The arrows of my title are not being directed toward Richard Dawkins, one of the two people engaged in this extraordinary conversation. My title is directed toward creationist Wendy Wright. Her obstructionist tactics suggest that it is simply not fruitful to discuss evolution by natural selection with someone who doesn’t understand it and doesn’t want to understand it.
I’ve pasted Part 2 of 7 of this exchange above. The other parts are available at Youtube. Richard Dawkins is a model of patience here. Ms. Wright repeatedly invokes a handful of tactics to stretch out this ostensible conversation endlessly. One tactic is to change the topic whenever Dawkins tries to focus upon real world facts. Another is to send out broad accusations, such as accusing Darwin of racism when, in reality, the Victorian world was filled with people who held views that would now be considered racist and, in fact, Darwin and his writings were notably not racist. In fact, Darwin expressed abolitionist views.
In a recent comment I wrote the following:
I’m tempted to begin a new “policy” from today forward. Those disparaging the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection must, in order to deserve a reply (other than a copy and paste of this comment) must, in their own words, describe the basic elements of the theory and at least a few of the many types of evidence supporting the theory. They must also make it clear that they know how a scientific theory differs from pure speculation.
It is my repeated impression that those attempting to criticize the facts and theory of evolution by natural selection are actually attacking some something else, something that biologists, geo-biologists, geneticists, botanists and other scientists do not support. In short, they are attacking straw men. The only reasonable reply to such attacks is to direct the commenter to set aside a few hours and to read a good book on natural selection.
There’s a lot more discussion about this video a website with a most extraordinary name: WhyWontGodHealAmputee.com. Soricidae’s Blog offers a play by play for one section of the Wright-Dawkins exchange.
Karl
I call shenanigans!
my emphasis
You obviously have no idea of the actual issues here. I presume you are referring to Schaffly's well-publicized and ridiculous attempt to get 'data' from Prof. Lenski.
If you actually read Lenski's site (as opposed to Schaffly's dumb-opedia), you can see easily how to get ALL the data.
1) the actual 'data' referenced and extracted from their experiment is published in full at the site. Just download it (but you'll need to understand microbiology, DNA sequencing, advanced statistical methods, and a whole lot more to make sense of the raw data – but they provide it free for the taking)
2) samples of the various generations of E.coli, and the relevant populations, are also available — to accredited labs able to make use of those samples (do you have a lab with the equipment required?)
re (1), Schaffly obviously thought Lenski was hiding something. re (2) Schaffly would know what to do with an AGAR bio-sample if it sat on his head.
If this is the source of your accusation, please say so – don't just make shit up, or repeat verbatim the shit that someone else has made up.
Or are you talking about something else? If so, please provide citations, not smack.
Mark,
The only thing I feel obliged to work hard at is keeping the life work and message of Jesus from getting distorted by those who claim that he wasn't who he said he was – whether they be those who claim to be of a Christian Worldview or anyother worldview for that matter.
If the Theologians you have come across disappointed you it was likely for one of two reasons.
One reason could be because they (the theologian) for some reason or another was quick to cast judgment upon those who have stated that they don't believe in the person and work of Jesus.
The other reason which most here will likely claim is their reason was the amount of claimed interpreted contradictory evidence that simply precludes nearly anything written in the Bible from being believable.
I do not believe I have ever told anyone here on DI what they need to or should believe in. I have simply tried to point out what I consider to be sufficient skepticism (pig headedness as you will state) on my behalf to not have to feel compelled by the character and amount of the claimed overwhelming evidence being presented by those who would speak so highly in favor a world view that they believe is based solely and totally on non-interpreted evidence.
If the evidence could only mean that the possibility of a creator existing was falsified then I of course would need to reconsider. If this hasn't happened yet it will likely never happen. Until such time those claiming to us science to discredit the possibility of a creator existing will never be able to comment with any degree of reasonableness concerning things unseen like the Spirit and Soul.
Sure we can study the body in science and if that's all mankind's existence consisted of I will one day relent from my hopes for more to our existence than the electrical connections and synapses that I have come to perceive as my worldview.
I do not refuse to look at evidence – I look at evidence and ask if it really is advisable to agree with those who state that their interpretations are the only reasonable meaning to be associated with the evidence under consideration.
In the same way of thinking, I look for ways that the interpreted observations and evidence can fit with my worldview which includes the possibility of the supra-natural and the concept of a creator.
That will sound unscientific to many that are hopeless in regards to matters of the spirit and anything transcendent in general.
Call me a mole sent here to cause the scientific natural skeptics to have to think about the rest of the population they think they can boon doggle away from trust and faith in their stated worldview only to replace it with one of trust and faith in theories that they describe as facts about natural reality.
Tony, sorry to hear what the ravages of diabetes did to the body and will of your friend. Please don't be upset with him over not listening to you. Some people's minds are just set into one way of thinking and nothing can change that.
Karl,
Well, your analysis of the failure on the part of those from whom I sought answers is pretty dead on, with one exception. Or should I say one additional datum.
None of them could explain to me how what Jesus (or any other "prophet") required me to buy into all the rest of their theological house of cards. Seemed to me that Jesus (at least) was all about healing, but every church I was ever in was about co-dependence. After establishing that, it was a succession of logical steps to strip Jesus (and the others) of divine affiliation and see him as human.
Which changed none of the radicalness of his central message.
All the rest is easily explainable as propaganda, mysticism, and associated B.S.
Karl
Kinda missing the point altogether about claims and evidence and all. You make the claim (there is a god). You need to provide evidence (that there is a god). You (Deists in general) have not provided any evidence. Lots of hand-waving. No evidence. (or is there something you haven't shared yet?) Absence of evidence points to no evidence for god. Equally no evidence for leprauchauns, pink unicorns, non-pixelated fairies called "Tink", or the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal! Would you rather we held off on our dismissal of those imaginings, too?
Way to misinterpret science again.
Every scientist is looking, actively, for new ways to explain – because if they find that, they virtually guarantee themselves fame and fortune and glory, and a name in the books (like Boyle, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Hawking, Feynman, Fleming, Pasteur, Venter, and many others)
What you state (examining ideas from a previously defined position, and rejecting evidence that runs counter to that evidence) is more a mark of Creationists, cDesign Proponentists, AGW deniers, Flat-earthers, and their ilk. that is not, and has never been, a hallmark of science. It is anti-science, and you simply can't see that because of the 6000 year old sequoia lodged firmly in your eye.
None of the writers here are trying to seduce anyone. It's simpler than that. Present the truth, unvarnished. Provide access to data and analysis – without unnecessary commentary, and without direction on what to read or what to believe. The truth stands head and shoulders above the lies and mistruths – if one seeks it honestly.
If one is simply looking to confirm one's own prejudice… then nothing we can do will alter that. We will always be at loggerheads.
If one is truly looking to learn, then we are willing to engage honestly and uncritically in dialog, and learn together (because we certainly don't know everything)
It was Mike's friend, but I appreciate your thought, nonetheless.
The actual data I refer to is the ongoing work Lenski and team are continuing to work on to try to figure out where in the DNA of the bacteria this beneficial mutation came from.
How many places have they looked, and are they running out of places to look?
Do the statistics look favorable towards ever finding what they claim has actually happened?
It has been approximately three years and the actual changes to the DNA that would be required to state that the evolution of a new species has indeed occurred is yet to be produced.
How long should it take to find such a change to the DNA of a simple creature that they have been studying already for over 20 years?
Until such time the observations of the ability of these bacteria to grow in citrate needs to be more reserved in the claims it is suggesting were made to the DNA.
Perhaps the changes were to just to mRNA or the cellular compnents that were allowed to become part of the fabric of the cell membranes.
New species will have verifyably different DNA – not just phenotypical cell strutures an functions.
Here's why we don't teach creationism in science classes:
This set of reasons is from Unsought Input http://www.unsoughtinput.com/index.php/2008/06/15…
Mark states
"None of them could explain to me how what Jesus (or any other “prophet”) required me to buy into all the rest of their theological house of cards."
Not sure what you are asking here.
Jesus only requires our attention to matters of the Spirit – for without our attention and consideration of matters of the Spirit – it is impossible to have faith in anything other than what your own physical house of cards can create.
Your spirit will either be open to faith in God or it will be closed to the imaginings of your own interpretations concerning the physical world.
Those with faith in God can only do so through the spirit and truth.
Science by its very nature locks itself out of anything of a spiritual nature because it believes it only has the physical to explain the physical.
But Karl—the personal response to the physical can be as spiritual as the psyche can sustain. "The beauty of the rose is no less beautiful because you understand the processes behind its existence." I always found that a false dichotomy.
I dropped a word from that line about Jesus. It should have read "None of them could explain to me how what Jesus (or any other “prophet”) SAID required me to buy into all the rest of their theological house of cards."
In other words, they all base their assertion of being spiritual insiders on the basis of holy words spoken by a chosen icon/prophet…and I couldn't see, nor could they explain, the logical connection.
Einstein (famously) said that Imagination is more important than knowledge. It was not, nor was ever intended, as a devaluation of knowledge. What he meant (I presume) is that without imagination we (a) wouldn't be able to find knowledge with both hands and a floodlight and (b) wouldn't know what it meant if we did find it.
But imagination is one of those nebulous things often attributed to "spirit."
My entire viewpoint is that god or whatever you want to call it is and always has been inside your skull. The capacity of human beings to ask questions, apprehend the cosmos, and find meaning is all there is to the divine. And it's a tremendous thing!
What god is not is what all the various religions try to assert—a Watchmaker, a Great Architect, the Uncaused Cause, the Creator, a thing of separate ontological existence from Everything and responsible for that everything. That god is an invention.
But pardon me if I don't find that any reason to feel separated from what you and others call Spirit. The numinous is very much a part of who we are. Understanding—even relying on—the results of our exploration of the physical in no way diminishes the need or the place of nous, logos, the ephemeral, the "spiritual." Science does not lock us out of that—rather it shows us what it is we might marvel at next.
I can describe in mathematics and physics what a musical note is comprised of. I can understand the physiological response to a tone from a violin. That does not even begin to explain, describe—and in no way diminishes—the grandeur of Beethoven's Seventh Symphony. To tell me that my physical explanation of the components of that symphony is (a) in error because it misinterprets something fundamental or (b) shuts me out of the wonder of the music itself is bullshit. But that's pretty much what you do every time you raise that particular syllogism and make assumptions for us about us and how dark and pointless our lives must be because we do not embrace your concept of god. (It's implicit in the language you use.)
So while I appreciate your concern I begin to tire of your assumptions. You keep searching for god IN the physics and can't seem to understand why we disclude him (or her) when we discuss it. But god isn't IN the physics, it's in our wonder at what we discover through the physics. Or the geology. Or the biology. To me, god IS wonder, and I daily enjoy it through no need for a Big Granddaddy in the Sky who is concerned with how I pray, what I eat, or who I screw (and how) and whether or not I abase myself before him like some stunted serf with no learning.
Just to clarify, for the record.
Karl – re Lenski.
You still don't demonstrate any understanding.
New species will have verifyably different DNA – not just phenotypical cell strutures an functions.
Please demonstrate that you know what those words mean individually and in concert. Otherwise you're still just making stuff up, because you philosophically and religiously object to the findings. Remind me how you get verifiably different phenotypes and functions from the same DNA? I seem to have missed that in Biology!
BTW – You are still in the sack.
Tony stated:
"New species will have verifiably different DNA – not just phenotypical cell structures an functions."
I fully agree – I want to see the demonstrably verified different DNA that created a new and improved bacteria. This data is still being withheld or it doesn't exist as of yet. Some statements as to progress in their attempts to fulfill the hoped for links of a New Species with improved DNA would keep the matter under consideration in the realm of reality.
That is why I am waiting to have Lenski and team demonstrate what change to the DNA produced the "new species." This has not been shown -only assumed. This is the data I'm waiting to see which has not been produced only assumed to exist because of the statistical work that they believes says it has occurred.
Lenski and team is trying to show that different pheontypical expressions are tied directly and primarily to DNA information change/gain that has created a new species.
It is possible for the environment to be a major or minor factor in the expression of a phenotype from the same underlying DNA.
From Wikipedia Phenotypic variation
Phenotypic variation (due to underlying heritable genetic variation) is a fundamental prerequisite for evolution by natural selection. It is the living organism as a whole that contributes (or not) to the next generation, so natural selection affects the genetic structure of a population indirectly via the contribution of phenotypes. Without phenotypic variation, there would be no evolution by natural selection.
The interaction between genotype and phenotype has often been conceptualized by the following relationship:
Genotype + environment → phenotype
A slightly more nuanced version of the relationships is:
Genotype + environment + random-variation → phenotype
Genotypes often have much flexibility in the modification and expression of phenotypes; in many organisms these phenotypes are very different under varying environmental conditions. The plant Hieracium umbellatum is found growing in two different habitats in Sweden. One habitat is rocky, sea-side cliffs, where the plants are bushy with broad leaves and expanded inflorescences; the other is among sand dunes where the plants grow prostrate with narrow leaves and compact inflorescences. These habitats alternate along the coast of Sweden and the habitat that the seeds of Hieracium umbellatum land in, determine the phenotype that grows.[4]
An example of random variation in Drosophila flies is the number of ommatidia, which may vary (randomly) between left and right eyes in a single individual as much as they do between different genotypes overall, or between clones raised in different environments.
The concept of phenotype can be extended to variations below the level of the gene that affect an organism's fitness. For example, silent mutations that do not change the corresponding amino acid sequence of a gene may change the frequency of guanine-cytosine base pairs (GC content). These base pairs have a higher thermal stability (melting point, see also DNA-DNA hybridization) than adenine-thymine, a property that might convey, among organisms living in high-temperature environments, a selective advantage on variants enriched in GC content.
——-
I add it is therefore possible for the same DNA (genotype) to have an environmental factor or factors influence the expression of the Phenotype.
Some have called this random variation when it may be nothing of the sort. The percentage of the expression of phenotypes that were once considered unexpected can come to be expected more often even without an actual change in the DNA.
Even the Grey/white peppered moths of England show this to be the case.
Karl
The data you're looking for is already published on Lenski's site – including his team's understanding of the codons that changed to promote the protein generation that enabled citrate metabolism.
Or were you looking for BRAND NEW DNA that looked absolutely nothing like current DNA? If so, you really have even less understanding of genetics than I thought.
Regarding the peppered moth – those phenotypic changes are governed by epigenetic factors – the potentialities are already within their genome (similar [but different!] to the beak size for galapagos finches). The particular expression dynamic changes depending on survivability rates (darker when conditions were grimy, leading to lower survivability among lighter moths – lighter when conditions were cleaner…)
Lenski's E.coli finding was BRAND NEW and NOT supported by previously existing genetics within this species. The new capability is considered a speciation event (for bacteria), since the two SPECIES now have completely different habitat survivability. You cannot consider 'breeding compatibility' as a speciation marker for bacteria because they 'breed' via plasmid transference or simple division – not through sex… so don't even think to go there
Tony
You state
"The data you’re looking for is already published on Lenski’s site – including his team’s understanding of the codons that changed to promote the protein generation that enabled citrate metabolism."
I am not looking for totally brandnew DNA, but as you state yourself it is the teams understanding of what codons are responsible for the changes that promoted the protein generation that allowed the citrate through the cell membrane so it could be utilized for citrate metabolism.
This has not yet been peer reviewed as I understand.
Linking a specific codon sequence with a specific protein generation that is directly promoting citrate absorption through the membrane will not be as easily done as they may believe.
Karl
Re Lenski, and This has not yet been peer reviewed as I understand.
Maybe not specifically… but the original paper has been cited more than 600 times (last time I looked) and follow up research is being done in many different labs.
If you're looking for a straw to clutch, that one may not have sufficient buoyancy!
Karl's modus operandi – suspend swallowing another micro to macro pill for a few years and you'll not have to reconsider the matter in the future.
It is an injustice and unfair to call IDers a "straw man" argument. Creationism is as valid as evolutionism. Little has changed since my teaching of evolution in High School, which was many moons ago. (Evolution was not covered in my Biology courses in college). Pre-biotic soup created the first single celled organism which eventually evolved into metazoans and whatever intermediates were involved is still a mystery, for there is a large gap between single-celled and multi-celled animals. I recently learned of the Gaia hypothesis which suggests that the earth itself is a living organism. It seems a little presumptuous to explain by random mutations how elephants and beetles evolved without first discovering the chance of one single functional protein molecule. The formation of crystals cannot be compared to complex humans, for crystals grow by accretion not assimilation. There are many definitions of evolution, however RM and NS are the basic elements everything else is teleological. The fossil record is incomplete and highly subjective. Not even all paleontologists agree and any species that combines features from 2 more or less groups of organisms is classified as a candidate for one of the intermediate forms. If Phyletic gradualism took place with lots and lots of time we would expect to see some great numbers of transitional forms. Instead only the outer branches and nodes of the tree of life are seen (usually a bone or less). Also, wouldn't the transitional organisms be at a disadvantage due to the fact that that while one part is evolving into another, that part would be limited in its function? Most of the experiments involving intentional mutations (taken from talkorigins.com) either produced a sterile or weakened variety. There would need to be a substantial amount of beneficial mutations to provide evidence for the divergence of the universe. Then there are regulatory genes, that are turned on for some organisms and turned of for other. Still no explanation of how the regulatory genes know which genes to activate or deactivate. Also, genes don't carry the "blue print" for moulding proteins into complex structures. Genes also do not explain instinctual or learned behavior, let along the workings of the mind. Tony, pokes fun at the flaws in the human eye compared to an owl's eye. Perhaps an anatomy and physiology book is in order. Learn about the human body and it's ability to maintain homeostasis and the importance of every organ. Even, the so called vestigial organs, like the appendix and the coccyx. Try removing your coccyx and see what happens. Also, study the instinctual behavior of the monarch butterfly and then ask yourself if random chance could explain this. Brynn, also pokes fun at the decay of DNA. If there was no decay there would be no death. We all eventually succumb to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Critical thinking will conclude that there is a common designer rather than a common ancestor.
Walter
If you have truly only recently learned about the Gaia hypothesis, then you must an extremely curtailed reading list.
Perhaps you should expand your reading, so that you have a little more meat to put on those very thin bones. Nothing you say is anywhere new, and has been debunked many, many, many times – so I'm not going to bother.
Go read. learn a little bit. Then come back with a full quiver of intellectual arrows. We enjoy debate, but this isn't fair (to you). It's like a high-schooler stealing the lunch money from kindergarteners – definitely not something to be proud of.
We've apparently gone from being guilty of hazing to being the grade school thugs. We all left innocence behind when we read Darwin.
Walter
I'll be kind, and bite. I'm going to ask you for specific evidence in support of the following claims that you make in your last comment.
Creationism is as valid as evolutionism
Firstly – you need to define what you mean by 'evolutionism' as that's not a term that I understand.
Secondly, you need to define 'Creationism' in similar terms.
Then, lastly, demonstrate through evidence that your fact claim is true.
Little has changed since my teaching of evolution in High School
hmm. Challenging claim this. Are you talking about details, or about general understanding. Are you considering the many perspectives (punctuated equilibrium, etc) or the detailed studies and research that continue to confirm the theory?
You need to provide evidence of this claim… because it seems entirely at odds with my understanding of the evolution of evolutionary science (if you permit the phrase)
whatever intermediates were involved is still a mystery, for there is a large gap between single-celled and multi-celled animals
If you mean which organisms were the intermediates specifically then this is accepted – since such micro-organisms do not generally fossilize – especially from such deep time. However there are significant bodies of work on cellular evolution, and such work continues. If you have claims against the validity or correctness of such work, please provide your evidence. If you claim is that there is no connection between prokaryotes, bacteria, archea, eukaryotes, protists, and the later animals and fungi – then please provide some evidence for your claim. Evolutionary biologists see significant evidence of commonality and evolution form common ancestors.
Th4ere are also many examples of single-cell species making colonies (spores, plaques, and so on). From these it is a very simple step to permanent multi-cellular existing – since such DOES confer advantage (an example are the many organelles within our own cells… or chloroplasts within plant cells). Cells within cells within cells. nesting is a natural extension of 'ingestion' gone wrong – and it need only have happened once to confer immediate advantage.
There are many definitions of evolution
Nope – not in science. Please provide evidence for this claim.
If Phyletic gradualism took place with lots and lots of time we would expect to see some great numbers of transitional forms.
Please provide evidence for your claim – it appears to be a 'god of the gaps' argument, because for every new fossil found there is always room for a missing transitional fossil in between.
wouldn’t the transitional organisms be at a disadvantage due to the fact that that while one part is evolving into another, that part would be limited in its function?
This is just stupid. The transitional function confers advantage, or at the very least no net disadvantage, or it is not selected for! Basic definition of evolution. What is your claim, here? Is it simply that you don't understand selection? Or transition? Or what?
Most of the experiments involving intentional mutations (taken from talkorigins.com) either produced a sterile or weakened variety
Your claim here is what? What is the evidence for this claim? How does it support your argument (whatever that is).
As a help… Point or multi-site mutations that confer advantage will be carried to further successful generations. Mutations that confer negative advantage will eventually be eliminated, or at least significantly reduced in the population. Multi-generational studies (such as Lenski's) provided direct evidence that mutations do occur randomly in any population, and that mutations which confer advantage will be strongly selected for when they occur – but specific evolution is never guaranteed (definition of a stochastic process)
genes don’t carry the “blue print” for moulding proteins into complex structures
What? Claim – provide evidence. Perhaps you mean that genes need intracellular support structured (organelles and enzymes) to craft proteins from DNA? Known, and evidenced, and evolutionarily consistent. If you claim otherwise, please provide evidence. Complex systems build upon simple systems which build upon even simpler systems — that is the benefit of that little multiply-cooperating hive of protoplasm that is the cell.
Genes also do not explain instinctual or learned behavior, let along the workings of the mind.
No-one says they do. Instinct, and 'mind' are emergent behaviors. Properties of complex networks. The universe is full of seemingly complex emergent behaviors that are the result of simple physical interaction. Have you ever thought about the snowflake? Or why water is a partially dissociated liquid – which makes it a wonderfully versatile solvent? Simple physical chemistry, resulting in wonderfully complex structures (and in the case of water, the dissociation state and bond angles promote certain reactions more readily than others)
I'll conclude with a response to your final sentences (not a paragraph – carriage returns are your friend. Use them, they help)
You deliver a little rant about anatomy and physiology – as if these were unknowns to me (as it happens I've studied anatomy – both for life drawing, and as a matter of personal interest). Had you read any of my previous posts with any comprehension, you would have realized that I actually have a fairly decent grasp of anatomy, physiology, and also cell chemistry, systems biology, and a smattering of other subjects – as much any reasonably intelligent and inquisitive person can have. I am not special in this regard, merely interested.
You obviously misunderstood the intent of my previous eye commentary. It's this. The human eye evolved, as did every other eye, and every other sense organ, and every mental component used for signalling. It's not special, and it's definitely not the best at being an eye. You'd think a creator, making his bestest critter (man) would give that critter the benefits of all his other design work (he seems to have had no problem with re-use.. see below)
Have you ever thought why a nematode would have neural structures that are essentially identical to human neurons? Why a fly would have identical genetic epigenetic triggers to other insects and to non insects (such as primates).
Was god just so lazy that his unique acts of creation had to all use the same mechanisms?
Was he so intellectually lazy, he left bits and pieces of ERVs (Endogenous Retro Viruses) littered all over the genomes of pretty much every creature – and that these ERVs demonstrate clear evolutionary linkages, just as much as the overall genomic markers that are 'normally expressed' and therefore strongly conserved?
You could simply admit that you know next to nothing about evolution – and go off and learn for a while. that would be the intellectually honest action.
You could also admit your lack of knowledge, but decide that you don;t need to learn anything else, since your book tells you exactly what you need. Emotionally satisfying perhaps, but intellectually dishonest, and if you do so you should recuse yourself from further debate or comment on any evolutionary topics.
You could try to persuade us that you actually know what you are talking about… but that requires evidence. This is your chance to provide that evidence.
Erich states-
"We’ve apparently gone from being guilty of hazing to being the grade school thugs. We all left innocence behind when we read Darwin."
No, the ohrase should be, as a see it, "I plead the fifth."
I've read Darwin. I understand the reasoning.
I've considered the weight of the scientific evidence that clearly shows that phenotypical expressions are related to both genotypical "software" and envirometal "hardware" factors with the term natural selection being a physical deterministic interaction.
Are similar structures and functions of organelles, cells, clusters of cells, tissues, organs combined in varying showing ancestral relatedness or intentional design relatedness? Either the "hardware" factors alone established the entire beginning of the software," or the existence of the software must somehow have had some independent existence somewhere before the hardware.
Where all of the controversy comes from is one little piece of philosophical predisposition.
Do the inherent properties in the interactions between matter and energy within the natural world itself have the ability to account for both the complexity of living things as well as life itself?
Atheists say why of course it does – it's obviously so because there is no other evidence to even consider.
Those who consider life to be diametrically opposed to the known physical laws of matter and energy state that the physical world alone cannot account for itself – let alone the existence of living things.
That's why the Gaia hypothesis gets pulled into the picture to help the physical world have a software jumpstart. Without that jumpstart the ability and invariant patterns of physical laws alone precludes life either simple or complex from existing.
In anycase people do put faith into the "software" to somehow supercede the abilities clearly inherent in the physical "hardware."
Some atheists prefer to call the giver and sustainer of life – evolution itself – or the Gaia hypothesis for those wanting to be scientific about the matter and not bring the term "mother nature" into the picture.
I prefer to call the giver and sustainer of life to be God.
This is obvious the working of a sick deluded mind.
Karl said
Nope. Not even wrong. The Gaia hypothesis is not 'woo-fest' looking for mother earth spirituality, although it has been hijacked by those who wish it were so. It's an honest attempt at considering emergent homeostasis in the biosphere as a whole.
It is not directed. It is not godly. It simply suggests that the system as a whole will 'self repair' and achieve homeostatis within reason. This is an emergent property of the system complexity, not an imposed system controlling that complexity, nor a 'starting point'. It is the current 'end state' and is a hypothesized emergent property of that state.
Anyone who suggests otherwise is again clutching at lead-filled straws.
The hypothesis is based on evidence of a degree of homeostatis, supportive of the photosynthetic/carbon-based life on earth. It does not mean or imply anything else. Certainly not anything godly.
Tony
I was a bit forward to suggest that some atheists will admit to believeing anything regarding anything but the evidence as they interpret it.
You have every right to believe in nothing of any spiritual consequence.
However, Please comment upon this statement which was alos in the last post.
Do the inherent properties in the interactions between matter and energy within the natural world itself have the ability to account for both the complexity of living things as well as life itself?
Atheists say why of course it does – it’s obviously so because there is no other evidence to even consider.
Karl
You ask
You then confidently state that Atheists say why of course it does – it’s obviously so because there is no other evidence to even consider.
Instead of answering (which seems pointless, since you seem to know atheists so well), let me ask you a question in return.
Why do you think that complexity requires a creator?
Karl
In your last-but-one post I notice this gem
my emphasis
I really need to get this clear. Please do correct me if I am wrong.
You are saying that life is completely supernatural. That life is somehow intrinsically different from non-life. That you can therefore draw a line confidently between life and non-life. You accept that we can fully understand non-life through science (matter, energy and their interaction). But are adamant that we cannot ever understand life in a similar fashion? That life is forever outside the purview of science. That life is fundamentally unavailable to scientific investigation.
If so – your delusion is deep, but not unexpected, and describes the major difference between us.
You posit this one a priori assumption: there is a creator who imbued everything with life. You therefore claim (as a consequence of this assumption) that life is a categorically different thing, is supernatural, and is therefore only open to investigation through the spirit (whatever that is – another unfounded assumption) rather than through the manipulation and observation of gross matter.
So why do you make that assumption?
It is not a necessary assumption.
Nothing that we have ever discovered informs us that here lies an area that is simply impenetrable to our instruments – it must be supernatural.
Yes, we have imagined such things – gods and supermen, legions of fairies and afrits and djinn and angels and demons and witches and wizards and unicorns and dragons and many other fantasmagorical creatures. We have imagined many magics in our history.
Science has stripped bare those thoughts and imaginings and shown them to be simply … imaginary thoughts.
You demand that we accept your delusion for our own. You demand that we accede to your unfounded and unsupportable assertion of creator
You deride us as closed minded when we do not simply accept your one little assumption, your one little postulate, from which all of your interpretation stems.
But we are open minded. Completely open minded.
We'll accept your assertion – just deliver some proof, that is not an a priori postulate, and we'll accept with open arms and minds and hearts.
Until then – all you have is an unfounded and unsupportable assertion, and only fools accept those without qualification.
My tone may sound deriding at times, but I demand nothing, but to be heard to speak for myself and perhaps for those like me who know their assertions are a priori emotional and intellectual knowledge.
I approach the matters of worldview with a firm emotional honesty/conviction that a creator exists.
I approach science with a belief that it can not answer a single "why" question to my satisfaction.
You approach science as proving a creator doesn't exist because you claim there is not any convincing evidence. You consider that to be intellectually honest. You either ignore the "why" questions or you consider them to be answered to your satisfaction.
Most definitely I do not believe that life abides simply by the laws of matter and energy. There is more to living things than physical science can explain. Nothing I can say will convince you otherwise.
And it is worse than you thought – I do not even think the world and its physical laws of matter and energy can account for itself once taking living things out of the picture. Nothing I can say will convince you otherwise.
Why does it matter to you either way?
It matters to me because I do not wish to separate emotional honesty from intellectual honesty when it comes to the "why" questions of life?
Tony states:
"Nothing that we have ever discovered informs us that here lies an area that is simply impenetrable to our instruments – it must be supernatural."
1) Why is there no known paired gravitational repulsion force to the gravitational attraction force between masses?
2) Please explain why gravity is considered the weakest of the four known fundamental forces but it has the ability to act at a distance across the deepest expanses of space.
Stating anything is an inherent property of matter does not answer these questions. Stating they are issues of quantum physics only means we will never fully be certain.
3) A fundamental biological statement of cell theory is that only living cells can give rise to living cells.
Please explain using clearly supported examples how the first randomly created "cells" consisting of random cell components acquired the ability to reproduce themselves?
Chance or spontaneous explanations are a capitulation that science can't actually explain this but that a proposed "mathematical model crossed with a scientific hypothesis" can and one day will answer this question.
3. Explain how any model that uses random variation and/or spontaneous change which is a mathematical construct can ever fully be said to be scientifically credible? Sounds like one big crap shoot to me with the odds way less favorable than craps.
Science is suppose to be the search for relationships between independent and dependent variables. When one declares the independent variables are random how can this be justified as being a credible scientific investigation?
Karl writes:—"I approach the matters of worldview with a firm emotional honesty/conviction that a creator exists."
So did Darwin, Lyell, Russell, and most of the others. Honest acceptance of the evidence they found persuaded them otherwise eventually.
But you might claim that none of them actually believed all that strongly. That's as may be. Still, you wish to be taken at face value, you might accord such scientists as these the same courtesy.
It's a given that an a priori assumption necessarily distorts interpretation. While it may well be the case now that many like me have an a priori assumption that there is no creator, the science we accept was not, by and large, developed by people who held that same assumption. (But I've already explained here that I started out as a believer. Oh, well.)
—"I approach science with a belief that it can not answer a single “why” question to my satisfaction."
In essence, you are one with the alchemists.
The chief problem philosophically with alchemy is that, as a practice, the Alchemists operates under the overriding assumption that if it appears that he has found an answer, then he must be wrong, for True Knowledge is so arcane that it is virtually impossible for Man to comprehend it. But the search is vital!
Functionally, then, the search becomes the answer, the Why, for everything, and all answers by definition are false, misleading, corrupt, dead ends.
The only difference between Alchemy and orthodox faiths is that while in Alchemy the search is everything, in religion the search ends with acceptance that nothing beyond its philosophies can be known. So while the Alchemist continues to search, struggling mightily to avoid real answers, the religionist (if you will) stops searching in the belief that the answer has already been found, only he can't understand it, only accept it.
In the end, they are the same—systems of thought wrapped around themselves and leading to the same conclusion over and over and over, preventing admission of anything not within the system.
No, you will likely never be satisfied with any answers science provides.
But then, really, we aren't supposed to be, are we? The questions spawn more questions, and the search goes on. The difference between science and alchemy is that science is open source, so to speak, and expansive. You really can find new answers. So instead of a perfect system for solipsists, it's a tool for exploration of actually questions.
But there's no ultimate Why. You're looking for meaning. You have to make that for yourself.