A Question For My Evolutionist Friends

[This_person]

The religious point of view doesn't care whether its opinion is supported by empirical evidence, so its view on the likelihood is irrelevant.

Regarding the origin of life, there's no empirical evidence supporting any theory, so ditto.

The point is not about proof, since nothing in the real world can be proved with complete certainty. The point is that scientific theories that are substantiated by extensive evidence, such as evolution, allow for high degrees of certainty.

Evolution, which highly contradicts itself as far as total species change. And, as for the origins of life, there isn't even a workable theory, let alone evidence to support it.

My use of the word "consequence" was perhaps a poor choice, since it may give the false impression that I'm talking about punishment. I was really talking about the effects of one's actions on the self and on others.

No, I don't think that was wrong. I was talking about the same thing.

Having a natural origin for the human moral sense would not invalidate the sense at all, because we would still experience it and use it to guide our actions. We know that love has a biological origin, but that knowledge doesn't prevent us from experiencing love.

The whole point of emotional maturity is to value the rightness of helping others and the wrongness of harming others. A person with this maturity would want to do the right thing regardless of any accountability. Sure, plenty of people do not value the human interaction principle of morality, but notions of accountability would not change their minds. And that doesn't change the fact that humans are capable of doing the right thing because it's the right thing.

Ahh, but the rub is, what is the "right" thing? In some cultures, physically abusing a woman for being alone with a man she's not related to is "helping her". It's the right thing, because it teaches her she was wrong. To some, killing the enemy that vows to kill you is the right thing, to others it is not. Who's "right"? Who's achieved that proper maturity level? It's purely subjective. And, this is where we sound like we're arguing, but saying the same thing in different angles - to an atheist, to someone with no moral compass beyond what they alone perceive as right and wrong, ANYTHING could be right. Killing your neighbor to steal his stuff could be "right", because he couldn't handle all his stuff and you can, so you saved him from it (outlandish, I know, but I'm exaggerating to make a point).

I suspect your take on it would be that religions can "arbitrarily" establish morals. That would be absolutely correct. And, if it's the correct religion, it will be the correct set of moral standards. If not, it won't be. But, at least there will be an established set.

Would you explain what you mean by doing the right thing in private? Do you mean doing the right thing even when no one is watching? If so, that's part of my point about doing the right thing because it's the right thing. Or are you talking about some notion of right and wrong that is isolated from the effects of actions on others?

The latter. Even if you know you won't get caught, even if it has the right result, the action is wrong, and you don't do it for that reason.

 

[This_person]

Those are simply subjective assertions, which is my whole point. The factual accuracy of any explanation for any natural event has nothing to do with how fantastic the explanation seems. Evolution may seem like design, but that's only because both evolution and human design involve complex systems that deal with the same physical constraints. Evolution looks like design because humans are designers. The alternative to design is not randomness but causation.

But, without design, the driving force of the cause is..........random. Mutation. Chance. Luck. Anything but design.

 

[wxtornado]

Negate randomness, and the only thing left is some cognicant designer.

Here's a glaring problem with this argument however:


If you are asserting that the universe is too complex to not have a creator, how is it that the creator, who has to be more complex in order to create the universe -- doesn't fall under that same scrutiny? Why is the creator you say you need get exempted from the core logic of your premise?

This argument invariably dismisses its own premise the moment it "gets to" the answer it wants to get to. That's an unfair thing to do.

If you assert "A" is so complex it needs "AA" to create it, then you are obligated to stay within your own criteria and thus claim "AA" is also so complex it needs "AAA" to create it.

The reason those who make this argument don't do it and instead jump the rails at the first stop is because it's easy to see where such a process must lead to.

You simply stop at "AA" for convenience, and you walk away from your core premise, satisfied that you've somehow not done something completely and illustratively illogical.

Unfortunately, you've done something completely and illustratively illogical-- vastly more illogical than asserting that given an infinity of time, and an infinity of "big bang" events that mix up the universe, eventually you will come across a universe precisely like this one we inhabit. Even despite the seemingly impossible odds, when you are dealing with infinity and infinite chances, you will eventually realize at least one eventuality that seems impossible. Indeed, all permuaitons are equally "impossible" -- because of all the factors involved-- even a universe that ofers nothing but chaos.

Human prejudice is at the core of your argument. "It's too complicated to happen because I can't get my mind around all the factors that have to happen for this existence to occur." Okay, well, that's not the fault of the universe or of the model that does explain it. While not proven (yet), the model of multiverses and repetitive permutations of any given universe succinctly, logically, and easily does explain the seemingly long odds that a complex and life-based universe can and does exist.

And it does so without introducing an illogical heirarchy that leads to an infinity of failed plateaus.

 

[This_person]

Here's a glaring problem with this argument however:


If you are asserting that the universe is too complex to not have a creator, how is it that the creator, who has to be more complex in order to create the universe -- doesn't fall under that same scrutiny? Why is the creator you say you need get exempted from the core logic of your premise?

This argument invariably dismisses its own premise the moment it "gets to" the answer it wants to get to. That's an unfair thing to do.

If you assert "A" is so complex it needs "AA" to create it, then you are obligated to stay within your own criteria and thus claim "AA" is also so complex it needs "AAA" to create it.

The reason those who make this argument don't do it and instead jump the rails at the first stop is because it's easy to see where such a process must lead to.

You simply stop at "AA" for convenience, and you walk away from your core premise, satisfied that you've somehow not done something completely and illustratively illogical.

Unfortunately, you've done something completely and illustratively illogical-- vastly more illogical than asserting that given an infinity of time, and an infinity of "big bang" events that mix up the universe, eventually you will come across a universe precisely like this one we inhabit. Even despite the seemingly impossible odds, when you are dealing with infinity and infinite chances, you will eventually realize at least one eventuality that seems impossible. Indeed, all permuaitons are equally "impossible" -- because of all the factors involved-- even a universe that ofers nothing but chaos.

Human prejudice is at the core of your argument. "It's too complicated to happen because I can't get my mind around all the factors that have to happen for this existence to occur." Okay, well, that's not the fault of the universe or of the model that does explain it. While not proven (yet), the model of multiverses and repetitive permutations of any given universe succinctly, logically, and easily does explain the seemingly long odds that a complex and life-based universe can and does exist.

And it does so without introducing an illogical heirarchy that leads to an infinity of failed plateaus.

So, in an infinite level of possibilities, one of those possibilities is that there is a creator who's been around for infinity of time, and from whom all came. HE needed no creator, because HE always is, always was, always will be.

See how it's just as likely?

 

[This_person]

And? :shrug:

I was just responding to this:

The alternative to design is not randomness but causation.

Un-"designed" causation IS randomness. That's all I was saying.

 

[Tonio]

Regarding the origin of life, there's no empirical evidence supporting any theory, so ditto.

See my point about about the big bang theory predicting many observable things about the universe. That's the empirical evidence I'm talking about. While those things don't conclusively prove the theory, they don't have to do so as long as long as the theory allow such preductions.

And, as for the origins of life, there isn't even a workable theory, let alone evidence to support it.

There are numerous such workable theories of abiogenesis. The research has been going on since the 1950s.

No, I don't think that was wrong. I was talking about the same thing.

It sounded like you were talking about imposed consequences and not natural effects.

to an atheist, to someone with no moral compass beyond what they alone perceive as right and wrong, ANYTHING could be right.

Personal moral judgment is not the same as amorality. Obviously different people come to different conclusions about what helps or harms other people. That cannot be changed - human life has no absolutes, except that life is finite. All we can do as individuals is pay attention to our inner moral sense, do what we conclude helps others, avoid doing what we conclude harms others, and oppose those who harm others.

I suspect your take on it would be that religions can "arbitrarily" establish morals. That would be absolutely correct. And, if it's the correct religion, it will be the correct set of moral standards. If not, it won't be. But, at least there will be an established set.

We cannot leave it to any one person or group to decide what is right and wrong for everyone. That would involve ignoring our inner moral sense. It would also ignore what we learn from human experience about happiness and suffering.

Even if you know you won't get caught, even if it has the right result, the action is wrong, and you don't do it for that reason.

Would you explain? If an action doesn't harm others, how can it be wrong? I'm talking about the principle of harm - stealing a dollar from a poor person and stealing a dollar from a billionaire are both wrong in principle, although the former involves much more harm than the latter.

 

[Tonio]

But, without design, the driving force of the cause is..........random. Mutation. Chance. Luck. Anything but design.

No, true randomness would involve no causes at all. If that type of randomness really existed, one could hit a pool shot exactly the same way 10 times and the ball would roll in a different direction each time. Besides, natural selection is the opposite of chance - conditions favor the survival of certain species and mutations and not others.

 

[This_person]

See my point about about the big bang theory predicting many observable things about the universe. That's the empirical evidence I'm talking about. While those things don't conclusively prove the theory, they don't have to do so as long as long as the theory allow such preductions.

Again, ditto. Same proof, same potential for causation, same quality of information

There are numerous such workable theories of abiogenesis. The research has been going on since the 1950s.

Testable? Repeatable? Not so much. Therefore science? Not so much. At least, if you say ID is not science because it's not testable and repeatable, neither is abiogenesis.

Personal moral judgment is not the same as amorality. Obviously different people come to different conclusions about what helps or harms other people. That cannot be changed - human life has no absolutes, except that life is finite. All we can do as individuals is pay attention to our inner moral sense, do what we conclude helps others, avoid doing what we conclude harms others, and oppose those who harm others.

I didn't mean to imply amorale. I merely was saying subjective to each person. Whether or not something someone does hurts someone else is subjective, and that subjective definition of morality is subjective. Religions give a common moral code, a foundation of belief so that there is at least consistency in what is moral, and what is not.

We cannot leave it to any one person or group to decide what is right and wrong for everyone. That would involve ignoring our inner moral sense. It would also ignore what we learn from human experience about happiness and suffering.

And, we cannot leave it to everyone to decide for themselves.

Would you explain? If an action doesn't harm others, how can it be wrong? I'm talking about the principle of harm - stealing a dollar from a poor person and stealing a dollar from a billionaire are both wrong in principle, although the former involves much more harm than the latter.

That's a subjective definition of right and wrong. But, even using that, what if you hurt someone and there is NO WAY anyone ever knew it was you that caused it to happen?

Plus, stealing from a poor person and stealing from a billionaire are not just both wrong in principle, they're both wrong period, IMO. It's like the old joke where the billionaire asks a woman if she'd sleep with him for a million dollars, she says yes, so he asks if she'd sleep with him for $10. She asks what type of woman he thinks she is, and he answers, "we've already established what type of woman you are, now we're just bickering over price." Same with who you steal from.... You're a thief either way, any other consideration is merely relative morality.

 

[This_person]

No, true randomness would involve no causes at all. If that type of randomness really existed, one could hit a pool shot exactly the same way 10 times and the ball would roll in a different direction each time. Besides, natural selection is the opposite of chance - conditions favor the survival of certain species and mutations and not others.

Okay, what term do I use to say it's just "stuff happens with no driving force"? My definition has always been that that is random.

 

[This_person]

Link

This is what I've been saying - religious people aren't against learning, research, etc. We're against close-mindedness on possibilities.

 

[This_person]

I know, but Darwins theories ran/run counter to what the Church believed at the time, it was DEFINETLY against his learning and research.

And this is where you and I will probably agree - "the Church" is not the religion. "The Church" is made up of people who believe they know, and try and set rules for others based upon what THEY think religious texts teach.

The Catholic Church is not Christianity, it's a sect within Christianity. Maybe the largest and best known, but still just one way of looking at things.

 

[Tonio]

Again, ditto. Same proof, same potential for causation, same quality of information.

Supernaturalistic "theories" don't explain anything because their objective is not to find an explanation for natural events but to try to justify the existence of a supernatural. Their claims are like trying to complete a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces by filling in the holes with oatmeal.

Testable? Repeatable? Not so much. Therefore science? Not so much. At least, if you say ID is not science because it's not testable and repeatable, neither is abiogenesis.

The theories are indeed testable at the laboratory level. Another reason that ID is not science is because it starts with an assumption and distorts knowledge and observation to support the assumption.

I didn't mean to imply amorale. I merely was saying subjective to each person. Whether or not something someone does hurts someone else is subjective, and that subjective definition of morality is subjective. Religions give a common moral code, a foundation of belief so that there is at least consistency in what is moral, and what is not.

Supernaturalistic religions do not care about moral consistency or about underlying principles of help and harm. Their stance is "Do this because our gods say so. Do this or you'll burn forever." Obedience is not morality. Even a cursory look at Leviticus or the Koran shows that their moral codes have no consistency and no regard for help or harm. There is no evidence that these codes have a supernatural source - they were presented by people who claimed to be proxies for supernatural entities, and there is no reason to take their word for it.

And, we cannot leave it to everyone to decide for themselves.

It's a mistake to treat morality as either purely objective or purely subjective. It would be more accurate to say that morality involves some objectivity for several reasons. One is the inner moral sense. Another is the balance between individual wants and collective needs that any society tries to achieve.

what if you hurt someone and there is NO WAY anyone ever knew it was you that caused it to happen?

Then it would still be wrong.

Plus, stealing from a poor person and stealing from a billionaire are not just both wrong in principle, they're both wrong period, IMO.

That's what I meant by "wrong in principle." Both are wrong according to a principle. I wasn't suggesting that one is less wrong than the other. I was saying that all stealing is wrong because of the potential for causing harm. The fact that some stealing causes more harm than others doesn't change the inherent wrongness of the act.

You're a thief either way, any other consideration is merely relative morality.

A better example would be killing someone who is about to kill others, if there was no other way to stop the person. That would make you a killer even though the alternative would result in others losing their lives. It's a matter of choosing between two wrongs. Killing the person is the more
acceptable choice, but that doesn't change the wrongness of taking life. I know that if I had to do so, I would probably have guilt, and I suspect you and everyone else here might have the same guilt.

 

[Tonio]

This is what I've been saying - religious people aren't against learning, research, etc. We're against close-mindedness on possibilities.

Reason occupies a middle ground between complete open-mindedness and complete close-mindedness. Reason is analyzing the possibilities and setting aside the ones that have little probability. Reason recognizes that possibilities and probabilities are derived from observation and not the other way around. The distinction between possibility and probability is the whole point. Any one religion's supernatural claims have no more probability than any other religion's.

It is unbelievably pathetic that the Vatican would even feel the need to acknowledge the probability of life on other plants. Scientific knowledge grows when people rightly reject ideologies and doctrines that attempt to straitjacket thought. And that is exactly what Genesis did for centuries. While the literal text itself doesn't rule out life on other planets, that is how Christianity overall interpreted the book. It's almost like the Vatican is trying to avoid admitting that Genesis is purely a human-created myth that may or may not have any metaphorical value.

 

[This_person]

Supernaturalistic "theories" don't explain anything because their objective is not to find an explanation for natural events but to try to justify the existence of a supernatural.

One more time, ditto. Abiogenesis is not looking for the actual explaination, just potential ones. Religious beliefs rest on knowing the explaination, and trying to figure out how that happened.

The theories are indeed testable at the laboratory level.

Well, with quite a long history of time to perform such tests, has it ever been done successfully?

Let me guess, we didn't fail at creating life from lifelessness, we've just found 365,572,298 ways of NOT making life from lifelessness, right?

Supernaturalistic religions do not care about moral consistency or about underlying principles of help and harm. Their stance is "Do this because our gods say so. Do this or you'll burn forever."

This is in direct opposition to everything I've been taught in several different religious realms.

Obedience is not morality. Even a cursory look at Leviticus or the Koran shows that their moral codes have no consistency and no regard for help or harm.

Depending on the interpretation

There is no evidence that these codes have a supernatural source - they were presented by people who claimed to be proxies for supernatural entities, and there is no reason to take their word for it.

Based upon the shere volumes of people involved at the times they were written, I'd suggest there's LOTS of reasons to take their word for it.

It's a mistake to treat morality as either purely objective or purely subjective. It would be more accurate to say that morality involves some objectivity for several reasons.

Perception, Tonio. What is objective reasoning for you is different for around 300,000,000 people in this country alone. If it weren't, we'd all agree.

A better example would be killing someone who is about to kill others, if there was no other way to stop the person. That would make you a killer even though the alternative would result in others losing their lives. It's a matter of choosing between two wrongs. Killing the person is the more acceptable choice, but that doesn't change the wrongness of taking life. I know that if I had to do so, I would probably have guilt, and I suspect you and everyone else here might have the same guilt.

I would tend to agree, but it would be subjective. I believe in a difference between murder and killing, and having no option but to kill to stop a murderer would be much easier than just taking that option when others existed. But, that's a whole different discussion!

 

[This_person]

Reason occupies a middle ground between complete open-mindedness and complete close-mindedness. Reason is analyzing the possibilities and setting aside the ones that have little probability. Reason recognizes that possibilities and probabilities are derived from observation and not the other way around. The distinction between possibility and probability is the whole point.

Improbable (by some arbitrary standard) does not equal impossible. Rule out the impossible, sure, but ruling out what one determines improbable is irrational.

Any one religion's supernatural claims have no more probability than any other religion's.

And, unproven "natural" claims have no more probability than any other claims, period.

It is unbelievably pathetic that the Vatican would even feel the need to acknowledge the probability of life on other plants. Scientific knowledge grows when people rightly reject ideologies and doctrines that attempt to straitjacket thought. And that is exactly what Genesis did for centuries.

That may be what CHURCHES did for centures, but the book stands on it's own.

While the literal text itself doesn't rule out life on other planets, that is how Christianity overall interpreted the book. It's almost like the Vatican is trying to avoid admitting that Genesis is purely a human-created myth that may or may not have any metaphorical value.

Perhaps that's because Christians don't view Genesis as a "purely human created myth"!

 

[Tonio]

One more time, ditto. Abiogenesis is not looking for the actual explaination, just potential ones. Religious beliefs rest on knowing the explaination, and trying to figure out how that happened.

You seem to be assuming that the "actual" explanation cannot be determined through investigation and experimentation, or that abiogenesis deliberately ignores the "actual" explanation.

The whole concept of belief is invalid because belief ignores data from the senses. It's like forming an image of what one's face looks like without ever looking in a mirror or having one's photo taken.

This is in direct opposition to everything I've been taught in several different religious realms.

Which realms were those?

Based upon the shere volumes of people involved at the times they were written, I'd suggest there's LOTS of reasons to take their word for it.

They were written much later after the claimed events were supposed to have happened. With any oral tradition, stories accumulate layers of myth and allegory, often including elements from other cultures. Genesis has similarities with the older Sumerian and Babylonian creation myths, and a likely explanation is that the Jews were influenced by these during their captivity. There is archeological evidence that neither Moses nor Abraham existed and that the flight from Egypt never took place.

 

[Tonio]

Improbable (by some arbitrary standard) does not equal impossible. Rule out the impossible, sure, but ruling out what one determines improbable is irrational.

It is not "arbitrary" to use data from the senses in making conclusions about the physical world. I wasn't suggesting "ruling out" improbabilities, but simply recognizing that they are improbabilities. Setting them on a shelf and leaving them there unless evidence supporting them comes to light.

And, unproven "natural" claims have no more probability than any other claims, period.

Theories about natural causes have more probability than claims of supernatural causes since the latter involves assumptive leaps. Without the assumption of a supernatural, the claims collapse.

And natural theories don't have to be "proven." They simply have to explain and predict observable phenomena. Evolution has met that standard for more than a century. Among other things, it predicts and explains antibiotic resistance and pesticide resistance.

Perhaps that's because Christians don't view Genesis as a "purely human created myth"!

There's no basis for the belief that supernatural entities are responsible for any events in the universe. All the available evidence shows holy books in religions to be human-created works.

 

[This_person]

You seem to be assuming that the "actual" explanation cannot be determined through investigation and experimentation, or that abiogenesis deliberately ignores the "actual" explanation.

The whole concept of belief is invalid because belief ignores data from the senses. It's like forming an image of what one's face looks like without ever looking in a mirror or having one's photo taken.

My point was that abiogenesis has not, and can not, establish testable, repeatable conditions, thus there cannot be a scientific explaination - just a belief based upon faith.

They were written much later after the claimed events were supposed to have happened. With any oral tradition, stories accumulate layers of myth and allegory, often including elements from other cultures. Genesis has similarities with the older Sumerian and Babylonian creation myths, and a likely explanation is that the Jews were influenced by these during their captivity. There is archeological evidence that neither Moses nor Abraham existed and that the flight from Egypt never took place.

I'd be interested to learn of that evidence.

 

[This_person]

It is not "arbitrary" to use data from the senses in making conclusions about the physical world. I wasn't suggesting "ruling out" improbabilities, but simply recognizing that they are improbabilities. Setting them on a shelf and leaving them there unless evidence supporting them comes to light.

The arbitrary terminology comes from not having an established way something happened, therefore there's no standard by which to judge probabilities other than through assumptions.

Theories about natural causes have more probability than claims of supernatural causes since the latter involves assumptive leaps. Without the assumption of a supernatural, the claims collapse.

There are equally required assumptions for the origins of life associated with abiogenesis. Thus, the "arbitrary" probability.

And natural theories don't have to be "proven." They simply have to explain and predict observable phenomena. Evolution has met that standard for more than a century. Among other things, it predicts and explains antibiotic resistance and pesticide resistance.

And, this is where I'l buy what's referred to as "micro" evolution, but not "macro" evolution. I believe humans have grown taller, smarter, etc. We can see that over the centuries. However, there's been no demonstratable proof of a species that mutates and becomes a genetically more advanced species. Varying a species to be resistant to pesticides is one thing, changing it to be able to make it's own counter pesticide is another.

Plus, the concept still does not answer having a sufficient genetic information base to grow the species. For example, if we started out as something just below sponges, how did those sponges have sufficient genetic material to be all of the 99% of life that no longer exists plus the 1% that currently exists? Yet, 20 humans is not enough to maintain the human species? The information we assume to be correct does not pass its own rules.

There's no basis for the belief that supernatural entities are responsible for any events in the universe. All the available evidence shows holy books in religions to be human-created works.

Maybe all the testable, repeatable evidence, but not ALL of the evidence. I give you the human body as evidence that an intelligent designer exists. You don't believe that, but you have nothing to refute it, and any "evidence" of any other source of the human being does not really exist under the same rules you'd impose on my belief of an intelligent designer.

 

[wxtornado]

And, this is where I'l buy what's referred to as "micro" evolution, but not "macro" evolution.

The only thing we can do is hope that you understand what you oppose. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented in the field and in the lab, so it isn't even really an issue.

There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).