Science101
It isn't what I put into the program that gives evolution a goal-like feature,
Well, no, because your programs and evolution are two different things
I had to consider that when I wrote them. It's the evolution mechanism itself.
Random mutation creates variation,
Agreed
while natural selection provides predictable direction (even if we are unable to tell what direction an organisms evolution is taking)
This statement contradicts itself; how can natural selection provide 'predictable direction' if 'we are unable to tell what direction an organisms evolution is taking'.
The environment determines much of directionality.
Yes.
In one environment it might be best to become larger in size, while in another it's better to be smaller.
What evolution is moving a species towards, would be evolution's goal.
But it isn't moving towards anything as it doesn't know what it is evolving into. Thus my point that 'goals' are in the mind of the observer, not in the mechanism of evolution or in the mind of the evolving organism.
The phrase "selection pressure" would work too. The problem with it, is that people would first have to understand how evolution works to know what it means.
I have no problem with people having to study a bit to understand evolution; any school system where someone can leave school without knowing what 'selection pressure' is as bad as one where they leave without knowing what 'present continuous' is. And I can explain 'selection pressure' in three sentences;
When a scientist uses the words 'selection pressure', they mean the things in an environment that might give one animal of a species an advantage over another that meant it had more offspring. Imagine someone who keeps dog but only breeds the ones with a certain characteristic, say brown spots; obviously all the next generation will be descended from brown-spotted dogs, most of them will have brown spots, and only those with brown spots will be allowed to breed. The dog breeder is providing 'selection pressure' by only selecting ones with brown spots, just like in nature a certain colouration might result in an animal having more or less offspring and be also 'selection pressure'.
Have to consider the vocabulary of the audience or you only confuse them.
I always go for education not simplification.
In my opinion it is better to use words they already know then work from there, to compromise.
That is why "creative force" ended up being the best of them all. People right away know what you are describing.
Er, yes, and that's the problem; it implies there is a force that creates, and everyone knows what create means. And you can't prove a 'creative force' anymore than I can prove a 'tooth firt force'; all you are doing is misleadingly labeling a charcteristic of our Universe' physical constants. And as my example shows, a term like 'seletion pressure' is easy to explain in simple terms.
Same as making a new word from Latin where two words already in use are combined to make a new one. It may be composed of words that are also used in religion, like "genesis", but that did not stop people before us from using them. I see no sense in trying to reinvent the wheel because a few people would rather use words that have no meaning at all.
Now, I didn't suggest using word with no meaning, I suggested avoiding words with existing meanings that would cause confusion or misunderstanding. You argued 'creative force' was an okay term despite being steeped in religous meaning, as science uses terms like 'abiogenesis', which you thought derived from he Bible book.
But 'abiogensis' has an etmomolgy derived from Greek and means 'non biological origins', so your argument that 'creative force' was okay as other scientific words had religious origins does not stand.
As far as "creative force" is concerned the evidence for it is our chemistry books.
No, there is evidence for molecular self-assembly which happens because of a number of different "noncovalent interactions, such as hydrogen bonding, metal coordination, hydrophobic forces, van der Waals forces, pi-pi interactions, and/or electrostatic effects".
Only thing I did was give multiple forces found in nature a name that describes what they together can do.
But there is a term already; molecular self-assembly. This doen't carry with it any of the loaded conotations of the term you wish to use.
And as you ended up showing in the formation of the word "abiogenesis" from Latin, I did it like people before me did.
Greek actually, and 'creative force' implies things that 'molecular self-assembly' does not.
And when I'm writing sermonish material it's important to use the proper vocabulary or it ends up as boring as a science textbooks to people who want something religiously meaningful.
Well, as I said earlier, this seems to confirm you are trying to streach 'attractive presuppostions round facts that don't fit them very well'.
What makes you think science is or should be 'religiously meaningful'?
Maybe the best way for you to understand why I use words this way, is for you to try writing a science-sermon. I would love to read one that you wrote. Picture yourself the guest at a church or kingdom hall, there to give the believers an uplifting message about the miracle of science. Might also want to post it as a new topic to see how the religious audience reacts to it.
I'm hoping you take me up on my challenge. And tomorrow is Sunday, it will be perfect timing. So go ahead brother Abaddon, you get to write the next sermon on this theme. Try to beat mine.
Well I don't think science needs to be delivered in the style of a sermon, but this is what I'd say to a group of believers;
Many of you here today will have wondered over the debate between scientists, the vast majority of which feel evolution explains why life on this planet is the way it is, and those who feel that evolution does not explain everything.
Some people insist that the literal word of Genesis or some other Holy Book is the accurate truth as regards our origins. Others insist that it is allegorical. Others that it is just a snap-shot of what mankind's knowledge of our origins was like at one point in time.
We can look around us and, whatever we believe, agree that we live in a majestically beautiful Universe. From far distant reaches of the galaxy to under the rocks in the garden outside, we see order and structure, be it of clouds of dust and gas into stars and galaxies, or of simple chemicals into organic life.
Just as today we might think that it isn't important to have tassles around our clothes, or that it is okay for men to shave, or that it is not right to make prisoners of war slaves, or that we do not need to circumsize our boy children, we could well feel that modern science has a better idea about the time scales of the Universe and the development of life on this planet than bronze-age goatherds.
Ignoring the letter of an ancient book doesn't mean we disregard or disrespect the spirit of it.
At the end of the day I feel it doesn't matter how the Universe came about. It is here, and it is good. We can be pretty sure that men of faith were sincere, but let us not swallow down the camel of error by assuming they were always right when the evidence of the world around us shows us the contrary is true.
Belief in something greater than ourselves doesn't require a theory to back it up, nor does it require denying facts so well established that to deny them is unreasonable. In fact, if we need to prove our beliefs by denying demonstrable facts, what does that say about our faith?
Reflection on the Universe around us reveals wonders; the strength of bonds holding elements together means we have the variety of elements required to support life as we see it around us as well as allowing the life-cycle of stars that shine in the sky above us. Were it different then we would not be here to see it, nor have the light to see it by.
The way that various forces between atoms and molecules act means that certain chemicals have structures that make the cell possible, the way that an organsim in its natural environment is as perfectly suited to its environment as glove is to a hand - the whole Universe seems to focus on the production of life, at least as far as our own world shows us. From bacteria far underground in cracks in rocks to life living around volcanic vents deep under the sea where light never shines.
This is a wonder whether by the hand of 'god', however you concieve it, or not, especially as that 'god' seems to be so subtle and skilled this came about merely through the way it 'threw the dice'. Not a god that makes things like a potter or a carpenter as our ancestors may have been able to understand, but one who sets it all going so perfectly what it wills comes to be as a result of the rules of the game.
And if this is just chance, and the only way we happen to be able to appreciate the wonder of it all is the fortuitous develpment of sentience, is that any less miraculous? Does it make life any less precious?
There are enough divisions between humans without us creating more. The only reason we have to cling to a literal interpretation of an ancient book is if by doing so we give ourselves a security blanket against a changing and sometimes uncertain world, to make it possible to hold ourselves above others on trifling details that have little or nothing to do with whether we are a good "neighbour".
And if we need to use words on a page to do that, where does faith fit in exactly? Surely we need to read our hearts and use our minds rather than turn to the correct page. Which is better, to live a good life because we want to or because there is a rule on a page?
Religion has always sought to explain the world around us, but now science gives us a better tool to do that. To cling to old beliefs facts show to be simply wrong is like believing Thor makes thunder just because it says so in some Holy Book. Today religious belief seems to be a better tool for some to make sense of the world within them; others might not feel the need, might have an internal world where they do not need a faith to make sense of it all; this does not make either condition of greater worth than the other.
What people of either disposition can do is be united in their wonder at the world around them and at being able to wonder at the world around them.
