespeare's sonnets by chance ? Perhaps. But the chances are so infinitesimal as to almost not exist. Yet the absolute denial of intelligent design requires us to believe that something akin to this happened.
This is why many preeminent scientists readily accept intelligent design and why some renown atheists such as Anthony Fluge have reversed their position.
Rubystars:
--- Quote from: Muck DeFuslims on April 13, 2008, 07:02:58 AM ---While science hasn't definitively proven or disproven the existence of G-d (and probably never will), I think it's erroneous to believe that scientific evidence pointing to the existence of G-d or an intelligent creator doesn't exist.
--- End quote ---
If there were some kind of strong evidence of God's existence, then there would be no need for faith.
--- Quote ---Physicists almost universally agree that complex order can not arise from total chaos.
--- End quote ---
I never heard of any scientific claims of that nature.
--- Quote ---Yet this is a pre-condition for the formation of the universe and life, without an intelligent designer's hand.
--- End quote ---
Not really. Natural processes are just that--processes.
--- Quote ---A good analogy would be a tornado striking the parts used to build an airplane and somehow assembling an airliner.
--- End quote ---
Eh, no. How do you believe that corresponds to anything science has claimed?
--- Quote ---Could a billion chimpanzees banging away at typewriters eventually type out one of Shakespeare's sonnets by chance ? Perhaps. But the chances are so infinitesimal as to almost not exist. Yet the absolute denial of intelligent design requires us to believe that something akin to this happened.
--- End quote ---
That analogy doesn't even pertain to anything either. Processes are the opposite of "random chance".
--- Quote ---This is why many preeminent scientists readily accept intelligent design and why some renown atheists such as Anthony Fluge have reversed their position.
--- End quote ---
It's good if he decides not to be an atheist anymore, but he really can't credit science for that. I think perhaps he just wanted to find some justification for himself so that he still felt logical.
Rubystars:
--- Quote ---You have been giving apologetics for abiogenesis. Abiogenesis and creation are mutually exclusive. It's ridiculous to say that G-d "created the process" which allowed life to form on its own. That's not really creating anything, so what's the point? That is just a way of riding the fence so as not to be ridiculed by the secular establishment, and COUNTS as atheism.
--- End quote ---
I actually believe G-d had a direct hand in guiding the process. I believe G-d was directly involved in these processes as they were going forward and that he created the processes to begin with. Now can science demonstrate any of that direct involvement? No.
--- Quote ---Evolution assumes that all current life forms come from previous life, but that has to have a beginning, doesn't it? And what is that beginning that the evolutionists believe in? Abiogenesis--life coming from nothing.
--- End quote ---
No, not from nothing. Nucleotide formation requires the right chemical precursors to be there. Evolution deals with the time after life already came around. Abiogenesis deals with the formation of life itself.
--- Quote ---That's not really how it works. First of all, belief in G-d is not an exceptional idea, it is common sense. Secondly, Jews have been believing in G-d long before atheists came along and invented evolution. Did Jews at the time of the revelation at Sinai have to prove G-d's existence? It's the challenger that has to prove himself.
--- End quote ---
They don't have to prove it because it's unprovable, but if you make a claim and want others to believe it, then you're the one who has the burden of proof. Even if it's something that can't be proven, the one making the claim is the one who should defend that claim if it needs defending.
--- Quote ---The burden of proof would be on you in that case because historically green unicorns hadn't been a known existence to humans. If you challenge this by saying there is one then you are the one that must prove it.
--- End quote ---
And yet you can't understand how that applies to G-d belief?
What if a Muslim told you that he was going to blow himself up because he believed he'd go straight to Jenna with the dark-eyed virgins and little boys, and rivers of wine. He was very excited to leave and go kill some Jews. Would you have to prove that he was wrong, or would he be the one making the extraordinary claim? You can't say that people don't actually believe in this stuff, because they do, unfortunately.
--- Quote ---Same thing with evolution. And it's pretty sad that you're comparing G-d to a green unicorn. Either you have the theology of Christopher Hitchens or you drink as much as he does.
--- End quote ---
I use that reference because the essence of the problem is about who needs to defend the claim, the claimant, or the one who hears it.
--- Quote --- already dealt with this above, there's no way you can separate evolution from abiogenesis (nothing into something) unless you depart from establishment science, even if evolution in itself doesn't concern itself with the actual beginning of life.
--- End quote ---
Accepting evolution doesn't require someone to accept abiogenesis. I've spoken with people who accept one but not the other. Darwin himself said that evolution could have begun by G-d breathing life into a few forms or into one. There was no abiogenesis research in his day. I accept abiogenesis, because I believe it's more soundly scientific. I do believe that G-d worked through abiogenesis to create life, so G-d did create life.
--- Quote ---The fact that science separates them into 2 categories doesn't effect the question of how we get from nothing to where we are now. There's no confusion, these are just 2 subjects that go together. What you are telling me is like saying: "You can't ask which came first, the chicken or the egg, because the process of the chicken laying the egg is different from the process of hatching."
--- End quote ---
Evolution says the egg came first, then chickens, while most creationists think that birds came first, then laid eggs. :)
The reason that abiogenesis is separated from evolution is that evolution is about how life became diversified. Abiogenesis is about the formation of the first form of life or the first forms of life.
For example, the human species was probably one race in the beginning. Later people moved around the world and became different races. How the different races of humankind developed has really nothing to do with how humans came about to begin with. They're two separate discussions.
--- Quote ---Well if the puddle was sentient and had the ability to ponder things like that, then it could possibly notice that every time it rained, other puddles were formed. It's a natural process that happens over and over again, and it doesn't take much more than a deer track and some rain to form a puddle. The puddle might not know where the rain or deer came from but it could certainly tell that it wasn't unique. Now when you're talking about life forming it's a different story altogether because no one has ever observed life forming or has been able to reproduce the process.
--- End quote ---
The point of that analogy was that the puddle was exactly the same shape as the hole it rested in, not because the hole was perfectly formed for it, but because the puddle took on the shape of the hole.
In the same way, life is adapted to the conditions that it finds itself in. The conditions are then deemed "perfect for life" by creationists. lol
--- Quote ---Also, even the human eye is much more complex than a puddle of water.
--- End quote ---
Interesting thing about the eye, we actually have blind spots in our eyes, just like fish do. Not all eyes are like those though. Cephalopods actually have good vision that's completely unobstructed, no blind spots. How would intelligent design explain the blind spots in fish and human eyes?
--- Quote ---Evolution doesn't claim that rocks and flour are put into a sieve and only the flour goes through. Evolution claims that primordial soup is put into a sieve and through a series of random mutations--you never know what's going to develop--both rocks and flour are formed, and the flour goes through because its mutation allowed it to fit through the sieve.
--- End quote ---
I don't see how the added steps change my point. Filtering processes are not random. A cold climate will select for cold-adapted life, for example. It doesn't randomly select for just anything.
--- Quote ---They are still ostracized even if they only believe in an intelligent designer and don't go any further than that. It's Intelligent Design that is the broader category, and Creationism is a sub-set of this, and there is an "Intelligent Design" movement within the creationist movement. But scientists that believe in the broader idea of intelligent design are the subject of the documentary.
--- End quote ---
There's nothing in science that says that one can't believe in G-d. You just can't start bringing beliefs into science as if they were demonstrable facts.
--- Quote ---And you don't see how liberals could possibly use the science establishment's views on intelligent design to put any kind of restrictions on Americans?
--- End quote ---
Almost any scientific advancement can be misused, as you mentioned evolution was misused in the past.
Evolution forms the framework of all modern biological science, which includes a lot of medical science. That's why scientists need to have a strong sense of ethics. Unfortunately lately in the news we've been reading that not all of them do.
--- Quote ---There is a good reason for it. The reason is that any hint that you're an intelligent design advocate and you're automatically shunned, regardless of how you come to your conclusions. It's like being a conservative professor or journalist. The mainstream media and mainstream academics like to hire liberals that agree with their establishment viewpoint, so the conservatives have to find their own outlets.
--- End quote ---
I can see how that might be a problem socially, sometimes. In any case, when one is doing science, the only thing that matters as to the actual validity of their work, is that the scientist practice methodological naturalism. When that is happening it's irrelevant whether the scientist him/herself is atheist, buddhist, Jewish, or Christian. All four will approach the scientific method in the exact same way if they are doing good science.
I think the "ostracized scientists" in that video are probably trying to inject religion into science rather than simply being believers on their own time. When people try to do that, it will never be accepted as valid scientifically because it runs completely aganst the scientific method itself. That's why "the establishment" hasn't accepted it.
Also please don't accuse me of being an atheist. I've been clear from the beginning that I believe in G-d. I even believe in G-d as Creator. I just believe that G-d worked through these natural processes as His method of creation.
Also I thought this might be of interest to you:
Rubystars:
I notice several parts of your post involve attacking my faith or attacking me personally. This is unfortunately something I've had to deal with almost every time I get into this debate. Most of the time it comes after I get into the details of the evidence and the creationist I'm debating with panics. I think it's kind of sad how we really haven't gotten into a lot of evidence (for or against) yet, and you've already taken this approach.
I'll attempt to answer the questions you've raised about me up front.
The major point I can see to disagree with a creationist would be the method of creation (I don't dispute the creation). Now, when I read the Bible, in the early chapters, I see that it says "let the earth bring forth". What am I supposed to make of this? To me, it says G-d is commanding the earth to bring forth what He wills. G-d commands the earth to bring forth various forms of life, etc. Evolution (and abiogenesis) show how those things occurred in my opinion.
Can we prove G-d's involvement? I don't think we can, but that doesn't diminish His role or the fact that He is G-d.
As for being a fence sitter, I'm not on the fence, I'm simply right about two things, my belief in G-d and my acceptance of evolution. I'm firm in both although the second one could be altered were evidence to come in to invalidate it. If you want to convince me that evolution is wrong, then that's how you need to do it, by the evidence.
I'm sorry that you're offended by the analogies I used. They are actually pretty mild compared to some that were given to me. I thought perhaps you could see the points I was trying to make rather than bother over the details of the analogies themselves. I'll try to be more careful in which ones I use but one thing I think you should be able to do is when arguing a point you should have some detachment from the subject matter in order to be able to look at it objectively.
--- Quote ---It doesn't matter how simple you make the chemical precursors, you cannot get life out of non-life because somewhere along the line you have to have something that reproduces on its own. And even chemicals must have had a beginning point. If the universe had a beginning, that means that there was nothing before it. And separating abiogenesis from evolution does not deflect the problem under scrutiny, which is that complex life exists, but at one time there was no life.
--- End quote ---
Well there are very simple things (not quite life) that reproduce on their own or as parasites on living things today. Prions, viruses, etc. A lot of abiogenesis research involves exploring various self-replicators. Protobionts can make other protobionts, but they don't have genetic material.
I don't know as much about abiogenesis as I do about evolution but I know a little. I could probably help with some things. Basically the whole point of posting the (multi-step) process at the bottom of my last post was to point out that scientists never claim a giant leap from chemicals to life, but claim much more reasonable, small jumps in that direction which eventually led to life.
As for the "burden of proof" argument, you seem to think that the burden of proof is always on the claimant except when it comes to this one subject. I would say the burden of proof is always on the claimant, even if he or she can not really prove their claim. They may have other ways of persuading people to believe as they do though, and it's their job to do the persuading.
"Theory" in science is about as close as you can get to "fact" in science. It is the nature of science to approach the truth as closely as possible, but not to declare that it has reachd an absolute truth. That's why they're still called theories even if they're very well established. That's why I brought up cell theory (that living things are made of cells), the theory of gravitation, nuclear theory, etc. int he earlier post, for comparison. Now why would you think the idea that living things are made of cells is still a theory? Any child could take an onion skin and see its cells under a microscope. Doctors analyze patient's cells for cancer. The evidence is simply overwhelming and easily observable, even by a child. Why, then, is it called a theory? The answer is: that is simply the nature of science. To reach the level of "theory" something has to have a good amount of supporting evidence and needs to have passed peer review.
Theory in common language just means "a guess" but as I've tried to explain that's not what it means in science at all.
--- Quote ---People can believe whatever they want, but the problem is that scientists who don't believe in abiogenesis are being ostracized, even if they do believe in evolution. And abiogenesis and intelligent design are mutually exclusive. If you accept both, you must have a half-hearted or phony belief in one or the other. What do you mean G-d "worked through" abiogenesis? How can G-d "work through" life forming itself? If you're going to minimize G-d's role in creation this much, there's really no point in believing in G-d.
--- End quote ---
Let the earth bring forth
Now, the microevolution/macroevolution dichotomy is really false. It's like being "a little bit pregnant".
If someone moves one step at a time, that still means they'll eventually have moved a whole mile if they keep walking. To say you believe they can move one step but not one mile just doesn't make sense. Macroevolution doesn't work any differently than microevolution. It's just a matter of degree or how many small changes have added up.
--- Quote ---http://If there aren't certain conditions for life to form on its own, why can't life form on its own now? It's not creationists making this claim, because conditions don't matter according to creationism because G-d creates the conditions. G-d can create anything at any time, no perfect condition has to be there.
--- End quote ---
Conditions might have to be what they were on the early earth for OUR type of life to form. If conditions had been different perhaps another type of life would have come about. Conditions are VERY different from what they were when the earth first formed, and life is still around because it evolved to the new conditions.
--- Quote ---And I don't understand what there is to explain about a blind spot that is different from any other body part that is different between different species.
--- End quote ---
It's an imperfection. If someone wants to argue that "intelligent design" can be seen in nature, then they have to explain why this happens. Also, because fish and other animals that are on the same evolutionary line share the same defect, it indicates a common ancestry with them.
--- Quote ---The question is, how did the eye evolve from organisms with no eyes? Through a series of mutations, even when most mutations make animals less adapted to their environment?
--- End quote ---
All it takes for an eye to form is for a nerve or some cells to become light sensitive. Such simple eyes can be seen in creatures like the flatworm Planarians.
Such a simple eye can detect light so that a creature can tell which direction the surface of the water is. The bright surface is up, the dark bottom is down. Also if a predator moves above and blocks the light, the creature with such an eye would have an advantage in knowing it was there.
This page has a great video on eye evolution:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
If you have trouble viewing it I'll try to put it on youtube.
--- Quote ---The difference is the random mutations. In order to become adapted to a climate, the organism population must change through random mutations that make it more favorable. Now just because an organism is in a cold climate doesn't mean that it's genetic structure is going to know this and develop a trait that is more favorable to the cold.
--- End quote ---
It doesn't have to know beforehand. The cold acts as a filter to kill off animals with the "Wrong" mutations. It's a passive process. If a person were suddenly placed in deep water next to a sea sponge, which do you think would survive? One is just better in that environment than the other, and the sponge will make more sponges.
--- Quote ---This is not what is going on. Intelligent design advocates in the documentary believe what they believe based on their interpretations of the evidence found in nature.
--- End quote ---
What they've done is to take a pre-existing belief and try to fit the evidence to it, rather than the other way around. That's bad science and that's why they're ridiculed.
--- Quote ---Since the mutations are random, it could just as likely develop a trait that is more favorable to the heat.
--- End quote ---
Which would make sure that it had a lesser chance of survival in that environment and would not be as likely to leave offspring.
--- Quote ---It's nothing more than a matter of faith to say that these random mutations, which are rare and more than likely aren't going to be favorable, are what account for the differences between a bacteria and a human.
--- End quote ---
Mutations aren't rare. Everyone has some. We don't have exactly half the genes from our mothers and half from our fathers. It's close, but we have mutations of our own as well. Most of them are neutral. How would you know if your tongue for example were 1 milimeter longer, or if your teeth's enamel was 2% thicker?
These kinds of mutations are extremely common and if they help an animal to survive better, then they can spread through a population.
--- Quote ---That's just an assumption of an agenda, when the reality is that these people are similar to the scientists who don't follow the conventional wisdom within the global warming movement. They are still scientists who just do not come to the same conclusion as other scientists. And they cannot be heard because they are muzzled by the establishment for no reason.
--- End quote ---
They're similar all right, both ignore evidence and are often the same people! They don't come to the same conclusion as other scientists because they are the ones with the agenda.
Muck DeFuslims:
This is why many preeminent scientists readily accept intelligent design and why some renown atheists such as Anthony Fluge have reversed their position.
It's good if he decides not to be an atheist anymore, but he really can't credit science for that. I think perhaps he just wanted to find some justification for himself so that he still felt logical.
======================================================
This is a preposterous response.
First of all, Fluge can and does credit scientific evidence for his abondoning his status as the world's most renown atheist and his newfound belief in the existence of G-d.
It's audacious to suggest that after decades of being the most outspoken advocate of atheism that Fluge haphazardly reversed his position and that his reasons for doing so were illogical. Exactly the opposite is true, but I guess if you want to psychoanalyze Fluge and come to the conclusion that he's merely trying to 'justify' himself, that's your right.
Secondly, you say that "It's good if he decides not to be an atheist anymore". Why is that ? After all, you seem to believe his decision to no longer be an atheist isn't based on logic and can't be justified on a scientific basis. So why do you think it's 'good' he changed his mind ?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version