Theistic Evolution

by cofty 195 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  binadub

  BTS:

  You can also be a theist and believe in ID, but you cannot be an atheist and believe in ID.

  You sure can. You can believe in intelligent design without believing in God. You can think it is possible an intelligent alien species engaged in some sort of bioengineering here a long time ago. That is intelligent design.

  Your own quotes bear this out:

  ID makes no claims about biblical chronology, and technically a person does not have to believe in God to infer intelligent design in nature. As a theory, ID also does not specify the identity or nature of the designer

  and:

  does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

  Which tends to support my prior statement:

  Indeed, it is not. ID makes specific claims going beyond the claim that God is the originator of the Universe.

  BTS: You make a very valid point of argument. In the sense you present ID “going beyond the claim that ‘God’ is the originator”, I concede that I was thinking of it within the frame of the atheist community who insist that ID is creationism, meaning evangelical/fundamentalist dogma. My apology.

  However, I don’t agree that ID makes specific claims that go beyond an intelligence being the originator, but it certainly does allow for the possibility. You’re right about that.

  Having said that, by your own argument, acknowledging that one can believe in ID and not believe in God lends support to the fact that ID is not creationism and is not religion, because belief in God is fundamental to Creationism. In fact, to borrow your reasoning, I would say Creationism goes beyond just believing in a God.

  My only point is that Intelligent Design is not Creationism. Some Creationists employ ID, but that doesn’t make ID Creationism.

  You asked what my personal perspective is? It’s immaterial.

  Soft and Gentle:

  Thanks for your unbiased comments.

  Cofty:

  ID has a specific meaning that goes beyond your dictionary definition. You are in a minority of one to think otherwise.

  You argue against dictionary definition and encyclopedia which were written by others not me. I looked those up at your suggestion to Google and they were right at the top of the list. I am in a minority among atheists, not anyone else. Or would you like to tell us what kind of survey is your source. I’m well aware that atheists tend to insist that ID is Creationism, and I have an opinion as to why. But that’s beside the point as well.

  I’ve said and I’ll say it again: I agree that ID should not be taught in schools as science. It is not science. It is also not religion, and in particular not fundamentalist evangelical YEC Creationism.

  _________

  This has been good. I’ve been out of the JWs so long I had forgotten how futile it is to argue with an indoctrinated mindset. It’s like trying to show a JW their chronology is wrong. I used to say (and Don Cameron quoted me): “You don’t change people’s minds by proving them wrong” like with such mundane unscholarly resources as dictionaries and encyclopedias.

  Show proof, and Cofty complains that he’s arguing with a dictionary! Do you hear yourself?

  Cofty and NC insist (like the majority of atheists I know, of which I am not even a minority of 1) that ID is creationism, based on the evidence of their say-so with unfounded statistics of majority opinion. NC challenges the math probability argument, but asks for validation from someone who understands math because she doesn’t feel qualified in math.

  I insist that ID is not creationism—based on dictionary definitions, encyclopedia definition, as well as DI’s definition, which I presented. What Cofty and I have in common on that is that I don’t argue with the dictionary definition either. (Because they are right.)

  ID is not religion. It's not science, but it's not religion. That's all.

  ~Binadub
• 

  NewChapter

  NC challenges the math probability argument, but asks for validation from someone who understands math because she doesn’t feel qualified in math.

  Yes---that is called being humble and more interested in facts than being right. I accept that math is a shaky subject for me, so I explained how I understand it, and then I requested correction if I was wrong. LOGICALLY, if something is assigned a probability factor, it is NOT impossible. However it is a weak area of mine, but seems to make sense to me. We have some math whizzes on this board, and I'm always open to being educated more. However, with my understanding, I would not be so arrogant as to dismiss something as impossible when the math says there is a certain probability. I also understand that we are not talking about a few million years, so using reason, I concluded that given enough time, even the most improbable event has a greater chance of happening. Somehow you concluded that it was impossible---yet the math would argue that this conclusion is untrue. To be sure, I asked, and I will listen to the answer.

  I insist that ID is not creationism—based on dictionary definitions, encyclopedia definition, as well as DI’s definition, which I presented. What Cofty and I have in common on that is that I don’t argue with the dictionary definition either. (Because they are right.)

  That's okay as long as the courts are not fooled. Now this is an area that I am stronger in, because I write. I understand that the literal definitions available in dictionaries are not the full story. I understand that there are shades of meaning and implied meaning that cannot always be captured in a short definition. I refuse to use a word just from the dictionary. I will become familiar with the word, with the tone it implies, with the context in which it is used. I will also look for bias---dictionaries CAN be biased. The one thing I can be sure of, is I cannot fully trust the dictionary definition because it is only a piece of that word.

  I researched the word CULT once. I used many dictionaries that were published over the course of decades. I noticed that the definitions that were offered in the 50's were rather mild---neutral. As the years went on, the definition became progressively more negative. Some time in the late 60's early 70's the tone changed a great deal. I theorized that this was after the Manson murders and wondered if that did not change the public perception of the word. Words have a history.

  But we are not talking about a simple word here. We are talking about a movement. ID is religion. It is creationism. It is meant to disguise its true motivation. The evidence is all there. We've discussed the Wedge document. We've discussed the typo. If you have concluded that something is impossible because it is unlikely, or that something is too complex to have come about by a process but needs a designer, you are a creationist. If you feel a designer interfered in the process in any way, you are a creationist. I don't care if you think it happened in 6000 years or 6 million years---you believe that someone/thing directed and sculpted the process.

  Some believe that the process was set in motion---perhaps the big bang---but then everything else happened through natural means that can be examined scientifically. These are not creationists. If you reach a point in complexity, throw up your hands, and claim it is impossible without a designer, you have thrown in the towel, all knowledge stops there, and you are a creationist.

  NC
• 

  simon17

  New Chapter is correct. Anything with a non-zero probability is, of course, not impossible. In fact, its even more than that. Non-degenerate continuous probability distributions, as a rule, have a 'zero probability' everywhere in that the probability of any specific value occurring is 'almost surely' zero. This can be readily seen because areas under probability curves are found by integration, and finding the probability of a specific value would be an intergral with the same lower and upper limit, which equals zero. However, even though any specific event is almost sure not to occur, these events DO occur all the time.

  So, for example, if you chose a random number from a normal distribution, you would, with certainty, choose something that had a probability of being chosen of 0.

  I have no idea what we are even discussing at the moment... I'm still waiting for that matty creature to respond to my post that he said he "WOULD LOVE TO SEE" about evidences for evolution.... then nothing.
• 

  binadub

  New Chapter:
  I happened to come back on the forum this evening because I'm looking for a response to a PM. Happened to see your thoughtful reply.

  You mention the Wedge document and the typo involved, etc.
  That is not ID, that is DI (Discovery Institute).
  DI and its proponents may well be a religious movement or have an underlying religious agenda--I don't know. I'm not interested enough in them as a group or movement to investigate it. But the fact that they employ ID (intelligent design) theory in their argumentation does not make ID itself religion.

  Due to this thread I have looked at them enough to know that they (DI) do not deny evolution, they simply believe that evolution is intended for specific results. The subtle difference between DI's view of evolution and that defined as "theistic evolution"--if I understand it--is that TE subscribes to God only being involved in origin and then hands off (which I agree with Cofty does not seem to mesh with their fundamentalist religious concept for humans and salvation), whereas DI believes evolution possibly occurs with on-going involvement by intelligent design.
  They themselves (DI) do not define ID as a religion and correctly differentiate it from creationism, which does deny evolution. I think DI's critics in the academic community are valuable in this arena because that will hold them to keeping religion out of the argument if that should be their secret agenda. What does seem evident is that the proponents of DI subscribe to Old-Earth creationism, which is generally distinguished from Young-Earth Creationists (YEC) as the popular term "creationist" refers to.

  You also mentioned that you are a writer which qualifies you to better argue definition. Okay, well for a fact, my career for well over two decades has been in high tech engineering with two giant corporations (you'd reconize both names--I think) in the fields of atomic energy, instrumentation and electronics, as well as the Federal Government. I was (and am) a technical writer and documentation specialist, considered to be expert in my field. I'm also working on a novel based on fact which I hope to get published (eventually, because I still work). So I might qualify to have an opinion about definitions on your level. And I disagree with the logic of your point on complex probability insofar as you explained it.

  ~Binadub
• 

  binadub

  Simon17:
  Let me ask you a hypothetical question that might help define what some of us consider illustrates the point of probability. I had this discussion with a well-known and respected atheist former poster on this board (and a personal friend) not too long ago.

  He used the illustration that in a lottery, the odds of winning are seemingly insurmountable, one in millions. Yet there is one winner, for whom those odds were against, but nevertheless the winner beat the odds.

  My response was that yes, in infinity there is a chance that insurmountable odds may eventually occur--once.

  But if the lottery winner won once, and then won a second time, beating the same kind of odds, is that possible? Mathematically, yes.
  And if the same lottery winner won the lottery a third time, and then a fourth time, and then a fifth time, . . . .
  I don't know about you, but I would start thinking the lottery was "designed" (i.e., fixed).
  Possible? I suppose, but I wouldn't believe it. Would you? ;-)

  In evolution creation, you're not talking about the odds having been accidently accomplished once, you're talking about the odds having been achieved by the odds x the odds x the odds probability (generalized estimate ). By mathematical theory, that is remotely possible, but in reality I don't think so. (And math is not considered a science by a lot of scientists--it's theory.) Not me saying it--numerous scientists with credentials agree.

  ~Binadub
• 

  NewChapter

  All those qualifications and you still concluded that something assigned a probability factor is impossible? And you have a problem with someone admitting a weakness in a certain area and asking for clarification? And you haven't cracked the code on dictionary definitions?

  Okay.
• 

  binadub

  NC:

  It's none of my business but this the third time you have responded to a post of mine almost immediately after I post. And I'm not on here that much.
  Is that mathematical probability coincidence or do you almost live here?
  When do you ever get time to do all that studying?

  But like I said (before you do), it's none of my business.
  As for me, I'm off for the night. Three posts is enough for one day.

  ~Binadub
• 

  NewChapter

  Is that mathematical probability coincidence or do you almost live here?
  When do you ever get time to do all that studying?

  And this is the second time you have pointed it out. And as you said, it is none of your business---but trust me---I was able to pick out the assumption and the insult. Another case of jumping to conclusions without a clue of all the details.

  NC
• 

  soft+gentle

  NC it takes time to absorb new ideas and concepts. Honestly my head often hurts trying to understand how scientific terms are used and how they differ from a commonsensical approach. it may be worth studying up on probability and how it relates to possibility and impossibility. on the other hand binadub's illustration is quite plain and easy to understand but imo perhaps you need to put aside your confirmation biased specs.
• 

  jamesmahon

  Hi All

  Just a post on probability.

  If a system is closed and fully understood - such as a lottery - then the probability of an event within that system can be given with certainty. So Binadub is right that if a lottery of 6 from 59 balls (odds of about 17 million to 1 of winning) was won by the same person even twice in a row you have evidence that the lottery is rigged or there is something special about that person. In effect this means you may not fully understand the system and/or it is not closed. So you need to investigate. Of course, repeat enough lotteries enough times and the same person will win any number of times in a row - however unlikely.

  Where systems are not closed and are not fully understood then the best we can do is give our estimate of a probability of a specific event given our current information set.

  In the case of biological processes for some things we know the system reasonably well enough to be able to estimate with accuracy an event happening provided the environment is closed. For example, biologists can estimate the probability of a new protein arising in an organism over a specific time period that has a useful function if they know the number of genes required to mutate to generate that protein coupled with the rate of mutation. They can then conduct an experiment where they can control the environment to see if they are right.

  For biological processes where the system is only partially understood or the system is open to interference from a range of exogenous factors it becomes far more difficult to estimate the probability of an event with any degree of accuracy. What biologists can try and do to estimate the probability of an event in this instance is make observations. This is very difficult though in the case of chemicals coming together to start life. To begin we still do not understand the mixture of chemicals, how it gets sparked and what the first step looks like. Biologists speculate and from those speculations conduct experiments to see what happens. From those experiments they may ascribe a probability of a specific event happening based on observations under a closed system. But that event may not be how life started and the conditions when the event happened may be markedly different then the closed system in the experiment.

  So the upshot of all this is that we should not confuse and use in an argument the known probability of an event in a fully understood and closed system such as a lottery with the estimated probability of an even in a system we do not fully understand and is open. In any case, as has been pointed out before it is not just the probability that matters in isolation but the number of opportunities the event has to happen.

  As a final aside I always find arguments about probability from creationists a bit odd. If the likelihood of life originating by 'chance' is really low non-creationists only need that unlikely instance to happen once. So do creationists, just a step back.