I conclude evolution is guided

by KateWild 532 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • KateWild
    KateWild
    Our conclusions should follow the evidence. Not try and lead the evidence - Codedlogic

    Yes I absolutely agree. That's what I do. Do you think Cofty is trying to lead the evidence by making this unsubstantiated claim? I don't but what do you think?

    Kenso Soai (21 years ago) - Look I have shown how replicating stuff can end up all left-handed. We can now explain exactly how that happens naturally. - cofty

    Soai nowhere is his paper drew this conclusion in these words. But cofty is not bias, he just has a position, and cofty is not twisting facts to lead the evidence. He said he doesn't, so it must be true.

    I also agree that filling in scientific gaps with god is illogical. It is much better to apply Occams Razor when there is no definitive answer.

  • KateWild
    KateWild
    actually theists have a range of ways of conceiving of how God guides evolution - you are describing a fairly narrow way of how he does so. Deists for example have a different view from pantheist Christians. - Ruby

    This is a really good point to highlight we are all individuals. The way we accepted WT was different for all of us the way we woke up was too, and the way we come to conclusions that evolution is guided is different for all of us that have come to this conclusion. It's personal for us.

    Also the reasons why people are atheist are different for everyone. some people are atheist because of suffering and others are because of scientific fact, and some are because of both, some are atheist because they see no evidence of God.

    Good point Ruby

  • cyberjesus
    cyberjesus

    Your personal conclusion is an opinion. You can conclude whatever you want..... opinions are not facts.

    An atheist is not someone who has come to the conclusion that there is no God due the evidence of his non existance. Rather is someone who doesn't believe in a deity because of the lack of evidence of his existence.

    Science and suffering are not the reasons from my disbelief on a deity. But the lack of evidence that would prove his existence. Gut feelings, personal conclusions even personal testimonies are not enough.

    Anyway. ThanKS for sharing your conclusions...

  • KateWild
    KateWild
    Rather is someone who doesn't believe in a deity because of the lack of evidence of his existence. - cyberjesus
    some are atheist because they see no evidence of God. - Kate

    I think lack of evidence, and see no evidence means the same thing. Like I said all atheists have different reasons for their position.

    Anyway. ThanKS for sharing your conclusions... - cyberjesus

    Thanks for being interested enough to read them. Especially as they are just opinions and hold no influence. I really appreciate you doing so.


  • cofty
    cofty

    I'm off to bed but just a quick response for now.

    Science is founded on a commitment to "Methodological Naturalism". This means that supernatural answers are off-limits.

    This has nothing to do with any bias or personal beliefs of individual scientists. Even christians who are scientists begin with the working assumption that there are unguided, naturalistic causes for the phenomena they investigate. That is what it means to do science as opposed to theology.

    Please note that "methodological naturalism" is not the same as "ontological naturalism". The former is a practical working assumption, the other is a philosophical position. Christians working in science all commit to the former.

    As soon as a scientist does what Kate has done in this thread they cease to do science. It amounts to an intellectually lazy surrender to superstition. Further progress becomes impossible. Even Isaac Newton compromised on methodological naturalism when he was unable to work out why all planets revolve on the same plane around the sun and declared that god-did-it.

    From the time it was first discovered that some molecules were either "left handed" or "right handed", and that all the amino acids in living things were only of one sort, it has been a matter of considerable mystery why this should be so.

    Creationists lazily and dishonestly declared that god did it. This was one of the arguments in the old Creation Book. I have never understood why it should be a sign of divine guidance but it was certainly an interesting puzzle.

    In 1995 Kenso Soai was able to solve the mystery. He showed that the situation where all the molecules are of just one sort is exactly what happens under natural conditions.

    I will post a thread on it in my Evolution is a Fact" series later but here is a very brief summary of the facts.

    The key to Soai's discovery was the fact that the process that produces the molecules in question are "autocatalytic".

    Molecules often need a bit of help to get together. The matchmakers are called catalysts. Imagine the result though if the end product ALSO has the right properties to catalyse more molecules. Each generation not only produces more end product but also more catalysts to facilitate even more reactions.

    The result is exponential growth.

    If there is a very small difference in the balance of the right and left types of molecule in the early stage of the process then that difference also grows exponentially. When both types are competing for resources one will win the contest by orders of magnitude.

    Soai demonstrated exactly this outcome in his lab. It was one the great experiments of science.

    It is not the burden of anybody to show that any process could NOT be guided by a supernatural source. That is a fool's errand. It is the task of science to show that it is entirely possible for unguided naturalistic processes to accomplish each task. The puzzle of why the stuff of living things is all made of left-handed molecules is now no more of a mystery than the path of the planets.

  • Coded Logic
    Coded Logic
    coded logic i think the god of the gaps idea is only a logical fallacy if an individual believes in intelligent design

    No, the God of the Gaps Fallacies says nothing about intelligent design. If proponents of intelligent design could put up evidence for their conclusions than it wouldn't be a God of the Gaps argument.

    God of the Gaps is when there is some scientific or philosophical question that doesn't yet have a an answer and people purpose "God" as answer - but not explaintion - to the question.

    Saying, "We don't know how life began - therefore God" is an example. But you could use it with any unknown.

    You could say, "I don't know how Thomas Lock came up with the foundations of the US constitution - therefore God."

    Or, "I don't understand how I won the lottery after buying my very first ticket - therefore God." would also be examples of God the Gaps fallacies.


  • prologos
    prologos
    ruby456: "coded logic i think the god of the gaps idea is only a logical fallacy if an individual believes in intelligent design.

    Or the design is so intelligent, that it needs no further re-design after the one and only creation event, blurred for us in it's intensity. A perfect planned retirement, no more involvement with the increasingly pesky offspring. Each detail present in a gap that is uncovered merely shows with which richness the whole thing works, and there is more to come, we might never run out of gaps:-- gasp. just because we find out how it works, does not mean it was not work in the first place. wirkliche werke.

  • Ruby456
    Ruby456

    coded logic

    the god of the gaps argument is used for teleological purposes. Intelligent design is a teleological proposition. So here it is indeed a fallacy, as prologos so nicely points out although his viewpoint is deism, as there is no intelligent design but a gap therefore a logical fallacy. edit: However I don't think he is making a scientific or philosophical proposition but like Kate is using the term in an everyday life sense.

    Kate used the idea of God of gaps to describe her ongoing search for answers and explanations. Most of us when we are being ordinary humans in our everyday lives (and I have a vested interest here because I do the same) use the knowledge we gain from our studies to inspire our lives drawing as it were from the riches around us. In this sense I read Kate and prologos when they say God of the gaps as creating a space for others (in my case for whomever and/or whatever they may be). These others could be new scientific discoveries, new theories (in science self organizing systems as I have already mentioned and here there is scope for science joining with humanities subjects and drawing from their research in a sort of partnership) knowledge gained in the past that may be relevant today etc. Yet the three of us act upon different ideas - you get my drift...

    I must tell you all about Brian Cox's second program Forces of Nature part two. In this he discusses spacetime. This may interest you whatshallicallmyself as it touches on memory in the sense of the past.

  • Ruby456
    Ruby456
    Science is founded on a commitment to "Methodological Naturalism". This means that supernatural answers are off-limits.

    cofty if this is the case then why are you bringing ontology into the mix. If you are doing so for general discussion then fine but here you (and Dakwins crew) cannot accuse others being of being intellectually dishonest, lazy etc as you (and they) are doing the same.

    all dawkins and crew need to do is lose the insults and acknowledge that they are making science ontological in order to refute everyday religiosity and ideas.

    Soai was not making conclusions about ontology for example was he?

  • Ruby456
    Ruby456

    back to your topic Kate

    I have a problem with Occam's Razor that the simplest explanation is the best. I don't think it is always the best.

    this is how wiki puts it and I agree with the idea that the more complex explanation should be taken if it does a better job. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

    • More things should not be used than are necessary.

    This means that if there are several possible ways that something might have happened, the way that uses the fewest guesses is probably the right one. However, Occam's razor only applies when the simple explanation and complex explanation both work equally well. If a more complex explanation does a better job than a simpler one, then you should use the complex one.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit