Theory of Evolution Simplified

by darth frosty 49 Replies latest jw friends

sabastious

Theistic Evolution is compatible with science
So creationism is compatible with science then?
Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life. According to the American Scientific Affiliation:
-Sab
NewChapter

So creationism is compatible with science then?
It depends on how you are defining it. If you are referring to the popular use of Creationism---which is the Genesis account---then absolutely not. But if you are referring to Theistic Evolution as defined by your paste, then absolutely. Science is not in the business of defining gods for believers. You need to go elsewhere for that. But some beliefs do not conflict with science. Individuals may conclude, based on evidence, that there is no god, and that does seem rather common, but as long as a person accepts the scientific method there is no conflict.
NewChapter

Billy, from what I've read, a very dark skinned person can have issues living where sunlight is limited and skin exposure impossible. They can develop vitamin D deficiencies which lead to birth defects, miscarriages and stillbirths. This would certainly put them at a disadvantage when looking at their reproductive fitness. However we can't dismiss culture and the incredibly adaptable ways that humans find to work around these things. So if we were able to find a way culturaly, then physical modification becomes less important. It's really a vast subject.
Today we have sunscreen, good shelter, vitamin D supplements---whatever to help us deal with environment. But back when we were solely foragers, I think the elements had more of an impact on us. So much to consider, and I'm just too stupid to pull it all together myself.
King Solomon

Sab quacked in Turkiducken:
Religious people generally don't want have to redefine their spiritual foundations with science.
Freedom of religion means people are free to remain as ignant (sic) as they wanna be!
A graphic wont change any of this. If evolutionists really want to get the religionists attention they should start coming up with evolution friendly God theories. The scientific community largely rejects the idea of theistic evolution so the layman Christian's (and all religions) are left to create their own logical structures, while the scientific community laughs at them by the way.
The role of creating a form of science which uses the Bible as the final authority is not new, Sab: the niche has already been taken up by profiteers pseudoscientists like Ken Ham, who is involved with Answers in Genesis, and runs the Creation Museum and the soon-to-be-opened Arkencounter, a full-size (non-working) depiction of Noah's Ark.
Theology should never have been replaced by naturalism, it's one of our generations great sins.
Wow, check out the sense of entitlement on Sab!
Shame on those eevvill scientists, for not catering to the fragile beliefs of those who want to believe in their cherished fantasies....
Fact is, people self-select to participate or not. Colleges aren't lacking for qualified applicants who aren't starving to be given an opportunity to learn the reality of science, so take yourself and your own kids out of the running, at your own risk and detriment. That's how natural selection works, and it applies to you whether you understand it or not.
As an example, I met a college-track high school kid (senior) the other day who was working on college applications: she wants to go to medical school to become a doctor, and was well on her way to acheiving that goal. She has been doing AP course work, volunteer work to put on her college apps, gathering letters of recommendation, etc.
Compare that to a JW teen, who's knocking on doors as a publisher, dreaming of being a full-time pioneer someday.
sabastious

It depends on how you are defining it. If you are referring to the popular use of Creationism---which is the Genesis account---then absolutely not. But if you are referring to Theistic Evolution as defined by your paste, then absolutely. Science is not in the business of defining gods for believers. You need to go elsewhere for that. But some beliefs do not conflict with science. Individuals may conclude, based on evidence, that there is no god, and that does seem rather common, but as long as a person accepts the scientific method there is no conflict.
Only when interpreted incorrectly does Genesis conflict with the scientific method. If the book is indeed a "living document" then it could be said that we don't yet have the full understanding of it's contents nor the purposes of it's writers. Also with science we do not have the full picture. So with all that in mind humanity is not really in a position to determine whether or not the Genesis document conflicts with science. All we know is what it has caused which is interestingly a bunch of good and a bunch of bad. Certainly the book is mysterious and historically powerful enough to merrit independent study. Basically what I am saying is that scientists should not laugh at Genesis Creationists. What's interesting to me is that the last part of your paragraph conflicts with the first part.
If you are referring to the popular use of Creationism---which is the Genesis account---then absolutely not.
^ So you are saying that Genesis Creationism is not compatible with science. Then you say:
Individuals may conclude, based on evidence, that there is no god, and that does seem rather common, but as long as a person accepts the scientific method there is no conflict.
^ So "as long as the person accepts the scientific method" actually means, in part, denying the authenticity of Genesis. Since we have little to no data on the authorship of the document we must have faith in the people who preserved it. Not to be perfect, but to provide enough data to the table to establish an array of plausible theories. One theory could be that it has no authenticity and is myth. Another could be that that it does have authenticity, but requires further study. That "further study" could include future technologies that will allow a clearer view of our past than otherwise possible.
It's not intellectually responsible to put up the Torah as some sort of example as to what is not scientific. I think what religionist's want is to be heard and not have their ancient books discredited. Because in many cases the only historical record IS the ancient text and that means that what the people of that text did with that record is of utmost importance. Not because it's this genius scientific approach, but because it's the only scientific approach.
-Sab
King Solomon

Sab spook:
Only when interpreted incorrectly does Genesis conflict with the scientific method.
On the 3rd day, God made plants.
On the 4th day, God made the Sun.
It's pretty clear that the Hebrews who scripted the YHWH character were not knowledgable of photosynthesis, and never took a basic Biology course (quite impossible, as that knowledge hadn't yet been discovered). The real question is, Sab, are you content to remain ignorant like someone who lived 3,000 years ago?
NewChapter

Only when interpreted incorrectly does Genesis conflict with the scientific method
Whatever. It's not my concern. I'll let the believers duke it out.
So with all that in mind humanity is not really in a position to determine whether or not the Genesis document conflicts with science
Sure it is, but they aren't really thinking about Genesis or the millions of interpretations when doing sciency things. In fact, it probably doesn't come up at all. It has no obligation to Genesis, just as Genesis has no obligation to science. Science is not about protecting and shoreing up fragile beliefs. They just lay it out there, you do with it what you will.
^ So "as long as the person accepts the scientific method" actually means, in part, denying the authenticity of Genesis.
It they believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, then it conflicts with science. Period. If they have some other understanding of Genesis, then it may or may not conflict with science. Creationists tend to conflict with science, whereas Theistic Evolutionists do not. This is a general statement, and I don't care to delve into the many exceptions, interpretations, and conflict among believers. Accept evolution---don't accept evolution---the information is there for all to decide.
Since we have little to no data on the authorship of the document we must have faith in the people who preserved it
Again--whatever. Faith is your thing. Science is not about faith. Evolution does not worry about Genesis and all the disagreements in the believing community. It's doing it's own thing and really doesn't have to answer to the billions of understandings on an ancient document that is not relevant to its work.
It's not intellectually responsible to put up the Torah as some sort of example as to what is not scientific.
Science does not care about the Torah. It is concerned with it's own method and ways of gathering evidence.
I think what religionist's want is to be heard and not have their ancient books discredited.
I cannot discredit what you want to believe. If the evidence makes you uncomfortable and shakes your beliefs, see to that with your god. Science is not beholden to religionists. All are free to do with the information what they choose.
Because in many cases the only historical record IS the ancient text and that means that what the people of that text did with that record is of utmost importance. Not because it's this genius scientific approach, but because it's the only scientific approach
the ancient text's approach is to give you the answers. The scientific approach is to find the answers. Apples and Oranges. The scientific approach is the scientific method, and since that is pretty much the definition then the scientific method is the only approach to science. You see, you want to coopt science. You can't do it. This is a method that is laid down, and if you want to consider another approach, then call it something else. You don't just get to change definitions to make yourself more comfortable with your beliefs. If science and the method make you so uneasy, instead of trying to force science to do your will, ask yourself why you are so uncomfortable with its findings.
There is absolutely no reason science should give ancient texts any credence when doing sciency things. It does not need to apologize to you for what it learns. It does not need to 'get along' with you, and in the effort, corrupt its own process. Why don't you do like billions of others---accept the science that gives you a warm feeling and dismiss the rest.
NC
sabastious

The real question is, Sab, are you content to remain ignorant like someone who lived 3,000 years ago? KS
You are operating on the false assumption that believing in the Genesis document is akin to willful ignorance of science. Just because you wrongly interpret Genesis and then wrongly apply it to modern science doesn't mean anything other than you operate on wrong assumptions. You can continue dancing, the music never stops.
Whatever. It's not my concern. I'll let the believers duke it out.
Such a sensible atheist! They should clone you!
It they believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, then it conflicts with science. Period. If they have some other understanding of Genesis, then it may or may not conflict with science. Creationists tend to conflict with science, whereas Theistic Evolutionists do not. This is a general statement, and I don't care to delve into the many exceptions, interpretations, and conflict among believers. Accept evolution---don't accept evolution---the information is there for all to decide.
If there are all these valid theories floating around which one is the most probable? That's how science comes to conclusions. "Truth with uncertainty" seems to be a tenent of the scientific method which constantly churns out new often conflictual information. Doesn't Scientific Theory essentially mean "best theory" of an array of plausible options? The options keep flooding in as new data is unearthed.
Again--whatever. Faith is your thing. Science is not about faith. Evolution does not worry about Genesis and all the disagreements in the believing community. It's doing it's own thing and really doesn't have to answer to the billions of understandings on an ancient document that is not relevant to its work.
Science utilizes the human trait of faith in order to progress forward. Often a scientist is left to have faith in the scientific method itself for long enough to see the results. The time span is varient and unknown, so the scientist has to have faith that the results will come even though it may appear otherwise. Scientists often preach about the patience it takes to apply the method. Not only is faith in the gerneral method required in certain anxiety driven junctures of discovery but faith in the quantification of data is also paramount. Conclusions are based off of evidence of a certain quality and quantity and the methods of establishing those perspective properties of the conclusions require faith in. It appears that you have an aversion to the very idea of faith when in fact you have to be faithful to live on this planet in some way or another. Every time you travel in an automobile of any kind for example. You are taking a risk based off of available data which is a practice in a form of faith:
Faith: belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

You cannot prove that you will live through any amount of time spent in a motor vehicle, but yet you take the plunge anyway. You have faith in the vehicle manufacturers, you have faith in the goverment testing to create competent drivers you have faith in traffic laws etc.
Science does not care about the Torah. It is concerned with it's own method and ways of gathering evidence.
The Disciples of Science care much for the Torah. Look at King Solomon here, trying to say that Genesis cares about photosynthesis.
I cannot discredit what you want to believe. If the evidence makes you uncomfortable and shakes your beliefs, see to that with your god. Science is not beholden to religionists. All are free to do with the information what they choose.
The evidence is not what makes me uncomfortable it's the people who take that evidence and insist that it disproves anything about God or the Torah. People have power in a democratic society, so any kind of insistence of any particular ideal can be dangerous to society at large. Are you admitting that many on this forum are engaing in vanity when trying to discredit ancient text's validity? Is that not applying the scientific method to ancient texts for the purposes of conclusions? Do you not take part in such behavior yourself?
the ancient text's approach is to give you the answers. The scientific approach is to find the answers. Apples and Oranges.
The ancient text's approach is to enlighten, not to simply toss out answers. Such a statement would clearly come from someone who has not really given the ancient text's and their adherents enough of a chance. I personally have used the Torah to help me in my modern life. It is a "living document" which means it is not just your average collection of words and sentences. It was compiled by a mysterious collective process and contains deep and ancient truths that apply, astoundingly, to modern day life.
There is absolutely no reason science should give ancient texts any credence when doing sciency things. It does not need to apologize to you for what it learns. It does not need to 'get along' with you, and in the effort, corrupt its own process. Why don't you do like billions of others---accept the science that gives you a warm feeling and dismiss the rest.
So the ancient texts were written down to give us warm feelings? Why do you make such generalizations? I would say they were written down to induce cognitive dissonance and get the reader thinking about their position in the cosmos. That is not a generally good feeling, but more of an extreme anxiety and strain of the mind attempting to grow beyond what is the conscious and physical world.
-Sab
King Solomon

Sab said:
Just because you wrongly interpret Genesis and then wrongly apply it to modern science doesn't mean anything other than you operate on wrong assumptions.
Oh, so it's me? I'm interpreting Genesis all wrong? WELL OF COURSE, it's gotta be silly ol' me!
OK, since I'm doing it all wrong, lay YOUR interpretation of the Genesis creation account on me (the one that is designed to jibe with our current understanding of science, i.e. an interpretation that would be quite different if I asked the same thing 200 years ago).
This should be good, as I can predict the flip-flopping required, from one scripture being literal, the next figurative, next three words literal, next word back to figurative (running off to get popcorn now).
Take Genesis 1 and 2: lay it on me, as I'm all ears....
Heck, let's limit it to ONE instance where basic science and the Torah are having a tiny disagreement, eg just explain the photosynthesis thing, AKA how God created plants BEFORE there was a Sun...
Here ya' go:
Genesis 1:
11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
Here, explain how this operates without energy input in the form of energy from the Sun:
You can feel free to use principles of chemical equilibrium, if you like.
In case you need to refresh your understanding of photosynthesis, HERE'S a good review:
http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios100/lecturesf04am/lect10.htm
I personally have used the Torah to help me in my modern life. It is a "living document" which means it is not just your average collection of words and sentences.
The Torah is NOT a "living document": two scriptures in Deuteronomy attempted to seal it off, preventing further editing or changes to the law (and hence the need for oral Pharisaical traditions). I suppose that's OK with you, since we've seen that people are quite willing to use the Torah to play the creative interpretation "literal/allegory" game to play the game of the Pharisees....
sabastious

Oh, so it's me? I'm interpreting Genesis all wrong? WELL OF COURSE, it's gotta be silly ol' me!
Yes you are interpreting it very wrong. I know it's a hard concept for you personally to grasp, but in this case it's true.
Heck, take Genesis 1 and 2: lay it on me, as I'm all ears....
I am going to have a blog out eventually that describes the purpose of those chapters in detail. I believe they correlate with certain hexagrams of the chinese classic: The Book of Changes. I believe that there has always existed a group of people who's directive was to intermingle all religions into a single pot for the distant future generations to discover and apply. In other words I don't believe that religions came to be independently, they just appear that way. Neither do I believe that they are actually in conflict. Religious conflict is just a human construct and in opposition to the Creator. This process was secret so it will not be recorded in history. I'm not saying that there is no evidence of this group, but their organization will remain largely hidden in time. Their products, however, are now online for everyone to see. The Torah and the I CHING are relatives and that means that western religion is related to eastern religion in ways that are more profound that what has already been discovered. We have found the puzzle pieces, but we have not put them together yet.
The Torah is NOT a "living document": two scriptures in Deuteronomy attempted to seal it off, preventing further editing or changes to the law (and hence the need for oral Pharisaical traditions). I suppose that's OK with you, since we've seen that people are quite willing to use the Torah to play the creative interpretation "literal/allegory" game to play the game of the Pharisees....
You lack understanding of what the Torah was designed to accomplish. Without that understanding you will always come to a wrong conclusion as to it's divinity and true nature.
-Sab

Theory of Evolution Simplified

Share this