Joined: Jan 2012 Posts: 8
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender:
Is evolutionary chance impossible?
Since it takes four thousand coordinated proteins all acting together for cell division to occur even in a so-called simple cell, which is not simple at all, isn't the idea of evolutionary chance creating such a process impossible? Isn't the idea of a divine designer, God, who engineered this process and set it in motion much more plausible?
The following user would like to thank craigdressler for this post: ant
Joined: Jun 2011 Posts: 437
Thanks: 59 Thanked: 30 times in 28 posts
Gender:
Re: Is evolutionary chance impossible?
craigdressler wrote:
Since it takes four thousand coordinated proteins all acting together for cell division to occur even in a so-called simple cell, which is not simple at all, isn't the idea of evolutionary chance creating such a process impossible? Isn't the idea of a divine designer, God, who engineered this process and set it in motion much more plausible?
The short answer is no, it is not impossible when you consider the time frame evolution has to work with, which is millions and millions of years. I would describe it as miraculous (a know the word is a dirty one to atheists), but not impossible. It is common for someone unfamiliar with the basics of evolution to underestimate its immense power. I agree with Richard Dawkins when he emphasizes this point.
However, evolution describes mechanistic processes, and nothing more. A much deeper mystery is what is the origin of syntactic/semantic information which is the true orchestrator of the miraculous processes of evolution.
From a singularity, a burst of light, energy, and matter came into being, and from that has arisen creatures capable of looking back in the direction of where it all began.
What caused the singularity to occur?
Atheists say it just happened. Theists believe there is an intelligence behind it all.
Great minds like Spinoza / Einstein (and countless others) believe that there is an underling intelligence to nature, but it is NOT personal in nature.
Atheists, like Dawkins and Hawking essentially believe it just all happened and that we are lucky to be in one of millions of universes that gave rise to life. Of course, they have no proof of this hypothesis. They more or less have faith that it will eventually be proven.
_________________ "Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this is not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice" - Albert Einstein.
The philosopher Richard Paul has described three kinds of people: vulgar believers, who use slogans and platitudes to bully those holding different points of view into agreeing with them; sophisticated believers, who are skilled at using intellectual arguments, but only to defend what they already believe; and critical believers, who reason their way to conclusions and are ready to listen to others."
Last edited by ant on Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The following user would like to thank ant for this post: DWill
Joined: Jun 2011 Posts: 437
Thanks: 59 Thanked: 30 times in 28 posts
Gender:
Re: Is evolutionary chance impossible?
geo wrote:
Yeah, Goddidit makes so much more sense. Whenever we don't understand something, we should just say Goddidit and not worry about it any more.
Are you saying that the scientists of past that did believe in a god stopped at that rationale (goddidit, so nothing more needed here)?
Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, and Arthur Eddington had no trouble reconciling science and religion. Quite frankly, it probably motivated them if anything.
Let's ackowledge great minds that contributed to science (and still do) despite their belief in a god.
_________________ "Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this is not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice" - Albert Einstein.
The philosopher Richard Paul has described three kinds of people: vulgar believers, who use slogans and platitudes to bully those holding different points of view into agreeing with them; sophisticated believers, who are skilled at using intellectual arguments, but only to defend what they already believe; and critical believers, who reason their way to conclusions and are ready to listen to others."
Joined: Aug 2008 Posts: 1872 Images: 1 Location: NC
Thanks: 410 Thanked: 467 times in 348 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Is evolutionary chance impossible?
ant wrote:
craigdressler wrote:
Since it takes four thousand coordinated proteins all acting together for cell division to occur even in a so-called simple cell, which is not simple at all, isn't the idea of evolutionary chance creating such a process impossible? Isn't the idea of a divine designer, God, who engineered this process and set it in motion much more plausible?
The short answer is no, it is not impossible when you consider the time frame evolution has to work with, which is millions and millions of years. I would describe it as miraculous (a know the word is a dirty one to atheists), but not impossible. It is common for someone unfamiliar with the basics of evolution to underestimate its immense power. I agree with Richard Dawkins when he emphasizes this point.
However, evolution describes mechanistic processes, and nothing more. A much deeper mystery is what is the origin of syntactic/semantic information which is the true orchestrator of the miraculous processes of evolution.
From a singularity, a burst of light, energy, and matter came into being, and from that has arisen creatures capable of looking back in the direction of where it all began.
What caused the singularity to occur?
Atheists say it just happened. Theists believe there is an intelligence behind it all.
Great minds like Spinoza / Einstein (and countless others) believe that there is an underling intelligence to nature, but it is NOT personal in nature.
Atheists, like Dawkins and Hawking essentially believe it just all happened and that we are lucky to be in one of millions of universes that gave rise to life. Of course, they have no proof of this hypothesis. They more or less have faith that it will eventually be proven.
Ant, I'm not sure why you feel the need to summarize complex positions to such simplistic talking points. Atheists believe x. Theists believe y. I'm sure atheists comprise a wide range of positions, as do theists. Your interpretation of Einstein's beliefs are also reductive to the point of being meaningless. And then your final conclusion that atheists like Dawkins and Hawking have no proof for their position (as if their position is one) is your opinion expressed as fact. IMaybe you enjoy making such grandiosely simplistic statements just to get a response.
_________________ -Geo Who Knows Only His Own Generation Remains Always a Child Cicero, Orator 120
The following user would like to thank geo for this post: Chris OConnor
Joined: Jun 2011 Posts: 437
Thanks: 59 Thanked: 30 times in 28 posts
Gender:
Re: Is evolutionary chance impossible?
Quote:
Ant, I'm not sure why you feel the need to summarize complex positions to such simplistic talking points. Atheists believe x. Theists believe y. I'm sure atheists comprise a wide range of positions, as do theists. Your interpretation of Einstein's beliefs are also reductive to the point of being meaningless. And then your final conclusion that atheists like Dawkins and Hawking have no proof for their position (as if their position is one) is your opinion expressed as fact. IMaybe you enjoy making such grandiosely simplistic statements just to get a response.
Why did you summarize a complex position in the manner you did? Your comment was "simplistic."
That's my first question to you.
_________________ "Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this is not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice" - Albert Einstein.
The philosopher Richard Paul has described three kinds of people: vulgar believers, who use slogans and platitudes to bully those holding different points of view into agreeing with them; sophisticated believers, who are skilled at using intellectual arguments, but only to defend what they already believe; and critical believers, who reason their way to conclusions and are ready to listen to others."
Last edited by ant on Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Aug 2008 Posts: 1872 Images: 1 Location: NC
Thanks: 410 Thanked: 467 times in 348 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Is evolutionary chance impossible?
ant wrote:
geo wrote:
Yeah, Goddidit makes so much more sense. Whenever we don't understand something, we should just say Goddidit and not worry about it any more.
Are you saying that the scientists of past that did believe in a god stopped at that rationale (goddidit, so nothing more needed here)?
Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, and Arthur Eddington had no trouble reconciling science and religion. Quite frankly, it probably motivated them if anything.
Let's ackowledge great minds that contributed to science (and still do) despite their belief in a god.
Belief in God is based on faith, not science. Certainly many great scientists have believed in God. The question was posed as a dichotomy, either evolution or God. I don't think it was intended as a serious question.
_________________ -Geo Who Knows Only His Own Generation Remains Always a Child Cicero, Orator 120
Joined: Jun 2011 Posts: 437
Thanks: 59 Thanked: 30 times in 28 posts
Gender:
Re: Is evolutionary chance impossible?
geo wrote:
ant wrote:
geo wrote:
Yeah, Goddidit makes so much more sense. Whenever we don't understand something, we should just say Goddidit and not worry about it any more.
Are you saying that the scientists of past that did believe in a god stopped at that rationale (goddidit, so nothing more needed here)?
Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, and Arthur Eddington had no trouble reconciling science and religion. Quite frankly, it probably motivated them if anything.
Let's ackowledge great minds that contributed to science (and still do) despite their belief in a god.
Belief in God is based on faith, not science. Certainly many great scientists have believed in God. The question was posed as a dichotomy, either evolution or God. I don't think it was intended as a serious question.
He asked if it is plausible to consider an intelligence behind creation, more or less. Why did you not consider it a serious question? Is it because you do not consider such questions to be serious? Is that why you gave a simplistic answer?
_________________ "Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this is not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice" - Albert Einstein.
The philosopher Richard Paul has described three kinds of people: vulgar believers, who use slogans and platitudes to bully those holding different points of view into agreeing with them; sophisticated believers, who are skilled at using intellectual arguments, but only to defend what they already believe; and critical believers, who reason their way to conclusions and are ready to listen to others."
Joined: Aug 2008 Posts: 1872 Images: 1 Location: NC
Thanks: 410 Thanked: 467 times in 348 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Is evolutionary chance impossible?
Actually I don't have a problem with the idea of a prime mover. It was admittedly a rather flip response.
There's no evidence for a prime mover though and just because we don't know how it all got started doesn't mean that Goddidit. That's just a God of the gaps argument.
_________________ -Geo Who Knows Only His Own Generation Remains Always a Child Cicero, Orator 120
Joined: Jun 2011 Posts: 437
Thanks: 59 Thanked: 30 times in 28 posts
Gender:
Re: Is evolutionary chance impossible?
geo wrote:
Actually I don't have a problem with the idea of a prime mover. It was admittedly a rather flip response.
There's no evidence for a prime mover though and just because we don't know how it all got started doesn't mean that Goddidit. That's just a God of the gaps argument.
I took exception to the way you accused me of being simplistic when your response was actually more simplistic than mine.
Summarizing Einstein and Spinoza's god as being an impersonal one was just that - a summary. I really didn't feel a need to explain Spinoza's Pantheism or Einstein's cosmic religion in detail.
I agree with you - there is no evidence for a prime mover. just the same as there is no evidence for the multiverse theory.
I don't expect science to shrug their shoulders and say god did it. Many "religious" scientists are not satisfied with a god of gaps. I deeply respect their humility.
_________________ "Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this is not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice" - Albert Einstein.
The philosopher Richard Paul has described three kinds of people: vulgar believers, who use slogans and platitudes to bully those holding different points of view into agreeing with them; sophisticated believers, who are skilled at using intellectual arguments, but only to defend what they already believe; and critical believers, who reason their way to conclusions and are ready to listen to others."
Last edited by ant on Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Joined: Aug 2008 Posts: 1872 Images: 1 Location: NC
Thanks: 410 Thanked: 467 times in 348 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Is evolutionary chance impossible?
It was a somewhat reactive, impulsive response on my part. I probably shouldn't hadn't a oughtn't done that. The guy who started the thread is probably a troll, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
Quite a number of philosophers have argued for an abstract god. Thomas Hobbes says we can have no concept of infinity, so we give it a name. "God." I've always seen Einstein's references to God as metaphorical. I think you could make a good argument that Einstein was an atheist, not that it really matters.
When you say something like atheists believe x, you are overgeneralizing for sure. You said on another thread that atheists believe that Jesus didn't exist. I'm sure lots of atheists think Jesus was a historical person. They're just not as vocal.
_________________ -Geo Who Knows Only His Own Generation Remains Always a Child Cicero, Orator 120
Joined: Jun 2011 Posts: 437
Thanks: 59 Thanked: 30 times in 28 posts
Gender:
Re: Is evolutionary chance impossible?
Quote:
I've always seen Einstein's references to God as metaphorical. I think you could make a good argument that Einstein was an atheist, not that it really matters.
I'd like to hear that argument. But if you don't think it matters that's fine. To clarify, interpretations of my readings about Einstein are that he believes in a god similar to that of Spinoza's god and not a personal god.
_________________ "Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this is not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice" - Albert Einstein.
The philosopher Richard Paul has described three kinds of people: vulgar believers, who use slogans and platitudes to bully those holding different points of view into agreeing with them; sophisticated believers, who are skilled at using intellectual arguments, but only to defend what they already believe; and critical believers, who reason their way to conclusions and are ready to listen to others."
Last edited by ant on Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Joined: Jan 2008 Posts: 3893 Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 689 Thanked: 562 times in 454 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Is evolutionary chance impossible?
I prefer to think that Einstein and Spinoza both were atheists, simply because neither believed that a transcendent, superintending god was present in the human world. When it comes to notions such as the world-soul or ground-of-being, these aren't theisms at all. There needs to be a better word for those who reject anything approaching the ineffable, who insist that everything but empirical data is an illusion. I wouldn't put Richard Dawkins in that category, though.
Joined: Jun 2011 Posts: 437
Thanks: 59 Thanked: 30 times in 28 posts
Gender:
Re: Is evolutionary chance impossible?
Quote:
prefer to think that Einstein and Spinoza both were atheists, simply because neither believed that a transcendent, superintending god was present in the human world.
That is clear from their writings. They did not believe in an intelligence that concerned itself with earthly matters. That is why I stated it was not a personal god per se. But their philosophy was far from atheistic.
Please show me what quotes from their works you are referring to specifically that leads you to the conclusion that both were atheists. I am genuinely curious.
_________________ "Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this is not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice" - Albert Einstein.
The philosopher Richard Paul has described three kinds of people: vulgar believers, who use slogans and platitudes to bully those holding different points of view into agreeing with them; sophisticated believers, who are skilled at using intellectual arguments, but only to defend what they already believe; and critical believers, who reason their way to conclusions and are ready to listen to others."
Last edited by ant on Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 2395 Images: 7 Location: Michigan
Thanks: 803 Thanked: 607 times in 438 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Is evolutionary chance impossible?
Quote:
Ant:
Are you saying that the scientists of past that did believe in a god stopped at that rationale (goddidit, so nothing more needed here)?
Neil DeGrasse Tyson addresses this very point, with these very scientists here:
And basically, the answer to that question is that when they run into a problem they can't tackle they do sort of give up and say "the rest is mystery too great, and surely it is god's business beyond."
_________________ Have you tried that? Looking for answers? Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?
Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the truth would be revealed through logic and evidence. -James Williamson MD
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
In the absence of God, I found Man. -Guillermo Del Torro
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. -Derek Bok
You wouldn't like me when i'm angry... Because I always back up my rage with facts and documented sources. -The Credible Hulk
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Love to talk about books but don't have time for our book discussion forums? For casual book talk join us on Facebook.
Support BookTalk.org
BookTalk.org is being upgraded to a totally new design. This upgrade is expensive. Any support would be VERY helpful! See who supports us.
Make a donation
PEOPLE PAYING FOR OUR UPGRADE:
• afv - $10 May
• LevV - $50 March
• Dexter - $10 March
• supernova38 - $25 March
• Oblivion - $20 March
• jheimlich - $20 February
• Robert Tulip - $50 February
• giselle - $50 January
Children here need worming
regularly, and I think I
need to buy more worming
tablets, so while my friends
sit on the beach, I have to
catch bush taxis up to the… more
The children have a long way
to walk to the nearest primary
school. At the moment they are
in temporary accommodation,
with volunteer teachers. There
is community land available,
a… more
The price of The 12th Disciple
has been updated to $3.99 for
Kindle readers. The book is
still available for free to
borrow for Amazon Prime
members. To be
competitive, and s… more
The 12th Disciple has been
reviewed by two different
people on Amazon. They
purchased the Kindle edition;
one in the US, one in the
UK. One review was
5-stars (US) and the oth… more
I'd like to say I've
been reading Harry Potter
since the day the world renown
series appeared on the
scene. Unfortunately,
the truth is I began reading
Harry Potter… more
Easter teaches many of us the
importance of redemption and
resurrection. Regardless of
what faith people follow, the
story of Jesus Christ has been
told in many languages in many
c… more
Our Book Talk will begin on
Wednesday, May 2nd. I look
forward to hearing about your
learning and classroom
experiences with Number Talks
as it all unfolds...
NONOPPOSITIONAL NONVIOLENCE
“The minute you conquer the
fear of death, at that moment
you are free. I submit to you
that if a man hasnÂ’t
discovered something that he
will die f… more
Yesterday, when I went to feed
Jeni the donkey, I noticed
swarms of bees entering
EbrimaÂ’s house through the
cracks in the door. We both
had a look, but he didnÂ’t
open his door… more
Whether you want to implement
number talks but are unsure of
how to begin or have
experience but want more
guidance in crafting
purposeful problems, this
dynamic multimedia resourc… more
Do you feel entitled? For
years I have listened to and,
in some instances, complained
that some people in America
feel entitled. For years I
have watched as these people
are portra… more
On Fat Tuesday and Ash
Wednesday of 2012, The 12th
Disciple was free to Kindle
users on both days. In all,
about 550 worldwide Kindle
users downloaded a copy of the
book.
‘Sacred Are the Brave’ a
collection of short stories
about the nonviolent
revolutions 1986-1989 is now
available in Kindle. Each of
the nine stories has
characters who are just
… more
The Weekend TrippersÂ’ is the
true story of Rfn Ted Taylor
and his part in the heroic
last stand in Calais May 1940.
The Weekend Trippers is based
on TedÂ’s diaries written at
the… more
Tell your friends when to meet you in the BookTalk.org Chat Room.
If you enjoy business bestsellers and would like to expand your business knowledge check out the quality book summaries offered by the world's leading book summary company.
BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.
Tweet This Topic
