Evolution

[Nick Capozzoli]

Philosopher Daniel Dennett says the validity of evolution by natural selection nullifies one of humanity's most cherished myths: that design presupposes a designing intelligence. The notion that a set of natural algorithms operating without foresight for billions of years produced the staggeringly complex wonders of Nature does away with our philosophical fetishes about will and intention.

Ah, the contentious topic of Intelligent Design v. Evolution by Natural Selection. Is it impossible to reconcile belief in God with the evidence that life evolved through natural selection? Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) seems to think so.

I'm convinced that the theory of evolution by natural selection describes the evolution of life, and that it, along with the laws of thermodynamics, is a most compelling scientific explanation of the world.

I think that I understand these scientific theories, and I believe that they explain things very well, within the limits of our ability to undertand and explain the world. I also believe that God created everything in the universe and all of the laws regarding its behavior. I suppose that my belief could be seen as Deistic.

We can't prove that God exists or created the universe. That remains a matter of belief. All I am saying is that I believe that God created our universe and the laws of physics, and that we in fact did evolve. I say that you can believe that life evolved by natural selection and that you can also believe that God created the universe.

[blazeofglory]

In fact it is really hard to reconcile between these two diverse views, one is based on reason and the other on faith, polar opposite notions. I have gone enough through both points of view and I am always in conflict with myself when it comes to make an inference. Of course this cosmos is unfathomable, mysterious. Science through physics tries to illuminate certain phenomena of the universe. It is of course limited and their search cannot be extended beyond a point and when we fail to comprehend these unexplainable episodes and phenomena we of course lend ourselves to theologies and that is why most of us even having been intellectually disposed are still strong believers and that is how faith evolved. And of course we never can reconcile these diametrically opposite views on the world

[OrphanPip]

As someone with a degree in biology the ID debate has always been of interest to me.

Personal belief is purely personal, if you want to believe there is a designer, that's fine. Just make sure you realize that this is faith, and has no empirical evidence to back it up. It is just as unfalsifiable as the notion of gods itself. I don't care what people believe in their private time as long as it doesn't interfere directly with reason.

ID just simply needs to stay out of the science classroom and in the churches. I particularly take issue with the efforts of ID proponents to discredit evolution through dishonest tactics in the media. It makes me furious whenever someone tries to bring non-science into science.

[Babbalanja]

I say that you can believe that life evolved by natural selection and that you can also believe that God created the universe.

True. All Dawkins and Dennett are saying is that you can't use the fact that species evolve or that the universe operates according to various physical laws as evidence to justify your belief in a god.

Regards,

Istvan

[The Atheist]

As someone with a degree in biology the ID debate has always been of interest to me.

I would have thought ID/creationism would be of more interest to a psych grad!

Personal belief is purely personal, if you want to believe there is a designer, that's fine. Just make sure you realize that this is faith, and has no empirical evidence to back it up. It is just as unfalsifiable as the notion of gods itself. I don't care what people believe in their private time as long as it doesn't interfere directly with reason.

ID just simply needs to stay out of the science classroom and in the churches. I particularly take issue with the efforts of ID proponents to discredit evolution through dishonest tactics in the media. It makes me furious whenever someone tries to bring non-science into science.

Ditto.

Trying to warp science to fit belief is quite a bizarre thing to do.

As Nick said, and a billion or so Catholics display, science can co-exist with religion. It's the Luddites who are the problem - an unfortunately vocal minority.

[Nick Capozzoli]

True. All Dawkins and Dennett are saying is that you can't use the fact that species evolve or that the universe operates according to various physical laws as evidence to justify your belief in a god.

I'm not sure that this is all that they are saying. They seem to be saying that evolution proves (or at least strongly suggests) that God does not exist. Dawkins, in particular, seems to delight in ridiculing the stupidity of those who believe in God. I agree with your position that science can't be used to prove God exists, and I would add that science can't be used to prove that God doesn't exist. As Atheist said, many religious scientists have been able to accept evolution and God. There are Luddites on both sides of the debate, namely the Biblical Fundamentalist ID'ers and the Radical Scientific Atheists.

Lest we forget, there have been many great scientists who had strong religious beliefs, and who were able to maintain their faith in God while working in science. Newton, Einstein, and Darwin were not atheists.

One way for a religious scientist to reconcile science and faith would be to postulate that God created the universe (matter, energy, space, time, and all of the "laws" that regulate the behavior of the universe). This is essentially Deism. The modern Deist does not argue that God "designed" living creatures or their complex parts, but accepts that these arose by natural processes.

[OrphanPip]

One way for a religious scientist to reconcile science and faith would be to postulate that God created the universe (matter, energy, space, time, and all of the "laws" that regulate the behavior of the universe). This is essentially Deism. The modern Deist does not argue that God "designed" living creatures or their complex parts, but accepts that these arose by natural processes.

A priori assumptions are bad in science. Science is a methodology, and it operates on the basis of a key assumption, that we can trust empirical observations of the world. If we allow the assumption of God into science, then you open the door to any assumption.

As to not being able to disprove God, this is a very weak reason to believe in one. I can't disprove that the Easter Bunny exists either.

[The Atheist]

I'm not sure that this is all that they are saying. They seem to be saying that evolution proves (or at least strongly suggests) that God does not exist.

No.

You need to read him more carefully - he never says any such thing, although lots of people who haven't read his books think so.

He says that evolution disproves young earth creationism, which is quite correct.

Dawkins, in particular, seems to delight in ridiculing the stupidity of those who believe in God.

Can't say I blame him, and I'm a bit the same myself. There's so much religious stupidity in the world and Monty Python gave up some years back.

I agree with your position that science can't be used to prove God exists, and I would add that science can't be used to prove that God doesn't exist. As Atheist said, many religious scientists have been able to accept evolution and God. There are Luddites on both sides of the debate, namely the Biblical Fundamentalist ID'ers and the Radical Scientific Atheists.

(Bolding mine)

I'm not sure the final group I've bolded isn't just a strawman created by religionistas. Of the few atheists I know who insist that "god/s do not exist" as a positive statement - and I'm presuming they're who you mean - not one of them tries to claim that science can prove the non-existence.

Lest we forget, there have been many great scientists who had strong religious beliefs, and who were able to maintain their faith in God while working in science. Newton, Einstein, and Darwin were not atheists.

You're not going to suggest that Einstein had faith in a god are you? While he never took an atheist tag, he was demonstrably an agnostic who enunciated his views very clearly all his life.

As to not being able to disprove God, this is a very weak reason to believe in one. I can't disprove that the Easter Bunny exists either.

I can disprove the Easter Bunny.

I never tasted chocolate until I was 20!

[Babbalanja]

I'm not sure that this is all that they are saying. They seem to be saying that evolution proves (or at least strongly suggests) that God does not exist.

One definition of God, sure. Specifically, the Designing Intelligence God.

The type of design we see in the biosphere is just the sort we would expect after countless iterations of a set of mindless processes: wildly, redundantly, unnecessarily complex jerry-rigging of previous designs. It's not the type of design that suggests intention and foresight. So if someone thinks God made the roses and the bunnies, that's the type of God that the facts of evolution refute.

If you actually read Dawkins, he goes as far as to say (in The God Delusion) that he doesn't claim to KNOW God doesn't exist. Like any skeptic, his notion of certainty is statistically defined: the possibility that God exists may be extremely unlikely, but even Dawkins would not define it as impossible.

Regards,

Istvan

[Nadioui]

that's what i am looking for as a new subscriber. te current scientific theories of evolution intrests me so much especially those thas are related to communication in the light of the strong presence of culture shocks , the fear of all what is strange...

lets have a nod at this















Mostly...[/QUOTE]

[Nick Capozzoli]

You're not going to suggest that Einstein had faith in a god are you? While he never took an atheist tag, he was demonstrably an agnostic who enunciated his views very clearly all his life.

Well, didn't Einstein comment on his aversion to Quantum Theory by saying that "God doesn't play with dice?" (or something very close to that)? Newton's belief in God is well documented. Darwin never denied his belief in the existence of God, and never claimed that his theories were incompatable with belief in a Creator.

[The Atheist]

Well, didn't Einstein comment on his aversion to Quantum Theory by saying that "God doesn't play with dice?" (or something very close to that)?

That's what he said, but he was using it metaphorically.

His denial of theism is well documented.

Newton's belief in God is well documented. Darwin never denied his belief in the existence of God, and never claimed that his theories were incompatable with belief in a Creator.

Correct.

[Gladys]

His denial of theism is well documented.

From Wiki:

In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

[Jozanny]

I haven't been following this thread, partly because what little I do know of the hard science, even written for a general education audience, is complex, but I can say that Einstein used *God* as a noun inconsistently, perhaps as a way to personalize the forces involved. I don't know. Theoretical physics and biology stretches the limits of my mind's ability to grasp it all.

[blazeofglory]

One definition of God, sure. Specifically, the Designing Intelligence God.

The type of design we see in the biosphere is just the sort we would expect after countless iterations of a set of mindless processes: wildly, redundantly, unnecessarily complex jerry-rigging of previous designs. It's not the type of design that suggests intention and foresight. So if someone thinks God made the roses and the bunnies, that's the type of God that the facts of evolution refute.

If you actually read Dawkins, he goes as far as to say (in The God Delusion) that he doesn't claim to KNOW God doesn't exist. Like any skeptic, his notion of certainty is statistically defined: the possibility that God exists may be extremely unlikely, but even Dawkins would not define it as impossible.

Regards,

Istvan

I too have that feeling and in point of fact it is really hard to conclusively say whether or not God exists. I cannot reason it or measure it in empirical terms. Science is there; theory of evolution stands there and lots of arguments of course for and against the existence of God. Yet deep down I feel that we know little with all our reasons, sciences and logical reasoning.

But I somewhere deep down feel that billions of people over centuries, millenniums have been holding faith and of course there is no strong logic and that those who hold faith cannot logically or scientifically prove does not mean that the idea of God is totally wrong.

You can not exactly say what love is nor can any logic or any ideas or arguments can measure the depth of the mind.

I often become skeptical about God and particularly when I read lots of books and read books of atheism I turn to be an atheist and argue against the existence of God.
But when I see so many people flocking to temples, churches, monasteries I feel there is something beyond what we logicians, evolutionists, empiricists construe in point of fact.

If I am conscious, there must be some bigger whole or powerful being that must me more powerful and that power empowers me and yet I do not feel different from that source of consciousness.

This is what I feel exactly today, honestly speaking and tomorrow what I may feel I do not know.