[Science] The Improbability of God


Recommended Posts

Much of what people do is done in the name of God. Irishmen blow each other up in his name. Arabs blow themselves up in his name. Imams and ayatollahs oppress women in his name. Celibate popes and priests mess up people's sex lives in his name. Jewish shohets cut live animals' throats in his name. The achievements of religion in past history - bloody crusades, torturing inquisitions, mass-murdering conquistadors, culture-destroying missionaries, legally enforced resistance to each new piece of scientific truth until the last possible moment - are even more impressive. And what has it all been in aid of? I believe it is becoming increasingly clear that the answer is absolutely nothing at all. There is no reason for believing that any sort of gods exist and quite good reason for believing that they do not exist and never have. It has all been a gigantic waste of time and a waste of life. It would be a joke of cosmic proportions if it weren't so tragic.

Why do people believe in God? For most people the answer is still some version of the ancient Argument from Design. We look about us at the beauty and intricacy of the world - at the aerodynamic sweep of a swallow's wing, at the delicacy of flowers and of the butterflies that fertilize them, through a microscope at the teeming life in every drop of pond water, through a telescope at the crown of a giant redwood tree. We reflect on the electronic complexity and optical perfection of our own eyes that do the looking. If we have any imagination, these things drive us to a sense of awe and reverence. Moreover, we cannot fail to be struck by the obvious resemblance of living organs to the carefully planned designs of human engineers. The argument was most famously expressed in the watchmaker analogy of the eighteenth-century priest William Paley. Even if you didn't know what a watch was, the obviously designed character of its cogs and springs and of how they mesh together for a purpose would force you to conclude "that the watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use." If this is true of a comparatively simple watch, how much the more so is it true of the eye, ear, kidney, elbow joint, brain? These beautiful, complex, intricate, and obviously purpose-built structures must have had their own designer, their own watchmaker - God.

So ran Paley's argument, and it is an argument that nearly all thoughtful and sensitive people discover for themselves at some stage in their childhood. Throughout most of history it must have seemed utterly convincing, self-evidently true. And yet, as the result of one of the most astonishing intellectual revolutions in history, we now know that it is wrong, or at least superfluous. We now know that the order and apparent purposefulness of the living world has come about through an entirely different process, a process that works without the need for any designer and one that is a consequence of basically very simple laws of physics. This is the process of evolution by natural selection, discovered by Charles Darwin and, independently, by Alfred Russel Wallace.

What do all objects that look as if they must have had a designer have in common? The answer is statistical improbability. If we find a transparent pebble washed into the shape of a crude lens by the sea, we do not conclude that it must have been designed by an optician: the unaided laws of physics are capable of achieving this result; it is not too improbable to have just "happened." But if we find an elaborate compound lens, carefully corrected against spherical and chromatic aberration, coated against glare, and with "Carl Zeiss" engraved on the rim, we know that it could not have just happened by chance. If you take all the atoms of such a compound lens and throw them together at random under the jostling influence of the ordinary laws of physics in nature, it is theoretically possible that, by sheer luck, the atoms would just happen to fall into the pattern of a Zeiss compound lens, and even that the atoms round the rim should happen to fall in such a way that the name Carl Zeiss is etched out. But the number of other ways in which the atoms could, with equal likelihood, have fallen, is so hugely, vastly, immeasurably greater that we can completely discount the chance hypothesis. Chance is out of the question as an explanation.

This is not a circular argument, by the way. It might seem to be circular because, it could be said, any particular arrangement of atoms is, with hindsight, very improbable. As has been said before, when a ball lands on a particular blade of grass on the golf course, it would be foolish to exclaim: "Out of all the billions of blades of grass that it could have fallen on, the ball actually fell on this one. How amazingly, miraculously improbable!" The fallacy here, of course, is that the ball had to land somewhere. We can only stand amazed at the improbability of the actual event if we specify it a priori: for example, if a blindfolded man spins himself round on the tee, hits the ball at random, and achieves a hole in one. That would be truly amazing, because the target destination of the ball is specified in advance.

Of all the trillions of different ways of putting together the atoms of a telescope, only a minority would actually work in some useful way. Only a tiny minority would have Carl Zeiss engraved on them, or, indeed, any recognizable words of any human language. The same goes for the parts of a watch: of all the billions of possible ways of putting them together, only a tiny minority will tell the time or do anything useful. And of course the same goes, a fortiori, for the parts of a living body. Of all the trillions of trillions of ways of putting together the parts of a body, only an infinitesimal minority would live, seek food, eat, and reproduce. True, there are many different ways of being alive - at least ten million different ways if we count the number of distinct species alive today - but, however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead!

We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated - too statistically improbable - to have come into being by sheer chance. How, then, did they come into being? The answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. These small steps of chance are caused by genetic mutations, random changes - mistakes really - in the genetic material. They give rise to changes in the existing bodily structure. Most of these changes are deleterious and lead to death. A minority of them turn out to be slight improvements, leading to increased survival and reproduction. By this process of natural selection, those random changes that turn out to be beneficial eventually spread through the species and become the norm. The stage is

now set for the next small change in the evolutionary process. After, say, a thousand of these small changes in series, each change providing the basis for the next, the end result has become, by a process of accumulation, far too complex to have come about in a single act of chance.

For instance, it is theoretically possible for an eye to spring into being, in a single lucky step, from nothing: from bare skin, let's say. It is theoretically possible in the sense that a recipe could be written out in the form of a large number of mutations. If all these mutations happened simultaneously, a complete eye could, indeed, spring from nothing. But although it is theoretically possible, it is in practice inconceivable. The quantity of luck involved is much too large. The "correct" recipe involves changes in a huge number of genes simultaneously. The correct recipe is one particular combination of changes out of trillions of equally probable combinations of chances. We can certainly rule out such a miraculous coincidence. But it is perfectly plausible that the modern eye could have sprung from something almost the same as the modern eye but not quite: a very slightly less elaborate eye. By the same argument, this slightly less elaborate eye sprang from a slightly less elaborate eye still, and so on. If you assume a sufficiently large number of sufficiently small differences between each evolutionary stage and its predecessor, you are bound to be able to derive a full, complex, working eye from bare skin. How many intermediate stages are we allowed to postulate? That depends on how much time we have to play with. Has there been enough time for eyes to evolve by little steps from nothing?

The fossils tell us that life has been evolving on Earth for more than 3,000 million years. It is almost impossible for the human mind to grasp such an immensity of time. We, naturally and mercifully, tend to see our own expected lifetime as a fairly long time, but we can't expect to live even one century. It is 2,000 years since Jesus lived, a time span long enough to blur the distinction between history and myth. Can you imagine a million such periods laid end to end? Suppose we wanted to write the whole history on a single long scroll. If we crammed all of Common Era history into one meter of scroll, how long would the pre-Common Era part of the scroll, back to the start of evolution, be? The answer is that the pre-Common Era part of the scroll would stretch from Milan to Moscow. Think of the implications of this for the quantity of evolutionary change that can be accommodated. All the domestic breeds of dogs - Pekingese, poodles, spaniels, Saint Bernard's, and Chihuahuas - have come from wolves in a time span measured in hundreds or at the most thousands of years: no more than two meters along the road from Milan to Moscow. Think of the quantity of change involved in going from a wolf to a Pekingese; now multiply that quantity of change by a million. When you look at it like that, it becomes easy to believe that an eye could have evolved from no eye by small degrees.

It remains necessary to satisfy ourselves that every one of the intermediates on the evolutionary route, say from bare skin to a modern eye, would have been favored by natural selection; would have been an improvement over its predecessor in the sequence or at least would have survived. It is no good proving to ourselves that there is theoretically a chain of almost perceptibly different intermediates leading to an eye if many of those intermediates would have died. It is sometimes argued that the parts of an eye have to be all there together or the eye won't work at all. Half an eye, the

argument runs, is no better than no eye at all. You can't fly with half a wing; you can't hear with half an ear. Therefore there can't have been a series of step-by-step intermediates leading up to a modern eye, wing, or ear.

This type of argument is so naive that one can only wonder at the subconscious motives for wanting to believe it. It is obviously not true that half an eye is useless. Cataract sufferers who have had their lenses surgically removed cannot see very well without glasses, but they are still much better off than people with no eyes at all. Without a lens you can't focus a detailed image, but you can avoid bumping into obstacles and you could detect the looming shadow of a predator.

As for the argument that you can't fly with only half a wing, it is disproved by large numbers of very successful gliding animals, including mammals of many different kinds, lizards, frogs, snakes, and squids. Many different kinds of tree-dwelling animals have flaps of skin between their joints that really are fractional wings. If you fall out of a tree, any skin flap or flattening of the body that increases your surface area can save your life. And, however small or large your flaps may be, there must always be a critical height such that, if you fall from a tree of that height, your life would have been saved by just a little bit more surface area. Then, when your descendants have evolved that extra surface area, their lives would be saved by just a bit more still if they fell from trees of a slightly greater height. And so on by insensibly graded steps until, hundreds of generations later, we arrive at full wings.

Eyes and wings cannot spring into existence in a single step. That would be like having the almost infinite luck to hit upon the combination number that opens a large bank vault. But if you spun the dials of the lock at random, and every time you got a little bit closer to the lucky number the vault door creaked open another chink, you would soon have the door open! Essentially, that is the secret of how evolution by natural selection achieves what once seemed impossible. Things that cannot plausibly be derived from very different predecessors can plausibly be derived from only slightly different predecessors. Provided only that there is a sufficiently long series of such slightly different predecessors, you can derive anything from anything else.

Evolution, then, is theoretically capable of doing the job that, once upon a time, seemed to be the prerogative of God. But is there any evidence that evolution actually has happened? The answer is yes; the evidence is overwhelming. Millions of fossils are found in exactly the places and at exactly the depths that we should expect if evolution had happened. Not a single fossil has ever been found in any place where the evolution theory would not have expected it, although this could very easily have happened: a fossil mammal in rocks so old that fishes have not yet arrived, for instance, would be enough to disprove the evolution theory.

The patterns of distribution of living animals and plants on the continents and islands of the world is exactly what would be expected if they had evolved from common ancestors by slow, gradual degrees. The patterns of resemblance among animals and plants is exactly what we should expect if some were close cousins, and others more distant cousins to each other. The fact that the genetic code is the same in all living creatures overwhelmingly suggests that all are descended from one single ancestor. The evidence for evolution is so compelling that the only way to save the creation theory is to assume

that God deliberately planted enormous quantities of evidence to make it look as if evolution had happened. In other words, the fossils, the geographical distribution of animals, and so on, are all one gigantic confidence trick. Does anybody want to worship a God capable of such trickery? It is surely far more reverent, as well as more scientifically sensible, to take the evidence at face value. All living creatures are cousins of one another, descended from one remote ancestor that lived more than 3,000 million years ago.

The Argument from Design, then, has been destroyed as a reason for believing in a God. Are there any other arguments? Some people believe in God because of what appears to them to be an inner revelation. Such revelations are not always edifying but they undoubtedly feel real to the individual concerned. Many inhabitants of lunatic asylums have an unshakable inner faith that they are Napoleon or, indeed, God himself. There is no doubting the power of such convictions for those that have them, but this is no reason for the rest of us to believe them. Indeed, since such beliefs are mutually contradictory, we can't believe them all.

There is a little more that needs to be said. Evolution by natural selection explains a lot, but it couldn't start from nothing. It couldn't have started until there was some kind of rudimentary reproduction and heredity. Modern heredity is based on the DNA code, which is itself too complicated to have sprung spontaneously into being by a single act of chance. This seems to mean that there must have been some earlier hereditary system, now disappeared, which was simple enough to have arisen by chance and the laws of chemistry and which provided the medium in which a primitive form of cumulative natural selection could get started. DNA was a later product of this earlier cumulative selection. Before this original kind of natural selection, there was a period when complex chemical compounds were built up from simpler ones and before that a period when the chemical elements were built up from simpler elements, following the well-understood laws of physics. Before that, everything was ultimately built up from pure hydrogen in the immediate aftermath of the big bang, which initiated the universe.

There is a temptation to argue that, although God may not be needed to explain the evolution of complex order once the universe, with its fundamental laws of physics, had begun, we do need a God to explain the origin of all things. This idea doesn't leave God with very much to do: just set off the big bang, then sit back and wait for everything to happen. The physical chemist Peter Atkins, in his beautifully written book The Creation, postulates a lazy God who strove to do as little as possible in order to initiate everything. Atkins explains how each step in the history of the universe followed, by simple physical law, from its predecessor. He thus pares down the amount of work that the lazy creator would need to do and eventually concludes that he would in fact have needed to do nothing at all!

The details of the early phase of the universe belong to the realm of physics, whereas I am a biologist, more concerned with the later phases of the evolution of complexity. For me, the important point is that, even if the physicist needs to postulate an irreducible minimum that had to be present in the beginning, in order for the universe to get started, that irreducible minimum is certainly extremely simple. By definition, explanations that build on simple premises are more plausible and more satisfying than explanations that have to postulate complex and statistically improbable beginnings. And you can't get

much more complex than an Almighty God!

Richard Dawkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What i wanna know is; What did Einstein mean when he said "God does not play dice"?

586254335[/snapback]

Here's one simple explaination,

Einstein was very unhappy about this apparent randomness in nature. His views were summed up in his famous phrase, 'God does not play dice'. He seemed to have felt that the uncertainty was only provisional: but that there was an underlying reality, in which particles would have well defined positions and speeds, and would evolve according to deterministic laws, in the spirit of Laplace. This reality might be known to God, but the quantum nature of light would prevent us seeing it, except through a glass darkly.

Einstein's view was what would now be called, a hidden variable theory. Hidden variable theories might seem to be the most obvious way to incorporate the Uncertainty Principle into physics. They form the basis of the mental picture of the universe, held by many scientists, and almost all philosophers of science. But these hidden variable theories are wrong. The British physicist, John Bell, who died recently, devised an experimental test that would distinguish hidden variable theories. When the experiment was carried out carefully, the results were inconsistent with hidden variables. Thus it seems that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and can not know both the position, and the speed, of a particle. So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion.

Source: http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with Dawkins mainly because we disagree who God is/could be. He seems to think at the very best, God would be some guy that came up with some rules and laws and sit back and the universe would come into existance and run itself. Call me crazy, but I believe in a God that not only is a scientist and a lawmaker but also is a Father who cares about his kids and what happens to them and even an artist who paints things like the colours of the sunset. Have you ever met anyone that found a sunset un-appealing? For some reason we think its "pretty". I mean, that serves no practical purpose yet it is there. If colours of the sunset occured by chance, I am sure it would be much uglier. Try throwing a few random colours of paint onto a paper and seeing if it looks pretty to you.

I believe silly things such as the Big Bang occuring without any cause is more improbable than it actually having a cause... cause and effect. It sounds kind of silly, but how often do you hear an effect, a "bang!" and ask "what happened?" and someone answers "nothing happened, there was no cause for that bang." and you simply say "oh okay."

Irreducible Complexity has been an argument against some random chance/evolutionary theories. I find it a pretty interesting point though I know Dawkins has wrote some counter-essays to it as well. The whole mouse trap example is a good one and towards the middle of the page in the following link if anyone is interested.

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm

I've considered the existance of our universe and humanity, examined a satisfactory amount of evidence and weighed the options of us being randomly and unintentionally exploded into being versus being created by a God that has always existed and chosen to believe and hope in the latter. I admit that personally I am biased, and I need to believe in the Christian God who forgives and makes holy because I know that I myself am anything but a holy and righteous man.

Call me weak, evil or ignorant -- these things were once true, but because of God I have been made anew :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Einstein was very unhappy about this apparent randomness in nature. His views were summed up in his famous phrase, 'God does not play dice'. He seemed to have felt that the uncertainty was only provisional: but that there was an underlying reality, in which particles would have well defined positions and speeds, and would evolve according to deterministic laws, in the spirit of Laplace. This reality might be known to God, but the quantum nature of light would prevent us seeing it, except through a glass darkly.

Einstein's view was what would now be called, a hidden variable theory. Hidden variable theories might seem to be the most obvious way to incorporate the Uncertainty Principle into physics. They form the basis of the mental picture of the universe, held by many scientists, and almost all philosophers of science. But these hidden variable theories are wrong. The British physicist, John Bell, who died recently, devised an experimental test that would distinguish hidden variable theories. When the experiment was carried out carefully, the results were inconsistent with hidden variables. Thus it seems that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and can not know both the position, and the speed, of a particle. So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion.

Mmm. quite - and for those unfamilar with the uncertainty principal (although I don't know what it has to do with this topic) it simply states that there is a limit to how much we can know about the Universe in which we live. For example if we want to mesure the energy or momentum of an atom (or even an electron) exactly, science tells us that this is impossible - because in order to make such an observation (on such a small scale) we must act upon it in some way, by say for example shining photons on it, or by firing more electrons at it - thus irrevovcably changing its state to something that is different from the original state in which it existed. More info here.

Einsteine hated this idea - and spent the majority of the remainder of his life after he devised the General Theory of Relativity, attempting (unsucessfully) to disprove it. However he later nominated Werner Heisenberg (who was the author of the Uncertainty Principal) for the nobel prize in Physics - when it became clear to him that none of his 'thought experiments' had managed to put the idea to rest. The subsequent work of other physicists and the development (and success) of the study of the field of quantum mechanics would later prove Einstein had been wrong - and would demonstrate that chance and uncertainty were among some of the most fundamental principals at work thoughout our uiniverse as we know it today.

GJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ahh, at last, people who know bell's inequalities, quantum entanglement, and the epr paradox.

I disagree with Dawkins mainly because we disagree who God is/could be. He seems to think at the very best, God would be some guy that came up with some rules and laws and sit back and the universe would come into existance and run itself. Call me crazy, but I believe in a God that not only is a scientist and a lawmaker but also is a Father who cares about his kids and what happens to them and even an artist who paints things like the colours of the sunset.

technically, many different theologians have had many different theories, some being deistic, while others being theistic.

i happen to think that it is men who are artists and men who create art to live. i believe in humanism, and i believe in humanity.

Have you ever met anyone that found a sunset un-appealing? For some reason we think its "pretty". I mean, that serves no practical purpose yet it is there. If colours of the sunset occured by chance, I am sure it would be much uglier. Try throwing a few random colours of paint onto a paper and seeing if it looks pretty to you.

this is interesting because it's a subjective phenomenon. some might even call it qualia (if you read that literature).

you assume here that it is pretty, but that means it is pretty for man. this is, of course, untenable since 1) there are more entities than there are men, and 2) what is pretty is not a priori defined. yes, i have found a sunset unappealing. does that make me less of a man? no, it only implies that the prettiness of the sunset is sociologically defined a posteriori.

furthermore, to say that the sunset is pretty and to reason that it must therefore have been the work of an artist is untenable. first, we realize that pretty-for-man requires an anthropic principle, which isn't necessarily true. second, it is not necessarily true that that which is pretty requires an artist.

I believe silly things such as the Big Bang occuring without any cause is more improbable than it actually having a cause... cause and effect. It sounds kind of silly, but how often do you hear an effect, a "bang!" and ask "what happened?" and someone answers "nothing happened, there was no cause for that bang." and you simply say "oh okay."

one problem is that god isn't "caused" either, but people are willing to exempt him from the requirement. many theologians have offered "solutions." god is exempt, god is outside time/causality, it doesn't matter, blah blah, but these are all the same. if we wish to maintain our sanity, we cannot arbitrarily impose conditions on one and not the other.

furthermore, our inability to find the unified theory AT THIS POINT does not mean that there is none or that it is beyond our comprehension. hence, it is still possible to envision a solution.

then again, the problem might stem from our misunderstanding of causality and our assumption of causality a priori (which needs proof too!).

Irreducible Complexity has been an argument against some random chance/evolutionary theories. I find it a pretty interesting point though I know Dawkins has wrote some counter-essays to it as well. The whole mouse trap example is a good one and towards the middle of the page in the following link if anyone is interested.

i believe we talked about this before. behe's arguments were dismantled quite easily, but that isn't to say that they weren't interesting!

I've considered the existance of our universe and humanity, examined a satisfactory amount of evidence and weighed the options of us being randomly and unintentionally exploded into being versus being created by a God that has always existed and chosen to believe and hope in the latter. I admit that personally I am biased, and I need to believe in the Christian God who forgives and makes holy because I know that I myself am anything but a holy and righteous man.

586254503[/snapback]

i am glad you hold your convictions as you do. maintaining conviction is no common feat.

in the end, i don't think it really matters what we think. if you wish to give me a name, call it absurdist, in the spirit of camus. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If colours of the sunset occured by chance, I am sure it would be much uglier. Try throwing a few random colours of paint onto a paper and seeing if it looks pretty to you.

I'll use this one specific issue to paint you a picture on how 'chance' can produce some amazing things and show how your outlook does not fit with the observable universe.

Lets first look at what causes sunsets (or why the sky is blue for that matter). Under your argument it is all an ornamental gift from god whose sole purpose to to please our senses and there is no point in trying to understand such phenomenon (since it would undermine your conception of a personal god that does everything for us (you). Science however shows us that sunlight is composed of a spectrum of colors. As this light enters our atmosphere the shorter blue wavelegths are scattered more so our eyes percieve a blue heavens.

At sunset/sunrise however sunlight takes a longer path through the atmosphere so violet and blue light are scattered out of the beam leaving a reddish hue. Now here is where chance comes in from an aesthetic view: It requires the chance of high moving clouds and pollution to produce the most beautifull specimens. In effect, nature has thrown some colors on a canvas and our minds just happen to find this sensory data pleasing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with Dawkins mainly because we disagree who God is/could be. He seems to think at the very best, God would be some guy that came up with some rules and laws and sit back and the universe would come into existance and run itself. Call me crazy, but I believe in a God that not only is a scientist and a lawmaker but also is a Father who cares about his kids and what happens to them and even an artist who paints things like the colours of the sunset. Have you ever met anyone that found a sunset un-appealing? For some reason we think its "pretty". I mean, that serves no practical purpose yet it is there. If colours of the sunset occured by chance, I am sure it would be much uglier. Try throwing a few random colours of paint onto a paper and seeing if it looks pretty to you.

First let me correct you. Dawkins does not say that he thinks all God can be 'some guy.' Dawkins is a confirmed atheist - so as a result he does not believe in God at all. He states simply that the Universe (and we) do not require a God in order to exist. The problem with bringing in aesthetics (as in the appreciation of such things as music, art, poetry and so on) into the picture is of course that evolution says nothing about what our genes might make us (nor does it care) all it tells us is how our genes have made us. It is in other words a descriptive and not a predictive science. You cannot predict the nature or course of any number of random mutations - regardless of the often seemingly bizarr and exotic (and sometimes inexplicable) directions that this might take us in - among which may indeed (and evidently has) included an appreciation of art, music and culture - and even the evolution of consciousness itself. It may serve no direct purpose - but unlike God evolution does not require that we (or anything we do) has a purpose in order for us to exist. Art and culture and all of these other things can exist without a purpose - simply because as conscious individuals they are able to amuse and entertain us. It is perhaps in the nature of concious beings to be curious about the world in which we live - and for us to try to interprit this (through our conciousness) in what ever way suits us best. In this sense art is just like language, in that it is simply another way for us to ponder on and describe to others the world in which we find ourselves.

In another sense it should also be remembered that art itself (or an appreciation of art) could be said to have evolved too - because early human beings really had little concept of art - and little appreciation of its socital value. It wasn't until the neanderthals that the very first foundations of art emerged (in the form of crude beads made from various stones and animal bones strung together) and it has continued to develop from that point onwards.

But in any case this is largely irrelevant, because as has been said, evolution cares little about whether or not we find art appealing, or whether or not we are moral beings, or whether we believe God created them (or us) or not. The idea of the selfish gene is perhaps one of the most widely (and perhaps wildly) misunderstood concepts in modern human civilisation. Just because the gene may care for it's own survival, or at least might be programed (much as a computer is mechanically programed) to try to ensure its own survival - this does not mean that it is in some sense 'conscious' of any of these motivations. Nor does it mean that the things our genes (or evolution) actually produces are in any sense innately selfish - all it means is that at the base of it all there is an inherant instinct for survival.

Naturally it is clear that this process can create wonderful things - it can for example create us - but at no time does it say that we are all and only ever the product (or the sum of) our genes. Which is why we can have art and science and politics and culture - because evolution has led us to see past the restrictions that are imposed on us by our genes. Put simply evolution may describe a cold amoralistic and mechanical process - but it does not mean that this process describes us - nor does it describe what we are or what we capable of becomming.

I believe silly things such as the Big Bang occuring without any cause is more improbable than it actually having a cause... cause and effect. It sounds kind of silly, but how often do you hear an effect, a "bang!" and ask "what happened?" and someone answers "nothing happened, there was no cause for that bang." and you simply say "oh okay."

Where did you get the idea from that the Universe came into being without a cause? This is not what physics argues - and indeed such a condition would be contrary to the laws of physics themselves. See this thread for a discussion on that particular topic.

Irreducible Complexity has been an argument against some random chance/evolutionary theories. I find it a pretty interesting point though I know Dawkins has wrote some counter-essays to it as well. The whole mouse trap example is a good one and towards the middle of the page in the following link if anyone is interested.

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm

Irreducible complexity is regarded by the vast majority of the scientific community as little more than extremist religious mumbo jumbo.

The concept was popularized by Michael Behe in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, where Behe argued that there are biochemical systems which are "irreducibly complex" because he saw no way in which these systems could be broken down into smaller functioning systems. With this argument the book in effect supports what is known as intelligent design, a form of the argument from design, one of the arguments for the existence of a supernatural deity.

Irreducible complexity is though roundly rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community. (You always get one or two cranks on the fringes though - who also tend to be the sort of people that the religious types turn to for support). The main concerns with the concept is that it utilises an argument from ignorance, that Behe fails to provide a testable hypothesis, and that there is a lack of evidence in support of the concept. As such irreducible complexity is seen by the supporters of evolutionary theory as an example of creationist pseudoscience, though Behe is careful to not explicitly affirm his belief (or support for) creation in his book - in a clear attempt to harness some inflated sense of scientific credibility. It is certainly from a genuinely scientific perspective, anything but a scientific theory - and on this basis it falls flat on many different levels.

And here are some counter links to your own:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/textbooks.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

I've considered the existance of our universe and humanity, examined a satisfactory amount of evidence and weighed the options of us being randomly and unintentionally exploded into being versus being created by a God that has always existed and chosen to believe and hope in the latter. I admit that personally I am biased, and I need to believe in the Christian God who forgives and makes holy because I know that I myself am anything but a holy and righteous man.

Well that is all very well and good, but I think realistically what you may 'believe' (without proof) and what may be shown to be real (with proof) may be two entirely different things. The assertion that faith is the only required motivation for a belief in God, is I think a deliberately false and misleading one. It is a lie perpertrated on the ignorant to prevent them from questioning and to force them to remain faithful - for clearly if God could be proved, many more people would turn to him, rather than face the prospect of a short period of life on this Earth only for us to die and again be essentially alone.

I think too that it is unfair and irrational that the burden of proof should always simply fall on science - while it seems religion is required to prove nothing - particularly when many of the assertions that religion has made through the aeons have been roundly proved by science to be false.

Call me weak, evil or ignorant -- these things were once true, but because of God I have been made anew :)

586254503[/snapback]

I may not call you weak or evil - and I think potetentially you may not be so much as ignorant as opposed to simply being missled and misinformed - however I do often find it hard to deal with religious types who use religion as a means of 'washing themselves' clean of the responsibility for the things they do in their lives. I personally have done things wrong - and often I am torn by them - but I accept them - I admit and take full responsibility for them - and I do not seek to make excuses or to look for forgiveness from some mysterious third party - simply so that I do not need to wake up every day and be reminded of them. It is enough I think if the people that you wrong in your life are able to forgive you - and I think this has far more value than the forgiveness that any third party might be able to afford you. If the people you wrong simply cannot forgive you, then do not go looking for redemption in your God - just accept it - and take it on board and try to move on with your life. What purpose might God serve in this, other than to ease our conciences? What inherrant right do we have to have our conciences eased to begin with? The answer is clearly none, and it is abject hypocracy to assume otherwise. What is the point of so called 'righteousness' if it is still OK to sin, because 'no matter what, God will always forgive you'? How about you just admit that it is never OK to sin - and that sometimes you just do not deserve to be forgiven? Why in other words can't you just accept responsibility for what you do?

GJ

Edited by raid517
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that [science] forums have been lumped in MM until we decide what to do with them but this one is just screaming to be moved into RWI.

[Thread Moved from MM to RWI]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much of what people do is done in the name of God. Irishmen blow each other up in his name. Arabs blow themselves up in his name. Imams and ayatollahs oppress women in his name. Celibate popes and priests mess up people's sex lives in his name. Jewish shohets cut live animals' throats in his name.

Yes, blame the religion, not the person. Good job. Should we blame Doom for Columbine? I mean they even made Doom maps to "practice" run it.

For anyone who understands the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic religions they know that none of those acts are supported in the religion.

This is the process of evolution by natural selection, discovered by Charles Darwin and, independently, by Alfred Russel Wallace.

Except that I don't know of any religion that says evolution is wrong. A misconception of the religion. People just don't seem to understand that creationism and evolution can both be believed and work. It is the very nature of organisms to be able to adapt to their environments to have a better probability of survival. Where does this actually disprove any religion? It is an empty argument that ignorant people have latched onto for quite awhile now.

The evidence for evolution is so compelling that the only way to save the creation theory is to assume

that God deliberately planted enormous quantities of evidence to make it look as if evolution had happened.

Or that maybe God made His creations able to evolve and adapt to their environment? How does creationism go against evolution?

I won't bother to quote everything, but it is yet another example of the ignorant arguing about the ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with Dawkins mainly because we disagree who God is/could be. He seems to think at the very best, God would be some guy that came up with some rules and laws and sit back and the universe would come into existance and run itself. Call me crazy, but I believe in a God that not only is a scientist and a lawmaker but also is a Father who cares about his kids and what happens to them and even an artist who paints things like the colours of the sunset. Have you ever met anyone that found a sunset un-appealing? For some reason we think its "pretty". I mean, that serves no practical purpose yet it is there. If colours of the sunset occured by chance, I am sure it would be much uglier. Try throwing a few random colours of paint onto a paper and seeing if it looks pretty to you.

I believe silly things such as the Big Bang occuring without any cause is more improbable than it actually having a cause... cause and effect. It sounds kind of silly, but how often do you hear an effect, a "bang!" and ask "what happened?" and someone answers "nothing happened, there was no cause for that bang." and you simply say "oh okay."

Irreducible Complexity has been an argument against some random chance/evolutionary theories. I find it a pretty interesting point though I know Dawkins has wrote some counter-essays to it as well. The whole mouse trap example is a good one and towards the middle of the page in the following link if anyone is interested.

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm

I've considered the existance of our universe and humanity, examined a satisfactory amount of evidence and weighed the options of us being randomly and unintentionally exploded into being versus being created by a God that has always existed and chosen to believe and hope in the latter. I admit that personally I am biased, and I need to believe in the Christian God who forgives and makes holy because I know that I myself am anything but a holy and righteous man.

Call me weak, evil or ignorant -- these things were once true, but because of God I have been made anew :)

586254503[/snapback]

Amen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, blame the religion, not the person. Good job. Should we blame Doom for Columbine? I mean they even made Doom maps to "practice" run it.

For anyone who understands the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic religions they know that none of those acts are supported in the religion.

Yes I do think it is valid to blame the religion - because really religion is only practiced by people. It is not practiced by cows, or pigs or horses - whom I think you will find do not do any of the things that the essay illustrates. Indeed I think even in the news just recently you will find that there are people killing and maiming in the name of their religion. It is irrelevant if some people say that this is not supported by their religion - because clearly these people are still acting in what they believe to be the name of their religion anyway - even if it may, or may not be the same kind of religion that other people say they recognize. It is still a form of religion - whether it is distinct from the main religion or not.
Except that I don't know of any religion that says evolution is wrong. A misconception of the religion. People just don't seem to understand that creationism and evolution can both be believed and work. It is the very nature of organisms to be able to adapt to their environments to have a better probability of survival. Where does this actually disprove any religion? It is an empty argument that ignorant people have latched onto for quite awhile now.

Or that maybe God made His creations able to evolve and adapt to their environment? How does creationism go against evolution?

If you don't know of any religion that says evolution is wrong, perhaps you are unaware of the wide spread campaign in the American (so called Bible belt) Mid West that has been mounted in a concerted attempt to have evolution removed from the educational curriculum - or the mass fundamentalist movement in the US (and in the government) that are currently known as the 'creationists'? They indeed do propose a very different world view to that which is suggested by science - one in which the vast majority of what we see in the Universe today simply spontaneously came into existence. Or perhaps you are unaware of the passages in the bible that describe the Earth - and everything in it as having been 'made in seven days'. This is certainly at least one way in which religion proposes a significantly different view of reality to that which science has shown us to be true. Nonetheless a large number of people still continue to believe this 'mystical' version of events and to take the Bible version of reality really quite literally. (Indeed it would not surprise me if we found more than one or two people like this to be reading and following this debate).

It is also I think something of a cop out to say that God acts at a level which has nothing to do with science - because clearly a Universe that contains an omnipotent

all seeing intelligence such as a God, who has an ability to exert an influence over nature (regardless of how direct or indirect that influence might be) or over us is a very different kind of Universe to that which the majority of scientists are proposing. Indeed in many ways what science suggests (and has discovered though several centuries of research), is fundamentally and genuinely at odds with a great deal of what religion tells us is true. It is certainly impossible I think to have a Universe with with some kind of 'supermind' in it, without at least advancing some theory regarding on which level this supposed supermind works. Simply to say that it just IS and that it requires no explanation - is hardly (logically) any real kind of explanation at all.

However I am concerned with the tone this debate is taking - because it seems to be looking as though I believe that the role of science is that it should set out to oppose religion. I do not think that this should be the case at all. As I have said previously on this subject, the only obligation that those who believe in religion and those who believe in science, is that each party should try to set the case out for their particular version of events as clearly and as fully as possible, in order that people can at least be allowed to make a genuinely informed choice. And this is I think an area where religion often seems to find itself to be considerably lacking. The argument that there is no argument, because there is nothing to argue with - is I think utterly illogical. It seems to me to simply be saying that the only viable case for religion is some kind of internal delusion, that cannot be shared or debated with others. Either God is real - and therefore we should be able to debate him - or he is not - in which case we can only agree that there really is nothing to be debated.

Or that maybe God made His creations able to evolve and adapt to their environment? How does creationism go against evolution?

Again this is a failed understanding of evolution. It is an argument that is in fact often used by religious types to try to discredit evolution - and is commonly known as Lamarkism. Life does not change or adapt to 'match' it's environment at all. The process of evolution is in fact a completely random one, where life simply and continually plays a game of dice - through spitting out an almost infinite number of chance mutations until it arrives at something that works. In this sense Leopards do not run faster, or evolve stronger leg muscles in order to be better able to catch their prey. They run only fast enough until random mutations in their genomes eliminate a significant enough number of failures until life arrives at a formula for success that allows the animal to either survive or perish within its chosen environment. An overtly successful hunter would soon become extinct, since it would quickly eliminate it's prey - where as an unsuccessful hunter would probably die out just as quickly. So always life seems to try to strike a balance - even though that balance it ultimately utterly random.

I won't bother to quote everything, but it is yet another example of the ignorant arguing about the ignorant.

Then if that is the case, I think ignorance (along with arrogance) like a lot of other things in life, can only be a matter of perspective. I think it is certainly genuinely ignorant and arrogant to say (or imply) that those who choose not to believe in some kind of inexplicable supernatural being, are somehow less intelligent or at least less deserving of respect or consideration than is anyone else. We all deserve respect - just as equally much as we all deserve the right to be informed. I certainly do not feel 'poorer' (as an ignorant person might) for my lack of ability to believe in a God, or for my appreciation of science. Indeed I feel very much richer, much more enlightened and better informed due to the many insights that science has given me in my life. (Which I must say are far more diverse, meaningful and altogether more awe inspiring than any period of study of a particular religion has ever provided me with).

In any case I do feel that this is straying from the subject. The purpose of this thread was to lay down the case for the improbability (or probability) for the existence of a God - and to debate purely on those terms. It would aid the debate greatly I think if everyone instead of simply resorting to this kind of empty emotive rhetoric, would simply lay down what they see as the evidence for and against each of these different perspectives - so that we can allow any debate to flow directly from there.

Best regards,

GJ

Edited by raid517
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amen.

586256835[/snapback]

Can I ask what you are saying 'Amen!' in particular to? Could you at least kindly inform us of what part of this statement you agree with and why? 'Amen' in the context of what is intended to be a debate, hardly constitutes a genuine or constructive contribution.

If you feel like commenting, please do - but it would certainly help if you at least were able to contribute something worthwhile to the debate.

Empty comments like this are simply not very useful.

GJ

Edited by raid517
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I do think it is valid to blame the religion - because really religion is only practiced by people....

I brought up the Doom example for Columbine. Do you not think that if that game didn't exist that those kids still wouldn't have met the same ends? Is it id's fault that that school shooting happened? Or does the fault lie with the person?

I believe you are getting at that religion is different for everyone, therefore in their religion they are right maybe? But because they still do it in the name of another religion does not make it true.

So my point is that just because someone does something in the name of a god or a certain religion does not nessecarily make that religion the cause nor does it actually prove that said religion actuallly teaches that the same someone should have acted out how they did.

If I said I went streaking in the name of Allah, that doesn't actually mean that Islam teaches that you should streak, or even that it is right to do so. It just means I placed responsibility falsely on something other than myself.

It is still a form of religion - whether it is distinct from the main religion or not.

If you don't know of any religion that says evolution is wrong, perhaps you are unaware of the wide spread campaign in the American (so called Bible belt) Mid West that has been mounted in a concerted attempt to have evolution removed from the educational curriculum

Just because some people believe that their Bible actually disproves evolution does not mean that the actual religious teachings do in fact disprove evolution. But I see your point. But even if their interpretaion does disprove evolution, evolution still does not disprove creationism.

...one in which the vast majority of what we see in the Universe today simply spontaneously came into existence. Or perhaps you are unaware of the passages in the bible that describe the Earth - and everything in it as having been 'made in seven days'. This is certainly at least one way in which religion proposes a significantly different view of reality to that which science has shown us to be true. Nonetheless a large number of people still continue to believe this 'mystical' version of events and to take the Bible version of reality really quite literally. (Indeed it would not surprise me if we found more than one or two people like this to be reading and following this debate).

It is very hard to argue something that includes religion, because most of the time there are so many different interpretations of the teachings, so please try to go along with me.

It is probable that back then the writers of Genesis could not fathom a large quantity of years such as in the millions of years. So even if Divinely Inspired by God, chances are that an easier timeline was used. Why 7 days instead of 7 years? Most likely this was done, because of the Sabbath. The point of it is that God had rested on the 7th day and enjoyed His work. Because you can't be greater than God, you must rest on the 7th day as well. So if God rested say the 5th millionth year in the process of creating everything, then could His followers really be expected to rest on the 5th millionth year, when they probably couldn't even understand that many years? If God even rested for just 2000 years, how could we in fact rest for 2000 years (aside from being dead I guess)?

So if the writers most likely couldn't understand such a large number, but God wanted people to know that although you can create things (such as seeding a field) you still should not be arrogant enough to be better than God. To teach this practice, what would He have most likely done? Compressed the timeline into something obtainable in the Human lifetime. Well why not every 7 years? Well, many people would probably have starved to death and it would be pretty unrealistic to expect all of His followers to just rest for a whole year. Of course I'm sure it could be done, but why raise the bar to something the general masses wouldn't be able to do?

It is also I think something of a cop out to say that God acts at a level which has nothing to do with science ... any real kind of explanation at all.

We both agree that saying God is on a level which has nothing to do with science is a cop out. Science is just simply how we try to explain our world, our Universe, and even ourselves. Much like religion.

Who is to say that the chain reaction of the Universe and life was not started by some sort of superbeing anyway? Also with the Big Bang theory you can only go so far back. Where did matter come into existance? And energy? Some scientists have said "We just don't understand yet", which is reasonable given the complexity of the question and the relative short time span that the theory has been in existance. So as of right now science's theories on the creation of the Universe says two things that are important in this discussion.

1) We don't understand everything. At least not yet.

2) The major accepted theory (Big Bang) can't disprove the existance of a superbeing such as God.

However I am concerned with the tone this debate is taking - because it seems to be looking as though I believe that the role of science is that it should set out to oppose religion. I do not think that this should be the case at all.

586258122[/snapback]

We both agree there too.

Again this is a failed understanding of evolution. It is an argument that is in fact often used by religious types to try to discredit evolution - and is commonly known as Lamarkism.

I still fail to see how evolution actually disproves creationism.

I have not tried to disprove evolution, but simply tried to explain that evolution does not disprove creationism or religion. In fact I believe that they could go hand and hand. Personally I think anyone that would say their G/god wouldn't have built in evolution into its/His creations is pretty much saying that their creator is short sighted and not on a very high level of intelligence. I mean I'd hope that if God does exist, that He would have built in a way for life to adapt to its enviroment to better survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call me crazy, but I believe in a God that not only is a scientist and a lawmaker but also is a Father who cares about his kids and what happens to them and even an artist who paints things like the colours of the sunset.
a Father who cares about his kids and what happens to them
Father who cares
cares

Do you live in the same world as I, where ten thousands of people die each day? Where evil people blow up innocent people? I'm sorry that I'm picking specifically on you, but this "god cares about you" tangent is really getting annoying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you live in the same world as I, where ten thousands of people die each day? Where evil people blow up innocent people? I'm sorry that I'm picking specifically on you, but this "god cares about you" tangent is really getting annoying.

586258612[/snapback]

Another sidetracked discussion again. But anyway, I'd guess I might as well explain this to you. The Bible and the Qu'ran teaches people that God loves them. Now why do people suffer, children molested, young die, etc., etc.

God gave people free will. And as this thread is about evolution, I'll put this in that perspective too. Free will is the point where humans gained a conscious. Before that people were just doing as they were told. Sort of like a domesticated pet. Well being trained to obey your master isn't the same thing as loving him.

So you must be able to deny God and His teachings to be able to love Him. So why do bad things happen? Because humans have free will. Simple as that. Why is it that if a bus hits a loved one God is blamed, however, it was the bus drivers choice to do whatever it was or not to do something. Be it being tired, drinking, or just not noticing. It also was that loved ones choice to walk out in the middle of the street (not that I'm saying it is actually their fault) or stand on a sidewalk or what have you. Its all because of free will.

So what about a God that sees His children suffering? Why doesn't He step down and smite every bad person? Well then, you'd have no reason to deny Him would you? Besides the Bible also teaches that the body is just a shell and unimportant anyway.

Also about the evolutionary thing. The Garden of Eden you can see an evolutionary process. One where mankind goes from not having a conscious to having one. An important step in the evolutionary chain of events that lead up to defining us today...of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I brought up the Doom example for Columbine. Do you not think that if that game didn't exist that those kids still wouldn't have met the same ends? Is it id's fault that that school shooting happened? Or does the fault lie with the person?

I believe you are getting at that religion is different for everyone, therefore in their religion they are right maybe? But because they still do it in the name of another religion does not make it true.

So my point is that just because someone does something in the name of a god or a certain religion does not necessarily make that religion the cause nor does it actually prove that said religion actually teaches that the same someone should have acted out how they did.

If I said I went streaking in the name of Allah, that doesn't actually mean that Islam teaches that you should streak, or even that it is right to do so. It just means I placed responsibility falsely on something other than myself.

First, please can we not get into a quoting war? I do not find this particular approach to debating very useful or productive. In any case I am saying that religion is so open to interpretation that it can quite literally mean something very different to who ever might choose to study it. Who is to say that those who do kill and maim and torture in the name of their religion are any more right or wrong in their interpretation than anyone else? Religion is not a democracy - so who else other than their supposed God has the ability to judge them? I think religion is so wide open to interpretation (or misinterpretation, since the distinction seems random) that possibly all perspectives on it might appear valid. That is why there are so many different religions - and so many different opinions (including your own) on what these religions really mean.

Just because some people believe that their Bible actually disproves evolution does not mean that the actual religious teachings do in fact disprove evolution. But I see your point. But even if their interpretation does disprove evolution, evolution still does not disprove creationism.

It is very hard to argue something that includes religion, because most of the time there are so many different interpretations of the teachings, so please try to go along with me.

Many of these texts do explicitly talk about 'the creator' or the 'creation of man' by God. I am not given to quoting religious texts, but if you insist I can look up a great many instances of this from religions across the world. Clearly if God created man (and man was always his intended creation) then man himself could not have evolved. These texts are fairly explicit. God created man - and that is pretty much the end of that. Since most religions are based on these texts - and most believers follow quite a literal interpretation of them, the inevitable assumption is that either these texts are accurate, or they are not. Either God did create man, or he did not - and if he did not and man evolved, then clearly these texts and the religions that are founded on them must be wrong.

It is probable that back then the writers of Genesis could not fathom a large quantity of years such as in the millions of years. So even if Divinely Inspired by God, chances are that an easier time-line was used. Why 7 days instead of 7 years? Most likely this was done, because of the Sabbath. The point of it is that God had rested on the 7th day and enjoyed His work. Because you can't be greater than God, you must rest on the 7th day as well. So if God rested say the 5th millionth year in the process of creating everything, then could His followers really be expected to rest on the 5th millionth year, when they probably couldn't even understand that many years? If God even rested for just 2000 years, how could we in fact rest for 2000 years (aside from being dead I guess)?

So if the writers most likely couldn't understand such a large number, but God wanted people to know that although you can create things (such as seeding a field) you still should not be arrogant enough to be better than God. To teach this practice, what would He have most likely done? Compressed the time-line into something obtainable in the Human lifetime. Well why not every 7 years? Well, many people would probably have starved to death and it would be pretty unrealistic to expect all of His followers to just rest for a whole year. Of course I'm sure it could be done, but why raise the bar to something the general masses wouldn't be able to do?

We? both agree that saying God is on a level which has nothing to do with science is a cop out. Science is just simply how we try to explain our world, our Universe, and even ourselves. Much like religion.

I'm sorry I couldn't even begin to grasp that. You appear to be saying that God didn't want to scare people too much by telling them the truth? So instead he opted to tell them lies? Lies that would later be uncovered and make him seem much less credible? That I'm afraid does not seem like a very smart move for a God. And if people were so simple then that they could not comprehend the reality, then surely this must mean that those who still believe such things now are also equally simple - for in many cases their views have not changed at all, despite the countless years of scientific advancement that have passed since the book of Genisis was first written. When exactly I wonder, does God intend to tell these people the truth?

Who is to say that the chain reaction of the Universe and life was not started by some sort of superbeing anyway? Also with the Big Bang theory you can only go so far back. Where did matter come into existence? And energy? Some scientists have said "We just don't understand yet", which is reasonable given the complexity of the question and the relative short time span that the theory has been in existence. So as of right now science's theories on the creation of the Universe says two things that are important in this discussion.
2) The major accepted theory (Big Bang) can't disprove the existence of a superbeing such as God.

We both agree there too.

No we do not agree. As I have said previously there is a firm body of opinion that states that it is possible to infer that everything needed to bring the Universe into existence has always existed (Given by the first law of thermodynamics which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed - only converted. So if energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, then clearly everything needed to bring the Universe into existence must always have been in place - in one state or another). A universe that essentially has always existed, of course does not require a creator. It may indeed therefore one day be possible to directly infer the impossibility of the existence of a God. Or at least we can push the idea back so far that it becomes virtually irrelevant.

1) We don't understand everything. At least not yet.

This is yet another argument from ignorance. Just because we do not know everything, does not mean that we cannot infer anything. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I still fail to see how evolution actually disproves creationism.

Because they provide two fundamentally different perspectives of the world - and of the way nature works. Evolution requires no God at all - even if religion might seek to adopt certain aspects of evolution to give it a greater sense of credibility - and to make it more appealing to the masses. Evolution does not court religion (nor does it need it) even if some religions might flirt with evolution.

I have not tried to disprove evolution, but simply tried to explain that evolution does not disprove creationism or religion. In fact I believe that they could go hand and hand. Personally I think anyone that would say their God wouldn't have built in evolution into its/His creations is pretty much saying that their creator is short sighted and not on a very high level of intelligence. I mean I'd hope that if God does exist, that He would have built in a way for life to adapt to its environment to better survive.

That would indeed be a 'clever god'. Unfortunately his role in this process again does seem rather superfluous. What exactly is his purpose then, other than to be an observer, a spectator who stands on the sideline and watches as events unfold before him? Nature is efficient, it does not tend to create things without purpose. (At least not without there being a niche for this entity to exist in). God seems to provide no other purpose other than to make man feel better about the inevitable and impeding finality of death. That does not on the whole seem like a very practical purpose. It certainly does not fit well with any evolutionary or biological methodology that I am aware of.

Besides which, bible and Genesis aside - if you do admit that time scales are significantly longer than the bible implies, then you have to wonder what God has been doing all of this time? In the whole history of the Earth - if we consider the evolutionary process as a clock (a clock which began ticking some 4 billion years ago) then from what we know of the evolutionary record of man kind, modern humans only arrived on the scene when the clock had reached about 1 minute to midnight. Modern human beings in other words, are a brand new innovation on this Earth (well brand new as in the sense that we first emerged some 200 thousand years ago). Before this period, aeon's of evolution and an infinite range of biological organisms had come and gone - yet it seems by some remarkable form of coincidence that God only became a factor on this Earth at roughly around the same time that we humans emerged.

So one might ask, 'what came first God or Man' - the chicken or the egg? And what had God been doing for all that time previously, when he suddenly decided that he should have a 'relationship' with man kind and that he should single human beings out for special treatment?

Of course my assertion is that when modern man finally evolved, he naturally became curious about the world around him - and so created God to explain many of the things that at that time he did not understand. Just as you and I might look on complex living structures and wonder how they could have come to pass without design, so no doubt so too was early man led to wonder. And in the absence of an alternate explanation the only other viable way to understand these things was to attribute them to a creator. Mankind effectively projected himself and his own traits into the heavens, in order to explain the things that he saw and to which he could attribute no other explanation. 'Man after all was a creator of complex things - therefor it must follow that all complex things must be created'.

This is a fine explanation - but like all theories it should only last until a better one comes along to replace it. And that explanation has been made abundantly clear and obvious to me through the process of evolution and Darwinian natural selection.

GJ

Edited by raid517
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another sidetracked discussion again. But anyway, I'd guess I might as well explain this to you. The Bible and the Qu'ran teaches people that God loves them. Now why do people suffer, children molested, young die, etc., etc.

God gave people free will. And as this thread is about evolution, I'll put this in that perspective too. Free will is the point where humans gained a conscious. Before that people were just doing as they were told. Sort of like a domesticated pet. Well being trained to obey your master isn't the same thing as loving him.

So you must be able to deny God and His teachings to be able to love Him. So why do bad things happen? Because humans have free will. Simple as that. Why is it that if a bus hits a loved one God is blamed, however, it was the bus drivers choice to do whatever it was or not to do something. Be it being tired, drinking, or just not noticing. It also was that loved ones choice to walk out in the middle of the street (not that I'm saying it is actually their fault) or stand on a sidewalk or what have you. Its all because of free will.

So what about a God that sees His children suffering? Why doesn't He step down and smite every bad person? Well then, you'd have no reason to deny Him would you? Besides the Bible also teaches that the body is just a shell and unimportant anyway.

Also about the evolutionary thing. The Garden of Eden you can see an evolutionary process. One where mankind goes from not having a conscious to having one. An important step in the evolutionary chain of events that lead up to defining us today...of course.

586258721[/snapback]

Forgive me if you will. But if I do not believe in a God, what exatly is there to deny? You might deny things that you secrety knew to be true. But doing so inferrs some form of guilt - and I am quite happy and contented to say that I feel no guilt for any of the things I have said here whatsoever - and thefore no need to deny anything. From my perspective there is nothing to deny. I don't feel I have anything to hide, so why should I feel any desire to deny it?

And the Garden of Eden says nothing useful or significant about the process of evolution. It does however say something about the birth of religious morality and about how humans first gained knowledge of God - which it also says led to the downfall of mankind - who had prior to this lived in a state of of physical and spiritual perfection.

So the Bible admits that religious morality led to the downfall of mankind? Mmm, perhaps there is some value in these texts after all.

GJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll let you have your opinion on whether people really are using the name of whatever religion to kill innocent people as there is no real way I could convince you that someone who bombed a subway system in the name of Islam isn't actually following the Islamic teachings.

God created man. Are you limiting your scope to just homosapiens? Again, the Bible was written for the culture. What I mean by that is that the writers had only a certain understanding of the world. You certainly can't believe that the Bible would have said "God created Homo floresiensis, whom then evolved into Homo georgicus, etc.". How would the writers have even put that into words on the page? What purpose would it possibly serve then anyway?

Obviously God also did not want to "scare people" by telling them the truth. The Bible was written by humans. Plain and simple. My point about the whole 7 days thing is that, again, how does one back in their culture at that time understand millions of years? Again, how would they describe it on paper? The whole thing is symbolic. Do you really think someone like Moses would have really understood the concept of millions of years when people were still using historical events to place times, such as when the last earthquake happened or who ruled last or what generation from whom they were. What was supposed to be written? Simply the concept of time was different then.

About the creation of the Universe. The energy always existed. Well how did the energy come about in the first place? You are simply saying "it was always there". How can a Universe have always existed without first being brought into existence?

Of course if "we don't understand everything" then we have to infer. I mean, what else would I have meant? That simply just because we don't understand it then it must be wrong? Absurd.

Evolution requires no God at all - even if religion might seek to adopt certain aspects of evolution to give it a greater sense of credibility - and to make it more appealing to the masses. Evolution does not court religion (nor does it need it) even if some religions might flirt with evolution.

Again. How does evolution disprove creationism? Just because evolution does not specifically have to have a divine nudge to happen? Well maybe...just maybe that was the way it was intended to work. So what's God's purpose then? How would someone that believes in God answer that? How would they know? And why would God have built organisms that had to have a guiding hand along in every developmental process? The Bible teaches its followers that their purpose is to love God.

You asked what God was doing for 4 billion years before man came. Creating the Universe I suppose. Maybe God was that energy that caused the big bang and that's how God is everywhere and exists in the same Universe (and people see God all around them...in nature or whatever). But I don't understand everything, I'm just inferring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I ask what you are saying 'Amen!' in particular to? Could you at least kindly inform us of what part of this statement you agree with and why? 'Amen' in the context of what is intended to be a debate, hardly constitutes a genuine or constructive contribution.

If you feel like commenting, please do - but it would certainly help if you at least were able to contribute something worthwhile to the debate.

Empty comments like this are simply not very useful.

GJ

586258227[/snapback]

There was nothing empty about it. It was directed solely at the post I quoted. Encouraging posts, or posts in agreement with what another has stated might be contrary to what you're used to, but have, in fact, been used longer than the few years you and I have been members here.

Main Entry: amen?

Pronunciation: (')?-'men, (')A-; '?- when sung

Function: interjection

Etymology: Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin, from Greek amEn, from Hebrew AmEn

used to express solemn ratification (as of an expression of faith) or hearty approval (as of an assertion)/b>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all the non-believers, sure science is supposedly prooving theres no God, which just makes me laugh really.

If they can proove the Holy Books, The Quran or The Bible wrong, i will believe science. Show me the slighest Error in either one of these books about the existence of God. And believe me, MANY have tried to spoil the Quran and none of them failed. No explanation of the well in Medina I dont know if you people know about all this religious stuff. Im sorry I cant back up my stuff with Christian Links as I am muslims so I'll urge you to check out these links:

http://www.geocities.com/islamicmiracles/m...es_of_quran.htm

okay check em out (all of em if you are keen)

and someone *non-believer* PLEASE EXPLAIN these photographs:

http://www.islamcan.com/miracles/indonesia.shtml

they are NOT FAKE, it was a phenomenon on the news aswell.

Heres a story about the Miraculous Well in Saudi Arabia:

http://www.geocities.com/alislamiworld/mir...m_zam_water.htm

I have had the water from that well. Its as if it has its own flavor/taste yet no one knows where its coming from. The Stone on the K'Abba in Mecca Saudi Arabia, it cant be found ANYWHERE in the world as its told to be from the heavens. (and no its not a chuck of rock from mars during the formation of the solar system).

I dont know if this thread is pro or con about the existance of God. But check those links i've posted.

Then you tell me theres no God. And i have a video aswell showing "There is only one God" in arabic written on clouds on earth seen from the Apollo 11.

Apollo11 Vid:

http://www.islamcan.com/miracles/apollo.shtml

Im off to bed now 0509AM :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll let you have your opinion on whether people really are using the name of whatever religion to kill innocent people as there is no real way I could convince you that someone who bombed a subway system in the name of Islam isn't actually following the Islamic teachings.

That is I said, irrelevant. The only really relevant issue is that this is how it is interpreted. why is any one interpretation regarded as any more valid than any other? There is no standard in religion - no no need for proof or repeatability - so who is to say what the correct interpretation is and what is not?

God created man. Are you limiting your scope to just homosapiens? Again, the Bible was written for the culture. What I mean by that is that the writers had only a certain understanding of the world. You certainly can't believe that the Bible would have said "God created Homo floresiensis, whom then evolved into Homo georgicus, etc.". How would the writers have even put that into words on the page? What purpose would it possibly serve then anyway?

No what I am saying is that God only seems to become a factor when modern man first emerged. I'm saying also that the Bible (and several other religious texts) do indeed explicitly state that God created man and that if God created man, man could not have evolved. (which includes even his acestors - which is whatever came before man too). The bible does not say that it creates 'small warm blooded rodent like animals from which man and his decendants later emerged.' It simply says 'man'. I'm saying also that if you wish for evidence of this, there are a large number of religious texts I could quote from (should you force me to) that will demonstrate this fact quite explicitly. Moreover your views are not shared by a very large number of people who do profess to believe in these religious texts - and who do in large part tend to take much of what they say on face value.

Obviously God also did not want to "scare people" by telling them the truth. The Bible was written by humans. Plain and simple. My point about the whole 7 days thing is that, again, how does one back in their culture at that time understand millions of years? Again, how would they describe it on paper? The whole thing is symbolic. Do you really think someone like Moses would have really understood the concept of millions of years when people were still using historical events to place times, such as when the last earthquake happened or who ruled last or what generation from whom they were. What was supposed to be written? Simply the concept of time was different then.

I do not think any of this is 'obvious' at all. Like so much in religion this is simply your own personal interpretation of it. Where exactly in these texts does it state anything even remotely like this? On what authority do you speak? Why should your unique and unprovable description of religious scripture, be any more valid or carry any more weight than any one else's?

About the creation of the Universe. The energy always existed. Well how did the energy come about in the first place? You are simply saying "it was always there". How can a Universe have always existed without first being brought into existence?

Well clearly you don't understand the concept of infinity. Something that is infinite has no start, nor any end. It therefore has no beginning - because it never needs one. If you do not think that the concept of infinite quantities of time is real, then I suggest you recheck what you think you know about mathematics - and about physics. Because clearly you are arguing about something of which you have no real conception.

Of course if "we don't understand everything" then we have to infer. I mean, what else would I have meant? That simply just because we don't understand it then it must be wrong? Absurd.

There is a very large and profound difference between inferring things from what we already know and inferring things from what we do not know. For example it is possible for us to infer that perhaps 95% of the Universe is made up of dark matter (or a certain amount of dark energy too - but let's not confuse the issue). It is possible for us to infer this because we understand many of the fundamental laws of Gravitation. We know that when a body of mass is placed in close vicinity to another body of mass that they will exert a definite and precisely measurable gravitation influence over each other. When we look at the night sky, we see that although we cannot define the nature of this dark matter (yet) that there does appear to be large amounts of seemingly 'invisible' mass (or dark matter) that is exerting exactly this precisely measurable amount of gravitational influence over what we see. The conclusion we draw from this is that much of the Universe must be filled with a form of matter with which we are (currently) unfamiliar. But because we understand gravitation and many of the laws governing the processes it involves - it nonetheless allows us to infer that this matter (even though we might be unfamiliar with it's properties) does exist. We can tell it exists simply due to the influence it has over other objects in our night sky.

It is still a very long leap to go from this to saying, 'oh well, because I do not know how something works, or what it is right now, that it must be God!' That everything I am ignorant of or unaware of or am unable to explain is somehow 'all due to God'. This is as I said a cop out, it is an argument through ignorance that cannot be sustained. You start from a position where you have evidence of something that is real, and then go to a position where you have no evidence of anything meaningful at all. You effectively infer your answer from nothing. Just because you might not understand everything at that particular point in time, just saying 'God did it', is no really effective answer at all. Science tells us that although we cannot perhaps understand everything immediately, that through a continued process of investigation and refining of or models, more and more answers will in time be made clear to us. In short we move from a position of strength - and then seek to refine our knowledge, as over time old theories are disproved and are replaced by new ones.

Again. How does evolution disprove creationism? Just because evolution does not specifically have to have a divine nudge to happen? Well maybe...just maybe that was the way it was intended to work. So what's God's purpose then? How would someone that believes in God answer that? How would they know? And why would God have built organisms that had to have a guiding hand along in every developmental process? The Bible teaches its followers that their purpose is to love God.

Again I have no concept of what it is you are trying to say here. Evolution by it's nature IS an anti-creationist science. It sets out a methodology whereby there is no need for divine intervention at all. (At least not in the context of the emergence of life, or man on Earth). Why would you claim that evolution has anything to do with religion (which it hasn't - you will not find many evolutionists making references to the bible) other than perhaps if you wished to give your version of religion (and it is very much your version) some air of scientific and intellectual legitimacy?

Unfortunately the result of many religious people's dabbling in the field of science tends to be a terrible muddle between the two - a kind of pseudo scientific, neo religious collection of half baked ideas that serves only to artificially sustain the concept of religion, in a world where many of it's tenets have been widely and conclusively disproved. It seems that the only way religion can stay relevant is to clothe itself in some aspects of science - in an attempt to recognize the reality - even though science feels little need to do the same in order to reciprocate this kind of miguided psedudo intellectualism with the exponents of religion - or indeed with anyone else. Science is not in the market for 'blievers.' As I have said previously, religion may feel it needs science in order to remain relevant, but science almost certainly does not need religion.

You asked what God was doing for 4 billion years before man came. Creating the Universe I suppose. Maybe God was that energy that caused the big bang and that's how God is everywhere and exists in the same Universe (and people see God all around them...in nature or whatever). But I don't understand everything, I'm just inferring.

Well as I said above, you know what inferring can do. It is never wise to infer anything - not at least without a very fair measure of proof.

GJ

Edited by raid517
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.