God and Evolution

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

you lose credibility with people like meow_meow who do understand PE and evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard to imagine losing something I don't have.

I suppose it's possible I'm misunderstanding PE. Any normal reading of what it says seems opposite of Darwinian gradualism. Are you saying evolution occurs in two different ways? If so, how do you reconcile PE with natural selection occurring over millions of years? In other words, what's the mechanism for PE?

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
So, while God can't be disproved, the case for a creator God who has a stake in human endevours is seriously weakened by evidence of evolution. This is what it's all about.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with this. Reality seriously weakens the case for the fundamentalists' God who created the world 6,000 years ago.

But it does not weaken the case for a God who created the universe 14 billion (or whatever) years ago and let it run its course from there.

I personally don't believe in such a God, but belief in such a God is not at all inconsistent with evolutionary theory. (Good book on this: Finding Darwin's God, by Ken Miller. In fact, I would highly recommend this book to NotReady. Miller is a devout Christian and a knowledgeable biologist, and does a great job of describing what evolution says and what it does not say.)

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

As if debate as to the mechanics of evolution constitute evidence against it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read this before you wrote it? Mechanics is everthing. After all, evolution has been a theory at least since the ancient Greeks.

[ QUOTE ]

So, gaps in the fossil record are the best evidence against evolution? I'm happy with that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read this? In other words, your position is:

1. No gaps = evolution.
2. Gaps = evolution.

The deck seems stacked here.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose it's possible I'm misunderstanding PE.
I wouldn't worry about it. PE really isn't an important concept. Any normal reading of what it says seems opposite of Darwinian gradualism. Are you saying evolution occurs in two different ways? If so, how do you reconcile PE with natural selection occurring over millions of years?

[/ QUOTE ]
They are easy to reconcile since PE says that natural selection occurs over millions of years.

I wouldn't worry too much about misunderstanding PE. It's not important. It's far more important to get the basics of evolution right. The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins are both very good on this score (although the latter book will irritate you with some questionable philosophical inferences toward the end). But if you don't want to read a book by an atheist, I do highly recommend the Ken Miller book. It is a knowledgeable theist's take on evolution, and he gets everything right.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I personally don't believe in such a God, but belief in such a God is not at all inconsistent with evolutionary theory. (Good book on this: Finding Darwin's God, by Ken Miller.


[/ QUOTE ]

As I said in my reply to Sklansky, we need to define evolution before discussing it. And as I reiterated in my post to you, the central issue is the cause of biology, not the details. But I can't read any evolutionist without encountering dogmatic assertions about "random" mutations and the suffocating anthropomorphizing of evolution and natural selection.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

They are easy to reconcile since PE says that natural selection occurs over millions of years.


[/ QUOTE ]

So what's the difference from gradualism?

[Maddog121]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]




[/ QUOTE ]

I completely understand why atheists fear creation - it requires the existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

A complete misunderstanding. The reason creationism is not relegated to science is because it is a complete dead end. No further experimentation necessary and it is an "untestable" hypothesis. A valid scientific hypothesis must have the key trait of being able to be proven wrong. If you introduce an omiscient being to the equation all bets are off.
Also, the foundation of all the biological sciences is evolution. As an example, the drosophila experiments were an attempt to find the mechanism that would allow traits to be passed on to following generations and a mechanism that would allow the traits to change. The results of these studies led to discovery of chromosomes, which in turn led to the discovery of DNA. This of course led to the advent of genomics and bioengineering. You can thank Darwin for the pathway to all of this.
As for intelligent design, it is precisely the inexactness and messiness of the natural world that refutes this. There are so many clunky and gerry rigged solutions to the problems that organisms face, that it points to things being stumbled upon and leaves much room for further advantage to be gained by succeeding generations.
A minority of the world's Christian population still clings to the Adam and Eve story as a factual historical treatise. The majority have moved on and many of them still have a strong faith. They just don't need fairy tales to back it up.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
As I said in my reply to Sklansky, we need to define evolution before discussing it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know you're primarily interested in abiogenesis rather than evolution proper, and I don't remember the Miller book devoting much (any?) attention to abiogenesis.

But you do make statements about plain old evolution from time to time on these boards, and it is evident from those statements that you don't have a good grasp of the theory. (I don't mean that to be offensive. I'm just stating it as an observation, not as an insult.) Reading the Miller book would correct that.

I don't know of any good sources on abiogenesis. Both of the Dawkins book I mentioned earlier touch on it, but only briefly and in rather speculative fashion.

As for the issue of empirically distinguishing between chance and design, you may want to read some of Berlinski's writings, and then some criticisms of those writings. (Berlinski proposes an empirical method of recognizing design. The criticisms of his method are devastating. I don't have any links off the top of my head, but there's a lot available on the web.)

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

No further experimentation necessary and it is an "untestable" hypothesis


[/ QUOTE ]

So is evolution by chance and the origin of life from non-life by chance and something from nothing by chance.

[ QUOTE ]

A valid scientific hypothesis must have the key trait of being able to be proven wrong


[/ QUOTE ]

Unfalsifiability as a test of "true science" is dead.

[ QUOTE ]

They just don't need fairy tales to back it up.


[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently atheists still need their fairy tales.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But you do make statements about plain old evolution from time to time on these boards


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what "plain old evolution" is. Darwin? Gould? The universe produced by chance? I don't have a good grasp of the theory because there isn't "a" theory, but a multitude of theories which change daily to fit the facts or lack thereof.