To the Atheist: The Universe. By Chance or Design?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Blanh Exactly. Except in the God situation some people look around and say "i DO see God here". In this situation people are invoking God when it is uncalled for. All OR suggests is that you shouldn't posit a supernatural mysterious being when you dont have to.

Yes but the reason why they don't have to invoke the god explanation has nothing to do with Ockhams. To them god is an explanation. Ockham would say that it is the simplest explanation. So why would an atheist think that Ockham's razor was a good argument?

Some people could say to you, "I read a book that told me that there are 1000 invisible unicorns in this room, and I believe it." To which you could reply that your everyday existence does not seem to depend on these unicorns and they dont seem to play any part in your everyday life, and as such, you have no use for them. In other words, you can get along just fine without granting their existence.

You could say, "I read a book that told me that there were billions of billions of neutrinos whizzing through my body at this very moment, even thought the earth, and I believe it.", to which you could reply that everyday existence does not seem to depend on neutrinos and they do not seem to play any part in your everyday life, and as such, you have no use for them. In other words, you can get along just fine without granting their existence.

Is this a reasonable argument? I don't think so. Because at the end of the day existence claims cannot be settled on the basis of perceived simplicity or complexity. Such biases are presumptions of reality. And those presumptions have not been born out by history.

The action of realizing this can be considered a form of the principle of parsimony.

I understand this. Parsimony is as silly as Ockham's razor.

Starboy

[Tesserakt]

Quote by: SNPete Please give me more than the statement that believing in God is foolish and illogical. Make the argument from you side instead of simply saying my side is wrong. Take the proactive, not the reactive approach. Give me something new!

Once the "watchmaker" argument was proved to be false, religious minded people produced watchmaker v2.0 aka "intelligent design". The watchmaker argument is old news and you need only to Google it to see so.

The watchmaker argument is not a proof, it is an analogy. As most other analogies it is quite lame. It is contradictive, misses many important features, does not aid us in knowing who the watchmaker is, and most important does not stand alone as evidence of god, but must rely on external evidence. Therefore the argument does not the least prove that the world was designed by a superhuman being. I cannot help ending with these rude, yet beautiful and poetic, words, which sum up P.W. Atkins wonderful book The Second Law (Atkins, 1994) "We began with the steam engine... Nature reflects the steam engine, but in a much more elaborate way... We are the children of chaos, and the deep structure of change is decay. At root there is only corruption, and the unstemmable tide of chaos. Gone is purpose; all there is left is direction. This is the bleakness we have to accept as we peer deeply and dispassionately into the heart of the Universe. Yet when we look around and see beauty, when we look within and experience conciousness, and when we participate in the delights of life, we know in our hearts that the heart of the Universe is richer by far. But that is sentiment, and is not what we should know in our minds. Science and the steam engine have a greater nobility. Together they reveal the awesome grandeur of the simplicity of complexity."

Source

[Starboy]

Quote by: Tesserakt Once the "watchmaker" argument was proved to be false, religious minded people produced watchmaker v2.0 aka "intelligent design".

You would think they would learn. But hey, can you blame them. As lame as the watchmaker argument AKA ID is, it is just about all they got other than faith and even they realize that it is just silly to take things on faith.

Starboy

[Giglap]

Quote by: Starboy Yes I would. Why do you ask? Starboy

I'm trying to understand your position, And hopefully, by extension, the position of other evolutionists.

To all Evolutionists,
While listening to some who espouse ToE, I've come to think that when they say evolution, they are referring to what I was taught to call Natural Selection in school.
I have no problem accepting Natural Selection. (if it means change within a species)

If my definition of evolution is punctuated equilibrium, and your definition of evolution is adaptation within a species (Finch beaks), then any discussion that we have on the matter is going to be senseless.

In an effort to avoid that, how about some words to go along with these definitions?
Please add any relevant definitions.

This is the second time I've posted this request.

Change within a Species
= ???

A net increase in genetic information that improves a species adaptation.
=???
A net loss in genetic information that improves a species adaptation.
=??? (is there a term for this?)

Change (gradual or P.E) from one species to another
= ???
change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool between generations
= ???
And predating Evolution, what terms define.
The concept of living from non-living (What I would call Abiogenesis)
=???
The origins of matter =???

Thanks,
-Jim

[Giglap]

Quote by: Starboy And what criterion would that be? Exactly how does one use a supernatural criterion? Starboy

My bad, that was an improperly worded question. Let me restate that:

Would it be accurate to say that you refuse to entertain any explanation regarding origins, that cannot be evaluated on a naturalistic, scientific basis?

Thanks,
-Jim

[Jack]

I think this forum is more for discussing what we already have learned, as opposed to providing the education you should have gotten in school. But in the spirit of increasing understanding of basic concepts, let me offer the following:

1. It is NOT a fact...(it's a theory: a highly probable explanation for a collection of biological phenomena). 2. It is NOT something one should believe in...(it's based on science, not faith). 3. It is NOT concerned with the origin of life... (it deals only with the origin of species). 4. It is NOT just concerned with the origin of humans...(no more than any other species). 5. It was NOT discovered or first explained by Charles Darwin... 6. It is NOT the same thing as natural selection...(this deals with how evolution takes place). 7. It is NOT something which happened only in the past... (it's still going on). 8. It is NOT something which happens to individuals...(it happens to populations). 9. It is NOT an accidental or random process...(there are built-in limits, constraints and selective elements). 10. It was NOT developed to undermine religion...(rather it was developed to explain many observations of life in a testable way). 11. It does NOT deny the existence of God...(It is neutral; God is neither required nor eliminated). 12. It does NOT conflict with any religion...(It can't, since it is only another way of trying to explain a collection of natural phenomena, based on scientific observation and critical analysis. Most religions have no problem with evolution, and those which say they do actually express a distorted version of science and evolution). EVOLUTION: WHAT IT IS Evolution is essentially the idea that new species develop from earlier species by accumulated changes. This is sometimes referred to as "descent with modification". It is also sometimes called "microevolution". By extension, as this process of speciation proceeds with time, increasing numbers of species appear, becoming increasingly different. All the species we see today are like the growing tips of a branching tree: close clusters of tips have most recently branched (evolved); more distant tips would be traced to much lower (earlier) branchings in the tree. What we call a "genus" would be a close cluster of tips. The "family" level of classification (which may include several genera) refers to a group of several closely branched clusters. And so on. Evolution at these "higher" levels is sometimes called "macroevolution", but it should be obvious that this simply results from microevolution continued over long periods of time. The idea of evolution was developed from many observations of life. It has been tested and challenged many times and in many ways, and has survived largely intact. There are also many independent lines of evidence which are consistent with evolution as a real process. There is NO observed evidence against evolution. Evolution therefore holds the high status of near certainty: it is a scientific theory.

[Giglap]

Quote by: Isherwood I think this forum is more for discussing what we already have learned, as opposed to providing the education you should have gotten in school. But in the spirit of increasing understanding of basic concepts, let me offer the following:

What are you responding to?

[Jack]

Would it be accurate to say that you refuse to entertain any explanation regarding origins, that cannot be evaluated on a naturalistic, scientific basis?

For me, the answer is yes, except that I will "entertain" other ideas. I just have yet to hear any that stand up to independent testing.

[Detritus]

I may be wrong, but I believe you are confusing evolution the observed process with the Theory of Evolution. Finches demonstrably have developed specialized beaks. This is one of the earliest pieces scientists from a host of disciplines have put together in the convincing jigsaw of evolutionary evidence. Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory about how natural selection occurs. This theory may be wrong, but the fact of evolution is as well-established as the fact of gravity. Responsible scientists don't claim to *know* the absolute origin of life on Earth. Theists who do had better come up with a better argument than "it sure does seem awfully convenient. Like the world was *made* for us." As Douglas Adams observed, a puddle could say the same thing of its pothole.

[Jack]

BTW-the above quote is from ENSI (Evolution and Natural Science Institutes teacher's guide, and begins with this:

A short article which offers an excellent classroom strategy to help students resolve the all-to-common confusion of Lamarck's mechanism for evolution with Darwinian natural selection. This widespread problem is regularly encountered: students explaining evolution by natural selection by using phrases e.g. "organisms adapt by changing their structures of behavior in order to survive", suggesting that purposeful changes individual organisms undergo provide the underlying mechanism of natural selection, a clear confusion of Lamarck's ideas with Darwin's.

[Giglap]

Quote by: Isherwood For me, the answer is yes, except that I will "entertain" other ideas. I just have yet to hear any that stand up to independent testing.

By independent testing you mean according to naturalistic criteria?

[Detritus]

Would it be accurate to say that you refuse to entertain any explanation regarding origins, that cannot be evaluated on a naturalistic, scientific basis?

Darn, the "it has to make rational sense" test! I'm meeeeelting!

[Jack]

What are you responding to?

You asked so many questions about basic concepts of evolutionary thought it sounded like perhaps you weren't familiar with evolution, and a forum is a lousy place to get a proper education on much of anything. Those of us who accept evolution may have our opinions on the mechanisms of it, but chances are they'll all be slightly less than totally correct, thus making them subjective opinions rather than proper representations of the theory of evolution.

[Giglap]

Quote by: Detritus I may be wrong, but I believe you are confusing evolution the observed process with the Theory of Evolution....

HOLD ON Y'ALL!!!!

My post was asking for words to match with definitions we already have.
In the post I gave an example of arguing from different definitions, I wasn't suggesting that I actually held either definition.

This is Science, there should at least be consensus on the terms if not the conclusions....

I'm not attempting to make anyone use my word:definition pairs, I'd just like us all to be using the SAME word:definition pairs.

Thanks,
-Jim

[Jack]

By independent testing you mean according to naturalistic criteria?

Scientific, not naturalistic, whatever that may be.

[Jack]

This is Science, there should at least be consensus on the terms if not the conclusions....

Actually, science is full of contradictory terms and conclusions.

[Giglap]

Quote by: Isherwood You asked so many questions about basic concepts of evolutionary thought it sounded like perhaps you weren't familiar with evolution, and a forum is a lousy place to get a proper education on much of anything. Those of us who accept evolution may have our opinions on the mechanisms of it, but chances are they'll all be slightly less than totally correct, thus making them subjective opinions rather than proper representations of the theory of evolution.

Perhaps I did a poor job of it, but I was attempting to demonstrate the debate is impossible if we're using different definitions.

We might disagree as to whether or not a concept is true , but we should be able to agree on what name we assigned to a concept.

Does that make more sense?

[Giglap]

Quote by: Detritus Would it be accurate to say that you refuse to entertain any explanation regarding origins, that cannot be evaluated on a naturalistic, scientific basis? Darn, the "it has to make rational sense" test! I'm meeeeelting!

Are you saying that for something to rational, It must be testable on a naturalistic, scientific basis?

[Jack]

OK, I see what you mean, but might it not be easier if you tell us, perhaps in plain English and not scientific terms (which can be confusing and misleading), what you're trying to say, then we can respond in kind? I'm more concerned with the substance of a discussion than how accurately we use the terms. If we avoid fancy terminology all together, then we can concentrate on the content.

[Giglap]

Quote by: Isherwood Actually, science is full of contradictory terms and conclusions.

You may disagree with the idea of intelligent design , but you certainly understand what is meant by the concept.

For the purposes of our debates here, I believe that we can agree on some basic terms? Those were all pretty basic terms I think...