Page 1 of 11

Is evolutionary chance impossible?

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 2:10 pm
by craigdressler
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?

Re: Is evolutionary chance impossible?

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:44 pm
by geo
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.

Re: Is evolutionary chance impossible?

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:55 pm
by ant
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.

Re: Is evolutionary chance impossible?

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:12 pm
by ant
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.

Re: Is evolutionary chance impossible?

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:19 pm
by geo
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.

Re: Is evolutionary chance impossible?

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:22 pm
by ant
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.

Re: Is evolutionary chance impossible?

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:29 pm
by geo
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.

Re: Is evolutionary chance impossible?

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:32 pm
by ant
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?

Re: Is evolutionary chance impossible?

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:40 pm
by geo
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.

Re: Is evolutionary chance impossible?

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:01 pm
by ant
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.