AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence

[torridon]

I believe that the process of evolution is guided by God.  It needs a lot more than random copying errors to drive it.  I am aware that some Christians do believe in Darwin's theory, which shows that faith is not entirely dependent on the validity of this theory.  But I am certain that God did not just light the blue touch paper of the big bang an then stand back.  God is intimately involved with life as we know it, and yes, there are many things which we do not understand yet, but I am certain that life would not exist if God does not exist.

Well why, you cannot just claim certainty without justification.  Apart from which your fastidious intervening god looks incompetent at the least.  I mean, what's with crabs for instance, eyes on stalks and walking sideways, what's all that about, is it just some design bug he hasn't had time to chase down and fix yet ?  And how come he gave humans just two forward facing eyes leaving us vulnerable to attack from behind. He endowed some spiders with eight eyes allowing for 360 degree vision, so why would he inflict that deficit on us, was it incompetence, forgetfulness or downright malice ? And what about cystic fibrosis, why on earth would he engineer that into the human genome, what on earth was he thinking ?  Or was that Satan's contribution, but if so, why did god create Satan and let him have such a free hand ?

[Sebastian Toe]

I believe that the process of evolution is guided by God.  It needs a lot more than random copying errors to drive it.  I am aware that some Christians do believe in Darwin's theory, which shows that faith is not entirely dependent on the validity of this theory.  But I am certain that God did not just light the blue touch paper of the big bang an then stand back.  God is intimately involved with life as we know it, and yes, there are many things which we do not understand yet, but I am certain that life would not exist if God does not exist.

All that tinkering, sorry, guiding, over billions of years. Then at some point, sometime in the past, he added a 'soul' into the mix?

[Maeght]

I believe that the process of evolution is guided by God.  It needs a lot more than random copying errors to drive it.  I am aware that some Christians do believe in Darwin's theory, which shows that faith is not entirely dependent on the validity of this theory.  But I am certain that God did not just light the blue touch paper of the big bang an then stand back.  God is intimately involved with life as we know it, and yes, there are many things which we do not understand yet, but I am certain that life would not exist if God does not exist.

Yes, we know.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well why, you cannot just claim certainty without justification.  Apart from which your fastidious intervening god looks incompetent at the least.  I mean, what's with crabs for instance, eyes on stalks and walking sideways, what's all that about, is it just some design bug he hasn't had time to chase down and fix yet ?  And how come he gave humans just two forward facing eyes leaving us vulnerable to attack from behind. He endowed some spiders with eight eyes allowing for 360 degree vision, so why would he inflict that deficit on us, was it incompetence, forgetfulness or downright malice ? And what about cystic fibrosis, why on earth would he engineer that into the human genome, what on earth was he thinking ?  Or was that Satan's contribution, but if so, why did god create Satan and let him have such a free hand ?

If we are putting in God and it seems we are then IMO we can then ask the question ''what is evolution for?''. This impacts on any criticism of evolution since as we are not at the end of the universe we don't know if there is in fact anything wrong or going wrong with the essential process. Also. are we in any position as artificial manipulators of both the environment and selection to criticise God's handling of the universe?

The bible has God declaring the creation as ''Good''. The problems seem to come with humanity. The line taken by the antitheists, i.e. Quality control, on here is therefore questionable.

[wigginhall]

If we are putting in God and it seems we are then IMO we can then ask the question ''what is evolution for?''. This impacts on any criticism of evolution since as we are not at the end of the universe we don't know if there is in fact anything wrong or going wrong with the essential process. Also. are we in any position as artificial manipulators of both the environment and selection to criticise God's handling of the universe?

The bible has God declaring the creation as ''Good''. The problems seem to come with humanity. The line taken by the antitheists, i.e. Quality control, on here is therefore questionable.

It's AB who is 'putting in God' right in the mix of evolution.  As torridon has stated, this seems to have bizarre results, that God okays stuff like eyes on stalks, but also ebola.    As to AB's idea that God helps positive mutations, but presumably stands back from negative or neutral mutations,  it makes God, well, finicky, shall we say.   Of course, this all goes on without a shred of evidence.   I think somebody has already mentioned mass extinctions, I guess God was on sabbatical.   But hang on, he did put the moon in the right place. 

I don't know whether to call this literalism,  or just daft.   And I doubt if many Christians actually agree with this kind of fantasy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's AB who is 'putting in God' right in the mix of evolution.  As torridon has stated, this seems to have bizarre results, that God okays stuff like eyes on stalks, but also ebola.    As to AB's idea that God helps positive mutations, but presumably stands back from negative or neutral mutations,  it makes God, well, finicky, shall we say.   Of course, this all goes on without a shred of evidence.   I think somebody has already mentioned mass extinctions, I guess God was on sabbatical.   But hang on, he did put the moon in the right place. 

I don't know whether to call this literalism,  or just daft.   And I doubt if many Christians actually agree with this kind of fantasy.

But why are we accusing God for mass extinctions either of causing them or letting them happen. That mass extinction is a bad thing is surely an anthropocentric view.

Mass extinctions remind us that the whole human kit and kerboodle, the massive experiment into reason, the scientific enterprise is finite...from our point of view.

What Christianity says, when even one sparrow falls is that it is all valued by God and that therefore imputes meaning and losslessness into the universe.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Ah, so you haven't understood it at all then. What you've actually done is just to commit the lottery winner's fallacy again - you've considered the human body and thought, "what are the chances eh"? It makes a sort of sense too if you look through the wrong end of the telescope - start with the finished article, then marvel at the unlikelihood of an unguided process arriving at it.

Sorry, my friend, it is you who are looking through the wrong end of the telescope.  You perceive the amazing development of life on this earth then use your God given intelligence and awareness to produce imaginary scenarios of how it could all have happened by random chance events.  Darwin, Dawkins and co have correctly observed that random DNA mutations and natural selection can help species to adapt to environment changes.  But to extrapolate this fine tuning mechanism to assume it is sufficient to develop all the complexity needed to produce life as we know it is optimism in the extreme.  No amount of unguided natural forces can produce anything more than a chaotic goo if starting from a lifeless universe.  When combining this optimistic scenario with the incredibly fine tuned conditions to produce the planets and stars, the complex sequence of events involved in abiogenesis and the current impossibility of defining conscious awareness in material terms, the true probability of God not existing hangs on an unimaginably tiny thread.

[Walter]

AB

why is it so difficult for you to understand?
I really want to know, if you can answer this honestly you will have satisfied my curiosity as to why there are religious and non religious people.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Sorry, my friend, it is you who are looking through the wrong end of the telescope.  You perceive the amazing development of life on this earth then use your God given intelligence and awareness to produce imaginary scenarios of how it could all have happened by random chance events.  Darwin, Dawkins and co have correctly observed that random DNA mutations and natural selection can help species to adapt to environment changes.  But to extrapolate this fine tuning mechanism to assume it is sufficient to develop all the complexity needed to produce life as we know it is optimism in the extreme.  No amount of unguided natural forces can produce anything more than a chaotic goo if starting from a lifeless universe.  When combining this optimistic scenario with the incredibly fine tuned conditions to produce the planets and stars, the complex sequence of events involved in abiogenesis and the current impossibility of defining conscious awareness in material terms, the true probability of God not existing hangs on an unimaginably tiny thread.

These things only appear to be “fine tuned” if you assume a priori that you and me, planets, bumble bees, whatever were the intended outcomes all along, and so it would be a remarkable co-incidence for everything to be just-so for them to have come about.

In other words you’re still thinking like the lottery winner rather than like Camelot, still looking down the wrong end of the telescope. Until you grasp that the only “chaotic goo” here will continue to be your ability to reason.

As Walter asks, why is this so difficult for you?

[Sebastian Toe]

AB,

These things only appear to be “fine tuned” if you assume a priori that you and me, planets, bumble bees, whatever were the intended outcomes all along, and so it would be a remarkable co-incidence for everything to be just-so for them to have come about.

In other words you’re still thinking like the lottery winner rather than like Camelot, still looking down the wrong end of the telescope. Until you grasp that the only “chaotic goo” here will continue to be your ability to reason.

As Walter asks, why is this so difficult for you?

he uses  ,God given, in his arguement. That might be a clue?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seb,

he uses  ,God given, in his arguement. That might be a clue?

Actually he uses it instead of an argument I think, but I take your point.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

As Walter asks, why is this so difficult for you?

Because this:

These things only appear to be “fine tuned” if you assume a priori that you and me, planets, bumble bees, whatever were the intended outcomes all along, and so it would be a remarkable co-incidence for everything to be just-so for them to have come about.

is not true. It is an assumption on your part about why the conclusion was reached.

You will not see it because you are not prepared to accept other reasons Christians here have given for their conclusions, e.g. this in Alan Burns' post:

Darwin, Dawkins and co have correctly observed that random DNA mutations and natural selection can help species to adapt to environment changes.  But to extrapolate this fine tuning mechanism to assume it is sufficient to develop all the complexity needed to produce life as we know it is optimism in the extreme.

[Walter]

Because this:is not true. It is an assumption on your part about why the conclusion was reached.

You will not see it because you are not prepared to accept other reasons Christians here have given for their conclusions, e.g. this in Alan Burns' post:

Your reply only attracts ridicule. From now on I shall pity you.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Your reply only attracts ridicule.

I wish you well with your faith in ridicule.

The truth (or otherwise) of a statement doesn't alter because it is ridiculed, but I wouldn't want to undermine your faith.

[Walter]

I wish you well with your faith in ridicule.

The truth (or otherwise) of a statement doesn't alter because it is ridiculed, but I wouldn't want to undermine your faith.

sword
you're not worth the effort.

[Maeght]

You will not see it because you are not prepared to accept other reasons Christians here have given for their conclusions, e.g. this in Alan Burns' post:

Why would anyone accept Alan's personal incredulity when this is not shared by people who are actually qualified in the field?

[torridon]

Because this:is not true. It is an assumption on your part about why the conclusion was reached.

You will not see it because you are not prepared to accept other reasons Christians here have given for their conclusions, e.g. this in Alan Burns' post:

Darwin, Dawkins and co have correctly observed that random DNA mutations and natural selection can help species to adapt to environment changes.  But to extrapolate this fine tuning mechanism to assume it is sufficient to develop all the complexity needed to produce life as we know it is optimism in the extreme

.

What has optimism got to do with it ?  It is not the case of two people, the two D's, holding an unwarrantedly optimistic opinion, it is pretty much everyone working in or connected with life sciences and has been so for over a century.  Do you know something that has escaped the purview of the global scientific community ?  As far as I can see the only people with an incredulity problem are people with a faith, now why is that ?  Is it just a coincidence or is there some sort of cause and effect that can explain it ?

[SusanDoris]

Sorry, my friend, it is you who are looking through the wrong end of the telescope.  You perceive the amazing development of life on this earth then use your God given intelligence and awareness to produce imaginary scenarios of how it could all have happened by random chance events.  Darwin, Dawkins and co have correctly observed that random DNA mutations and natural selection can help species to adapt to environment changes.  But to extrapolate this fine tuning mechanism to assume it is sufficient to develop all the complexity needed to produce life as we know it is optimism in the extreme.  No amount of unguided natural forces can produce anything more than a chaotic goo if starting from a lifeless universe.  When combining this optimistic scenario with the incredibly fine tuned conditions to produce the planets and stars, the complex sequence of events involved in abiogenesis and the current impossibility of defining conscious awareness in material terms, the true probability of God not existing hangs on an unimaginably tiny thread.

It is a pity you were not at the meeting I attended this afternoon. The Dorset Humanist Group had Dr Michael E. Price, an evolutionary biologist and psychologist a professor at Brunel, whose talk was entitled 'Is it adaptive to believe in a Higher Power?
You would, though, have heard his words via a filter which would change his words into what your beliefs will allow you to hear.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is a pity you were not at the meeting I attended this afternoon. The Dorset Humanist Group had Dr Michael E. Price, an evolutionary biologist and psychologist a professor at Brunel, whose talk was entitled 'Is it adaptive to believe in a Higher Power?
You would, though, have heard his words via a filter which would change his words into what your beliefs will allow you to hear.

Don't leave us dangling....what did the doctor say?

[Alan Burns]

Dr Michael E. Price, an evolutionary biologist and psychologist a professor at Brunel ....

But I have faith in a being whose qualities far exceed those of  Dr Michael E. Price, or any other human on this planet.

[Nearly Sane]

But I have faith in a being whose qualities far exceed those of  Dr Michael E. Price, or any other human on this planet.

Your faith as an argument is worth exactly the same as someone who murders people for ISIS because of their faith.

[Alan Burns]

In other words you’re still thinking like the lottery winner rather than like Camelot, still looking down the wrong end of the telescope.

But unlike the lottery, your faith in unguided evolution involves much more than just one unlikely event.  For evolution to work, every discrete step involved in the development of major organs, bones, joints, brain cells etc.  not only has to be generated by random events, it has to be tested by whether it alone can provide sufficient benefit to enable a species to survive extinction.  Equivalent to me winning the lottery every week of my life, and my descendants for the rest of their lives too.

[ippy]

It is a pity you were not at the meeting I attended this afternoon. The Dorset Humanist Group had Dr Michael E. Price, an evolutionary biologist and psychologist a professor at Brunel, whose talk was entitled 'Is it adaptive to believe in a Higher Power?
You would, though, have heard his words via a filter which would change his words into what your beliefs will allow you to hear.

100% better than spot on S D.

This attitude of A B'S toward the rational evidence based knowledge we have aquired over the last app 150 years, says volumes about the regressive side of his religious beliefs, well I suppose religion in general.

ippy

[SusanDoris]

Ippy

Thank you.

[torridon]

But I have faith in a being whose qualities far exceed those of  Dr Michael E. Price, or any other human on this planet.

Any chain of reasoning is only as strong as its weakest link and it is child's play to see the weak link in the above sentence (underlined)