Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[EricPH]

The basic algorithm is :
Struggles for existence plus randomly mutated genes = natural selection (over thousands or millions of years).

The algorithm seemed dormant for the first two to three billion years of single cell life. There seemed little need for eyes, jaws, fins, teeth etc. But then the absent algorithm woke up and in a mere few million years natural selection did it.

The limited range of tools at evolution's disposal seemed to be, currents swirling chemicals around in the ocean, temperature change, sunlight, lightning and more oxygen. These tools cannot explain the complexity of life we see today.

Certain wild disease bacteria which are single -celled life forms are caught and bred in labs. In the lab conditions these bacteria colonies have cushy lives and need not struggle for existence. The result is that the lab bred colonies would die out in the wild environment. When the weakened bacteria are injected into your muscle they cause you to make antibodies to the disease without giving you the disease.

I tell you this because the inoculation method as described illustrates how struggle for existence is necessary for natural selection. Artificial selection, as in the case of the lab grown bacteria, does not rely on struggle for existence.

Your example confirms the need for intelligent design. Scientists have a specific goal, fighting a disease. They seek out single cell life, they breed the life in a controlled way, and surprise, surprise, their results are what they had hoped and planned for. Random mutation did not play a part towards the outcome.

The basic algorithm is :
Struggles for existence plus randomly mutated genes = natural selection (over thousands or millions of years).

I am fully in agreement with two thirds of your algorithm, the struggle for existence and natural selection. Natural selection can only select what has already been made. Randomly mutated genes cannot produce 1829 gradual and incremental steps towards the evolution of a single eye lenses. There is nothing randomly incremental in 1829 steps towards a specific goal, obviously we are taking failure into account. And taking into account the 1829 steps needed to make the second eye lenses.

[EricPH]

Creationism and so-called 'intelligent design' are bad for Christianity, because when you support these you make Xianity disreputable. You need to be aware that Xianity is larger than Biblical literalism.

These are only your beliefs, supported by other like minded people. In order to support your beliefs, you need evidence to show how the universe and life came into being only by natural causes.

I have the luxury to say, I believe God created the heavens and the Earth. I don't have to prove anything. Having said that, the theory of evolution convinces me there has to be a designer.

If you want to use science as your friend, then beliefs don't account for much, we need evidence.

[Belindi]

Creationism and so-called 'intelligent design' are bad for Christianity, because when you support these you make Xianity disreputable. You need to be aware that Xianity is larger than Biblical literalism.

These are only your beliefs, supported by other like minded people. In order to support your beliefs, you need evidence to show how the universe and life came into being only by natural causes.

I have the luxury to say, I believe God created the heavens and the Earth. I don't have to prove anything. Having said that, the theory of evolution convinces me there has to be a designer.

If you want to use science as your friend, then beliefs don't account for much, we need evidence.

There is little difference between pantheism and theism. God-or-Nature created the heavens and the Earth.The trouble with theism is people appropriate particular ideas about God in order to secure for themselves political powers. It's impossible that Nature be partial to any human ideology.

Christianity has the edge over other religions because Jesus Christ is a man as well as God; that is why JC is a more credible link between the Absolute and the temporal than any holy book or charismatic prophet. I just wish some Christians did not believe it necessary to demolish a scientific theory in order to make God credible. And the converse for unbelievers; I wish some unbelievers did not think it necessary to demolish God in order to make
a scientific theory credible.

[EricPH]

There is little difference between pantheism and theism. God-or-Nature created the heavens and the Earth.

I see God as the creator of all that is seen and unseen. God created the universe with a purpose in mind. Pantheism seems to call the universe god, and the universe came into being only by natural and unplanned causes.

The trouble with theism is people appropriate particular ideas about God in order to secure for themselves political powers.

You would have to ignore a lot of the Bible to come to that conclusion. There are over two thousand passages in the Bible that refer to justice for the poor, the oppressed, refugees, widows and orphans. Jesus said we should serve, rather than expect to be served.

I just wish some Christians did not believe it necessary to demolish a scientific theory in order to make God credible.

Just my opinion, but I feel you can only destroy a scientific theory with science, and not with any faith belief.

The basic algorithm is :
Struggles for existence plus randomly mutated genes = natural selection (over thousands or millions of years).

As I have said before, I believe two thirds of the algorithm are right, the struggle for existence and natural selection. If you remove randomly mutated genes from the equation, evolution cannot work.

If you removed the word Random and said genes had to mutate 1800 times in incremental steps towards the shape of an eye lenses. This now seems more honest. 1800 steps towards a goal is out of the realm of random.

If you then place randomly mutated genes back in the algorithm, they have to be totally random.

[Charlemagne]

Creationism and so-called 'intelligent design' are bad for Christianity, because when you support these you make Xianity disreputable. You need to be aware that Xianity is larger than Biblical literalism.

These are only your beliefs, supported by other like minded people. In order to support your beliefs, you need evidence to show how the universe and life came into being only by natural causes.

I have the luxury to say, I believe God created the heavens and the Earth. I don't have to prove anything. Having said that, the theory of evolution convinces me there has to be a designer.

If you want to use science as your friend, then beliefs don't account for much, we need evidence.

There is little difference between pantheism and theism. God-or-Nature created the heavens and the Earth.The trouble with theism is people appropriate particular ideas about God in order to secure for themselves political powers. It's impossible that Nature be partial to any human ideology.

Christianity has the edge over other religions because Jesus Christ is a man as well as God; that is why JC is a more credible link between the Absolute and the temporal than any holy book or charismatic prophet. I just wish some Christians did not believe it necessary to demolish a scientific theory in order to make God credible. And the converse for unbelievers; I wish some unbelievers did not think it necessary to demolish God in order to make
a scientific theory credible.

How could nature create universe?

[Belindi]

Creationism and so-called 'intelligent design' are bad for Christianity, because when you support these you make Xianity disreputable. You need to be aware that Xianity is larger than Biblical literalism.

These are only your beliefs, supported by other like minded people. In order to support your beliefs, you need evidence to show how the universe and life came into being only by natural causes.

I have the luxury to say, I believe God created the heavens and the Earth. I don't have to prove anything. Having said that, the theory of evolution convinces me there has to be a designer.

If you want to use science as your friend, then beliefs don't account for much, we need evidence.

There is little difference between pantheism and theism. God-or-Nature created the heavens and the Earth.The trouble with theism is people appropriate particular ideas about God in order to secure for themselves political powers. It's impossible that Nature be partial to any human ideology.

Christianity has the edge over other religions because Jesus Christ is a man as well as God; that is why JC is a more credible link between the Absolute and the temporal than any holy book or charismatic prophet. I just wish some Christians did not believe it necessary to demolish a scientific theory in order to make God credible. And the converse for unbelievers; I wish some unbelievers did not think it necessary to demolish God in order to make
a scientific theory credible.

How could nature create universe?

The definition of nature is that which created and creates the universe and stuff. Now if you want to say "But God created nature" go ahead and I'll not object.

[Sy Borg]

Nature is defined as: the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

However, this definition, like so many things, reflects humanity's self-focus. It is also very rough. For instance, we would agree that boulders in the Atacama Desert are "nature", yet we don't think of the terrain of Mars as nature. Semantically, nature is Earthly terrestrial and marine life - plus some associated geology.

So that's just a matter of words. Ultimately, The universe IS nature - the wild environment. And yes, self-assembly is a common dynamic in nature. Over time, everything must change, and some things change in more interesting ways (to us) than others.

[Belindi]

There is little difference between pantheism and theism. God-or-Nature created the heavens and the Earth.

I see God as the creator of all that is seen and unseen. God created the universe with a purpose in mind. Pantheism seems to call the universe god, and the universe came into being only by natural and unplanned causes.

The trouble with theism is people appropriate particular ideas about God in order to secure for themselves political powers.

You would have to ignore a lot of the Bible to come to that conclusion. There are over two thousand passages in the Bible that refer to justice for the poor, the oppressed, refugees, widows and orphans. Jesus said we should serve, rather than expect to be served.

I just wish some Christians did not believe it necessary to demolish a scientific theory in order to make God credible.

Just my opinion, but I feel you can only destroy a scientific theory with science, and not with any faith belief.

The basic algorithm is :
Struggles for existence plus randomly mutated genes = natural selection (over thousands or millions of years).

As I have said before, I believe two thirds of the algorithm are right, the struggle for existence and natural selection. If you remove randomly mutated genes from the equation, evolution cannot work.

If you removed the word Random and said genes had to mutate 1800 times in incremental steps towards the shape of an eye lenses. This now seems more honest. 1800 steps towards a goal is out of the realm of random.

If you then place randomly mutated genes back in the algorithm, they have to be totally random.

I agree with what you claim except for your last paragraph.

Your paragraph

You would have to ignore a lot of the Bible to come to that conclusion. There are over two thousand passages in the Bible that refer to justice for the poor, the oppressed, refugees, widows and orphans. Jesus said we should serve, rather than expect to be served.

Is interesting and especially relevant today. Almost throughout The Bible we read about the struggle for the above ethic against worldly power. The struggle goes on!

[Charlemagne]

That science and religion can be friends will be seen in my article published here:

https://catholicinsight.com/science-and ... s-forever/

[EricPH]

I agree with what you claim except for your last paragraph.

Your paragraph

You would have to ignore a lot of the Bible to come to that conclusion. There are over two thousand passages in the Bible that refer to justice for the poor, the oppressed, refugees, widows and orphans. Jesus said we should serve, rather than expect to be served.

Is interesting and especially relevant today. Almost throughout The Bible we read about the struggle for the above ethic against worldly power. The struggle goes on!

The greatest commandments are profound, the first is to love an invisible God we don't know. But Jesus identifies God in an unexpected way.

Mathew 25
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.

[EricPH]

So that's just a matter of words. Ultimately, The universe IS nature - the wild environment. And yes, self-assembly is a common dynamic in nature. Over time, everything must change, and some things change in more interesting ways (to us) than others.

Every gap that can't be explained you say nature did it. You are giving blind nature the power of "Nature of the Gaps".
The theory of evolution depends on an algorithm. I believe two thirds of the algorithm are right, the struggle for existence and natural selection. If you remove randomly mutated genes from the equation, the theory of evolution fails.

If you removed the word Random and said genes had to mutate 1800 times in incremental steps towards the shape of an eye lens. This now seems more honest. 1800 steps towards a goal is not random. Plus you need the same another 1800 mutations to make a pair of lenses, even less random

If you then place randomly mutated genes back in the algorithm, they have to be totally random. Blind nature does not follow a programmed computer programme path towards the shape of an eye lens.

[Belindi]

I agree with what you claim except for your last paragraph.

Your paragraph

You would have to ignore a lot of the Bible to come to that conclusion. There are over two thousand passages in the Bible that refer to justice for the poor, the oppressed, refugees, widows and orphans. Jesus said we should serve, rather than expect to be served.

Is interesting and especially relevant today. Almost throughout The Bible we read about the struggle for the above ethic against worldly power. The struggle goes on!

The greatest commandments are profound, the first is to love an invisible God we don't know. But Jesus identifies God in an unexpected way.

Mathew 25
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.

So let it be!

[Sy Borg]

So that's just a matter of words. Ultimately, The universe IS nature - the wild environment. And yes, self-assembly is a common dynamic in nature. Over time, everything must change, and some things change in more interesting ways (to us) than others.

Every gap that can't be explained you say nature did it. You are giving blind nature the power of "Nature of the Gaps".
The theory of evolution depends on an algorithm. I believe two thirds of the algorithm are right, the struggle for existence and natural selection. If you remove randomly mutated genes from the equation, the theory of evolution fails.

If you removed the word Random and said genes had to mutate 1800 times in incremental steps towards the shape of an eye lens. This now seems more honest. 1800 steps towards a goal is not random. Plus you need the same another 1800 mutations to make a pair of lenses, even less random

If you then place randomly mutated genes back in the algorithm, they have to be totally random. Blind nature does not follow a programmed computer programme path towards the shape of an eye lens.

The fact that you think natural selection is totally random precludes sensible conversation about this. If you cannot be bothered to do the very most rudimentary research about evolution before criticising it, then you are just wasting people's time.

[Belindi]

So that's just a matter of words. Ultimately, The universe IS nature - the wild environment. And yes, self-assembly is a common dynamic in nature. Over time, everything must change, and some things change in more interesting ways (to us) than others.

Every gap that can't be explained you say nature did it. You are giving blind nature the power of "Nature of the Gaps".
The theory of evolution depends on an algorithm. I believe two thirds of the algorithm are right, the struggle for existence and natural selection. If you remove randomly mutated genes from the equation, the theory of evolution fails.

If you removed the word Random and said genes had to mutate 1800 times in incremental steps towards the shape of an eye lens. This now seems more honest. 1800 steps towards a goal is not random. Plus you need the same another 1800 mutations to make a pair of lenses, even less random

If you then place randomly mutated genes back in the algorithm, they have to be totally random. Blind nature does not follow a programmed computer programme path towards the shape of an eye lens.

The fact that you think natural selection is totally random precludes sensible conversation about this. If you cannot be bothered to do the very most rudimentary research about evolution before criticising it, then you are just wasting people's time.

Public ignorance of elementary science must be addressed by any developed country that claims to be democratic.

[Charlemagne]

These are only your beliefs, supported by other like minded people. In order to support your beliefs, you need evidence to show how the universe and life came into being only by natural causes.

I have the luxury to say, I believe God created the heavens and the Earth. I don't have to prove anything. Having said that, the theory of evolution convinces me there has to be a designer.

If you want to use science as your friend, then beliefs don't account for much, we need evidence.

There is little difference between pantheism and theism. God-or-Nature created the heavens and the Earth.The trouble with theism is people appropriate particular ideas about God in order to secure for themselves political powers. It's impossible that Nature be partial to any human ideology.

Christianity has the edge over other religions because Jesus Christ is a man as well as God; that is why JC is a more credible link between the Absolute and the temporal than any holy book or charismatic prophet. I just wish some Christians did not believe it necessary to demolish a scientific theory in order to make God credible. And the converse for unbelievers; I wish some unbelievers did not think it necessary to demolish God in order to make
a scientific theory credible.

How could nature create universe?

The definition of nature is that which created and creates the universe and stuff. Now if you want to say "But God created nature" go ahead and I'll not object.

This is how Charles Darwin phrased it:

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (from the Preface to the last edition before Darwin’s death).