Pope Francis On Evolution And Big Bang

[MormonFreeThinker]

Indeed, common ancestry is apart of evolutionary theories, ID contradicts this concept by pointing out that things that are designed, are not evolved. And some scientists have pointed out, that the step by step process required by evolution simply doesn't work chemically. 

 

Your arguments do not contradict Theistic Evolution. Science cannot prove that God was not involved. 

 

"The quantum physics of the 20th century falsifies this deterministic view of the universe. It does not disprove the absentee God of the Deists, but it does allow the possibility that God plays a role at the sub-atomic level of reality, influencing events without being obvious to humans operating at the macro-level. Ken Miller builds upon the indeterminacy of the quantum reality of the physical sciences to develop his Theist theology of an involved deity." 

https://darwinwatch.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/ken-miller%E2%80%99s-near-perfect-%E2%80%9Cfinding-darwin%E2%80%99s-god%E2%80%9D/

 

Again, ID arguments do not contradict Theistic Evolution. 

 

 

When scientists detect an alien signal, they will be able to identify it as coming from an intelligent source. ID uses this exact same principle. 

 

They will also try to understand how the aliens did it, that is science. 

Edited November 23, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

Indeed, common ancestry is apart of evolutionary theories, ID contradicts this concept by pointing out that things that are designed, are not evolved. And some scientists have pointed out, that the step by step process required by evolution simply doesn't work chemically. 

 

When scientists detect an alien signal, they will be able to identify it as coming from an intelligent source. ID uses this exact same principle. 

 

if life didn't work chemically it wouldn't work at all.

[LinuxGal]

if life didn't work chemically it wouldn't work at all.

 

There's dead chemicals, and living organisms, and between the two is a fuzzy gray area populated with the likes of prions and viruses.  The claim is that evolution doesn't work for chemicals, only organisms, but where do you draw the line and say whoops, no evolution allowed here, too chemical?  

[thesometimesaint]

There's dead chemicals, and living organisms, and between the two is a fuzzy gray area populated with the likes of prions and viruses.  The claim is that evolution doesn't work for chemicals, only organisms, but where do you draw the line and say whoops, no evolution allowed here, too chemical?  

 

That wasn't my claim. You'll have to ask danielwoods for his rationale. I'm fine with God using Chemistry and Evolution in his Creation of us and our world/universe.

[danielwoods]

Your arguments do not contradict Theistic Evolution. Science cannot prove that God was not involved.

Making it irrelevant.

 

"The quantum physics of the 20th century falsifies this deterministic view of the universe. It does not disprove the absentee God of the Deists, but it does allow the possibility that God plays a role at the sub-atomic level of reality, influencing events without being obvious to humans operating at the macro-level. Ken Miller builds upon the indeterminacy of the quantum reality of the physical sciences to develop his Theist theology of an involved deity." 

https://darwinwatch.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/ken-miller’s-near-perfect-“finding-darwin’s-god”/

 

Again, ID arguments do not contradict Theistic Evolution.

ID is in direct contradiction to evolution (theistic or otherwise) because it claims that things didn't evolve to exist, but have an intelligent source. Now ID supporters come in a lot of variations, some even may hold to common ancestry. 

Theistic Evolution is basically Atheistic Evolution with a untestable, unseen ghost behind the scenes, making the distinction irrelevant.

 

 

 

They will also try to understand how the aliens did it, that is science.

So you agree with me that ID uses the same principle of "design detection" that the SETI project uses?

Edited November 24, 2014 by danielwoods

[thesometimesaint]

Making it irrelevant.

 

ID is in direct contradiction to evolution (theistic or otherwise) because it claims that things didn't evolve to exist, but have an intelligent source. Now ID supporters come in a lot of variations, some even may hold to common ancestry. 

Theistic Evolution is basically Atheistic Evolution with a untestable, unseen ghost behind the scenes, making the distinction irrelevant.

 

 So you agree with me that ID uses the same principle of "design detection" that the SETI project uses?

 

Both Theism and Atheism are irrelevant to science. The individual scientist is free to believe or not believe as is their choice. That being said ID is a religious discussion and is not science.

SEE

 

What intelligent designer puts a recreation center next to a waist treatment plant?

 

The question concerning SETI is how to differentiate nature radio signal from a purposefully created one. No one doubts that man can create radio signals. What we lack the capacity to do at present is if those radio signals are from a vastly superior intelligence. Otherwise you are using the same old tired argument from design.

SEE Teleological Argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

ID is in direct contradiction to evolution (theistic or otherwise) because it claims that things didn't evolve to exist, but have an intelligent source. 

 

But God has the power to create complex life using Evolution. 

 

 

So you agree with me that ID uses the same principle of "design detection" that the SETI project uses?

 

SETI scientists are far more skeptical, they are not quick to jump to conclusions. 

[thesometimesaint]

 

 

SETI scientists are far more skeptical, they are not quick to jump to conclusions. 

 

while I do believe the search should continue. I'm not hopeful. I tend to think that because of factors such as diffusion of the signal and cross contamination the signal is lost in normal background within several light years of travel.

[mfbukowski]

 

What intelligent designer puts a recreation center next to a waist treatment plant?

What a difference a few letters make.  I have lost a lot of weight since I joined the church- probably 120 pounds.

 

My intelligent designer taught me to exercise and put my recreation center right into the middle of my waist treatment plan.

[LinuxGal]

But God has the power to create complex life using Evolution. 

 

 

It must be a different kind of evolution you are talking about, the one we have runs entirely on automatic, just like chemistry does.

[thesometimesaint]

What a difference a few letters make.  I have lost a lot of weight since I joined the church- probably 120 pounds.

 

My intelligent designer taught me to exercise and put my recreation center right into the middle of my waist treatment plan.

 

Darn fumble fingers strike again.

[mfbukowski]

It must be a different kind of evolution you are talking about, the one we have runs entirely on automatic, just like chemistry does.

That's an interesting religion,how do you know it's true?

[katherine the great]

What a difference a few letters make.  I have lost a lot of weight since I joined the church- probably 120 pounds.

 

My intelligent designer taught me to exercise and put my recreation center right into the middle of my waist treatment plan.

  You're funny!

[LinuxGal]

That's an interesting religion,how do you know it's true?

 

Because it makes predictions that can be falsified by experiment.   Other religions never get falsified, in the end they fall back to a rear-guard position of "God said it, I believe it, end of discussion."

[Calm]

Unless you are Mormon and then it is "God said it, I believe it, would you like to know more?"

[mfbukowski]

Because it makes predictions that can be falsified by experiment.   Other religions never get falsified, in the end they fall back to a rear-guard position of "God said it, I believe it, end of discussion."

Have you ever examined your own presumptions?

 

Why do you think religion should be about what cannot be falsified?   Have you ever heard of faith?

 

You have perfect faith that for a proposition to be "true" it has to be falsifiable.  That's an odd presumption that was held early in the 20th century but has been abandoned.

 

 

At the base of logical positivism is the famous Verification Principle. This says that only assertions that are in principle verifiable by observation or experience can convey factual information and be meaningful. Assertions that have no imaginable method of verification must either be analytic (tautological) or meaningless (Magee, 1997). Thus, the two central ideas of logical positivism relate to language: the analytic-synthetic distinction and the verifiability theory of meaning. The first idea relates to the distinction between analytic statements, which are true in themselves (basically a tautology), and synthetic statements, which are true or false in relation to how the world is. The second idea is that experience is the only source of meaning and the only source of knowledge. Thus, if a sentence (in a theory, say) has no possible means of verification, it has no meaning. Scientific statements were to consist of verifiable, and hence meaningful, claims.

Karl Popper in his autobiography (Popper, 1986) takes the credit for ‘killing’ logical positivism as early as 1934 by pointing out some of its mistakes in Logic der Forschung (Popper, 1934), not published until 1959 in English as The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Popper, 1980). Popper was opposed to the concentration upon minutiae and especially upon the meaning of words by the logical positivists, and the avoidance of metaphysical problems. A difficulty with the Verification Principle is that it is neither analytic nor empirically verifiable itself and therefore, according to its own criterion, is meaningless. The Verification Principle has the effect of outlawing more or less the whole of metaphysical speculation in philosophy – everything apart from logic. Popper also showed that the Verification Principle eliminated almost the whole of science. An aim of science is the search for natural laws, which are unrestrictedly general statements about the world that are known to be invariantly true: for example, Boyle’s Law, the law of gravity, or E=mc². Popper showed that these laws are not empirically verifiable, acknowledging that the English empiricist David Hume had made this observation two-and-a-half centuries before. The problem is that of induction: from no finite number of observations, however large, can any unrestrictedly general conclusion be drawn that would be defensible in logic. For example, we cannot prove ‘all swans are black’ no matter how many swans we observe.

 

http://press.anu.edu.au/info_systems/mobile_devices/ch01s02.html

 

Please produce empirical data to prove that it is wrong for men to dominate women.

 

It has always been so, and yet, I am sure you believe this idea which has absolutely no factual basis.  In fact, I am sure you take it on faith that women should receive equal pay for equal work.

 

Again, there is no factual evidence for this idea.   I am sure you think it is wrong to kill people at random for the fun of it, and to eat them.

 

Again, there is no factual evidence for this idea.

 

You take a lot on faith don't you?

Edited November 29, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

  You're funny!

 

But looks aren't everything

Edited November 29, 2014 by mfbukowski

[MormonFreeThinker]

It must be a different kind of evolution you are talking about, the one we have runs entirely on automatic, just like chemistry does.

 

There is room for God in Evolution 

 

"The quantum physics of the 20th century falsifies this deterministic view of the universe. It does not disprove the absentee God of the Deists, but it does allow the possibility that God plays a role at the sub-atomic level of reality, influencing events without being obvious to humans operating at the macro-level. Ken Miller builds upon the indeterminacy of the quantum reality of the physical sciences to develop his Theist theology of an involved deity."

https://darwinwatch.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/ken-miller%E2%80%99s-near-perfect-%E2%80%9Cfinding-darwin%E2%80%99s-god%E2%80%9D/

 

That is just one possibility 

[danielwoods]

But God has the power to create complex life using Evolution.

No doubt that God has the power to do it however he wished.

Where the physical evidence leads, and how God states specifically contradict the idea that life evolved.

 

 

 

SETI scientists are far more skeptical, they are not quick to jump to conclusions.

Opinion.

[LinuxGal]

There is room for God in Evolution 

 

 

Long ago they thought heaven was a solid dome mounted over the Earth which held back water and formed a mounting rack for various moving lights.  By the time of the New Testament, the Greeks had determined the Earth was a sphere and the sky lights moved independently, embedded in their own crystal spheres. Heaven was then taken to be the realm of clouds, an image that persists today, reinforced by a scripture that has Jesus rising into the clouds to join his father. When human flight was developed and the Red Baron was trampling all over heaven shooting down his enemies in the Triple Entente, heaven was moved into outer space, which we then began to trample about forty years later.  Now we've sent cameras out of the solar system entirely, and heaven is taken to be a planet on a distant star, or in a different dimension altogether.  So we've been chasing a "heaven of the gaps" further away with every discovery.  When you say there is room for God in evolution, that is using the same process of moving God out of the zone of our current capability to discover things.  There is nothing scientific about that.

[thesometimesaint]

Faith is the evidence of things not seen, and science is the evidence of things seen.

[ERayR]

Faith is the evidence of things not seen, and science is the evidence of things seen.

 

And a faulty assumption and interpretation can get you off track with either.

[katherine the great]

And a faulty assumption and interpretation can get you off track with either.

Which assumption specifically do you think is faulty?

[ERayR]

Which assumption specifically do you think is faulty?

 

on which side of the issue?  I was making a general observation.  Also do not want to derail.

[MormonFreeThinker]

 So we've been chasing a "heaven of the gaps" further away with every discovery.  When you say there is room for God in evolution, that is using the same process of moving God out of the zone of our current capability to discover things.  There is nothing scientific about that.

 

It is just a possibility, of course the scientific research should continue. 

There are many reasonable possibilities, why can't God be one? There are many unproven models made by scientists, should we dismiss them? Should we dismiss String theory? What about models about the origin of life?  

 

Are you saying that science will never find conclusive evidence for God? How do you know that? Science should be open minded, not close minded. 

 

I did not make the God of the gaps argument, where did I say "Science cannot explain that, therefore God did it" ?

 

Here is the definition of the God of the gaps argument

 

"Design cases resting upon nature's alleged inability to produce some relevant ‘natural’ phenomenon are generally assumed to explicitly or implicitly appeal to supernatural agency, and are typically described as “God-of-the-gaps” arguments" 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/

 

Reasonable possibilities are not assumptions. 

Edited November 29, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker