Creatiolution. This could be the answer.

by Spectrum 58 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • tetrapod.sapien
    however many evolutionists are aiming at something-that is for non-designer explanations for the world around us.

    well, they are products of evolution. what do you expect? they're not perfectly made like the xians.

    he he...

  • diamondblue1974

    I am not a scientist but I have for a while held the view that there is no reason as to why, given the amount of evidence in support of evolution, that the two theories cannot be combined.

    If you believe in a creator there is no reason why he or she cannot have used evolution as the process of creation. Again its not a purely scientific view but its mine.

  • tetrapod.sapien
    Furthermore, any scientist that even attempts to openly "pull the carpet out from under evolution" also faces the possibility of an attempt to "pull the carpet out out from under" his career, once the entrenched evolutionary establishment turns on him and labeles him a "creationist".

    true. this happens when they try to do it with no supporting data for the new "hypotheses".

    well, about the quotes hooberus, all i can say is that in the context you provide them, i disagree with this a priori stuff. because if god did turn out to be an explanation, then he *would* be natural. wouldn't he? now he just needs to stop being a baby by only appearing to the people who agree with him, and appear to us all and put us in our bleeding places, hey?! and please, none of this: "well tetrapod, he is god. he can do whatever he likes!" - because he is god to you, but not to me.


  • hooberus
    well, about the quotes hooberus, all i can say is that in the context you provide them, i disagree with this a priori stuff. because if god did turn out to be an explanation, then he *would* be natural. wouldn't he? now he just needs to stop being a baby by only appearing to the people who agree with him, and appear to us all and put us in our bleeding places, hey?!

    I know of at least one creationist that has pointed this out as well (indeed if all things were created except an eternal God, then an argument could be made that the God would then the only truely "naturalistic" thing in existence)- however in practice evolutionists generally define "natural" so as to exclude God a priori.

    "[W]e have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations…that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (Lewontin, Richard [evolutionist scientist], Billions and Billions of Demons, New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28., emphasis added)

    "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." Scott C. Todd

    Department of Biology, Kansas State University, 18 Ackert Hall, Manhattan, Kansas 66506, USA Nature 401, 423 (30 September 1999); doi:10.1038/46661

  • Ténébreux

    I just watched an interesting video presentation by Dr. Bruce Lipton ("The New Biology") in which he shows how cells have the capability of selecting which of their genes will be put into action based on either their own perception of the outside environment or signals from the brain, and if necessary they are able to actually re-write their own DNA to suit the environment. The basic upshot was that genes and DNA are directly altered by perception, belief, and environmental factors - and that evolution (if indeed it happened that way) is anything other than a random process.

  • RodentBoy
    Argument: Fundamentalists argue a God that starts creation as an explanation for the beginning of life but commit a logical mistake by claiming a God who would himself require a creation. In other words you need evolution somewhere down the chain

    The root of the problem is the Prime Mover argument, not that God must be the product of evolution. It comes to light when a theist makes the claim that the Universe could not have come into being without some Prime Mover to get the ball rolling.

    The counter to that is that if the Universe requires a creator, then it is a logical assumption that God would as well. The response is that God is infinite, and so doesn't follow that logic, which ultimately undermines the Prime Mover argument, because if we have one entity that allegedly requires no creation, then there doesn't seem any necessity that the Universe ought not be a similar sort of entity, thus requiring no Prime Mover at all.

  • RodentBoy

    The problem with Answers in Genesis and all the other Creationist outfits who make the "odds of abiogenesis" claim is that, in fact, they are beating a strawman of abiogenesis. They frequently start out with "it would take one in xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx to get from organic soup to DNA", when in fact no modern theory of abiogenesis says any such thing. Abiogenesis, like any chemical process, would occur in stages, and that primitive organisms would not have had all of the features that we find in extant organisms. The earliest very likely did not have DNA at all (look up RNA world).

    I would recommend that you ought to read some real abiogenesis research, rather than going to organizations whose sole purpose is to misrepresent science to prop up their religious beliefs.

  • RodentBoy
    Given the philosophical worldviews accompanying evolution (materialism/naturalism)*, as well as the evolutionary theorists ability to adapt evolution to virtually any data, it would be a daunting task to come up with any way to "pull the carpet out" that would convince the theorists/ materialists.

    First you make a fallacious argument. Evolution, like all scientific theories, is an example of methodological naturalism, and of philosophical naturalism.

    Secondly, I'd like you to give me some examples of your allegation that evolution has been adapted to fit any data. Give, say, three examples of lines of evidence that have been made to fit evolution.

  • Abaddon

    Hi Spectrum, sorry for delay in answer...

    As Funky's pointed out, usually there is the horse (evidence) before the cart (theory). Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

    For example, there is plenty of evidence for gravity, but we had to wait for Newton to turn tht evidence into a theory that fitted the evidence.

    And to be fair I also have to echo the warnings about expectations. You'd no more think of being able to write a paper on Macbeth until you'd read the book, reviewed the contemporay literature, looked at the historical context and examined any topics within modern literary criticism that addressed the topic of your paper.

    Likewise, no matter what your level of intelligence, if you were not able to read a paper on Macbeth and have an informed opinion of its validity without some understanding of the contemporay literature, historical context and topics within modern literary criticism that addressed the same topic as the paper.

    Just as your ability to play tennis will vary according to how much time and effort you put into playing tennis, so to do effort and time pay didividend in an academic subject. And just as someone who can't play tennis will be boring for someone who can play tennis to play with, even if they are well intentioned, because they can't help but make silly mistakes, so to you will find (have found) that, be it fair or not, there is a certain amount of 'eyerolling' on the part of those that have studied the subject when someone tries to 'play tennis', and doesn;t even know which lines count in a double game.

    The rub is, if someone can physically demonstrate they know something, people will be far less likely to over estimate themselves when 'going against them' than in a situation where there is a difference in knowledge about a subject.

    And please note, this is about knowledge. Not intelligence. You can GET intelligence - you can get knowledge. The choice is yours, but you do have to live with the concequences.

    Thus, without being mean, when you say;

    The reason I still have a problem with an unaided process and mechanisms is because the numbers don't stack up.

    ... I have to ask, what do you know about statistics and probability?

    Even a scientist as well known in some areas as Fred Hoyle has made a complete idiot of himself by making unsupported assumptions regarding the probability of events due to his lack of knowledge in the area he made assumptions.

    But you are on the right sort of page.

    A creature will be the way it is because all those that weren't as near to the way it is 'got eaten' (silly way of saying reproduced in lesser quantities). Its ancestors were the least eaten of their generation. In a million years, if it has descendants at all, they will be the least eaten of its descendant's lineages. Maybe there will be only one surviving lineage, maybe there were two or more equally sucessful ways of not being eaten, and now where we saw one type of creature we see several.

    There is a certain degree of inevitability to a creature's form and behaviour, given its environment.

    It isn't always inevitable. If we go way back, we find that at a certain point the tetrapods (four limbed creatures) had more than five digits (we are pentadactyl). Now almost all terapods are pentydactyl. That could be 'luck of the draw' - if you did it again, maybe tetrapods would have six digits. Maybe five works better.

    Again, it is function that dictates form. The same rules that make the 'inevitable' come about do allow for non-fitness related variability to survive.

    I tell you, it is the prettiest theory I have encountered. You can see it everywhere. It is consistent, internally logical, supported by multiple evidences, and explains how things are.

    Maybe god is so clever he just made things so they'd work out that way? Maybe god 'breathed' on some Homos erectus? The 'silly' Creation Crew miss the real tricky bits so desperate are they to agree with the goatherd.

    If intelligence is a useful survival trait, why do only we have it as we do? Why have no other creatures evolved it if it is so bloody useful? (of course, there are some really great ideas about how it arose, and the fact I have NEVER seen a Creationist attack them speaks to their level of knowledge about the field they dabble in).

    One question. Wings, poisonous fangs require environmental pressures, I imagine creation of nucleotides don't?

    In a given environment some would have an 'advantage' over others.


    If a shaman said 'ah, but your rules, Qcmbr, don't aply to the astral plane I know of', you might not be able to prove him wrong, but you'll be pretty sure his argument boils down to 'because I say so'.

    Now, you can say 'oh, but that doesn't apply to spirit beings'. We might not be able to prove you wrong. But we are pretty sure your argument boils down to 'because I say so'.

    Everyone is entitled to an opinon, but if someone knows little about a subject their opinion is more likely to be invalid thn someon who knows a lot about the subject.

    Repeated dna code is actually a very, very strong argument for intelligent design if you wish to interpret the facts as such.

    Yes, that's exactly the point. ID is presuppositionalistic.

    As of repeated sequences of DNA, it is the tracking of repeated sequences that do not code for any protein ('junk' DNA) in various organisms DNA that support evolution so well, as they fit the supposed relationships evolutionary theory has predicted.

    Humans search for meanings and patterns that reflect what they already decided happened.

    You might do. Others don't. Most advances in science and technology have be made by those who don't. Those who do historically end up changing their opinions. Say hi! to the Flat Earthers... oh, there's only a few left... say hi! to those who say the Earth is the centre of the Universe about which the sun revolves... oooo.... where could they be...?


    Ken Ham is really worth reading up on.

    AiG is a money making scheme; he is paid TWICE the average of a non-profit CEO for his post with AiG. His 'science' is deceitful garbage. And hoo quotes from the site despite having been shown this? *sigh*

    However, if you want to believe he will give you loads of illusory reasons to make you feel better.

    Given that you basically have been given room 26 on floor three of three hotels. You give this a mystic significance. You exclude the staff noting in their records you'd had 326 before and giving it to you again. You ignore that the chance of this is higher than you'd think, as due to the way hotels number rooms, and average hotel sizes, the range of numbers is far more limited than one might think, thus increasing the chance of this happening. You ignore all the people who have had similar experiences of quirky coincidence and who never thought it might mean something.

    If god can sort out your hotel reservations, can he please save some time for the dying babies please? Sorry, but that idea of god is so childish. You reduce what you beolive to be the sovreign Lord and Creator of the Universe to a reservations clerk. LOL


    For example even if a primitve self-replicating entity capable of self-replication did come about once, numerous factors (e.g. rapid death from UV damage, hydrolysis by water, etc.) would still strongly weigh against its its even short term survival. Other factors would additionally factor against the survival of any potential offspring (error catastrophe, etc.).

    Of course, here hooberus ignores no one has seriously talked about abiogenesis in water and open sunlight for decades. The Creationist's best technique - choose your battles carefully - make sure they are ones you can appear to win - and rely upon your audiences' level of knowledge to be at a low enough level for them not to be aware the bit of theory you are sniping out hasn't been credible for decades.

    As tetra points out, you ignore that statistics is no friend to those wishing to prove an Intelligent Designer, as that has to be the highest unliklihood of it all, unless you are a presuppositonalist.

    And if you are a presuppositionalist, your opinions count for nothing, as it doesn't matter what the evidence reasonably shows, you'll close your eyes to it and preach your presuppostions.

    Add your mean spirited assault against the scientific community, ad homing millions of people whose work and study have improved the average quality of life in the past hundred years beyond all recognition, and one doesn't know what to bother saying to you, as none of it will do any good, and you'll insult and impune those that you disagree with as if you can't beat someone in a fair discussion, you'll stoop to character assasination.


    If you believe in a creator there is no reason why he or she cannot have used evolution as the process of creation. Again its not a purely scientific view but its mine.

    And one many Christians and theists agree with. We have to remember that the Creationist's agenda is against all those that disagree with them; and most modern Christians DO disgree with them, and have the 'with us or against us' stratagy applied to them by their supposed co-religionists who insist their opinion is right.

    The biggest blasphemy is they make out it is about god. It isn't, unless their 'god' is their opinion. ANd what would THAT make them? Idollators?

    Abaddon of the , "honest, this keyboard is buggered" class

  • RodentBoy
    I agree that evolution is always "under construction" -however many evolutionists are aiming at something-that is for non-designer explanations for the world around us.

    Really, can you cite some examples in peer review or primary literature where this is claimed? And if evolution is to be allegedly guilty of this, what about hydrodynamics, geology and germ theory? None of these mention a designer either.

    Simply put no science can deal with supernatural claims, and ultimately the Designer claim is supernatural. It isn't testable, not falsifiable, and whether it is true or not isn't even an issue. God can explain also possible observations, and thus has no explanatory power at all.

    Imagine being a police investigator who finds a man with a hole in his head that fits the general pattern of a bullet wound. Now you infer that someone shot the man. However, I come along and say "An angel did it." Now, no test you can create will every falsify my claim. It might even be true, but it isn't science.

    Evolution is no different. It is a theory based upon the same basic premise that allis biological theory), all because people seem to find methodological naturalism somehow noxious when applied to human origins, while they happily accept other scientific theories based upon the same basic methodology every day.

Share this