Creation "science" and a Bible-based morality

[Keith&Co.]

....But it does not make sense to split off 'atheistic evolution' from creationism unless you refer to every science as atheistic.

I'm saying there is atheistic evolution and theistic evolution -

I get that.
And i'm saying you're wrong to do that (save only that you refer to every single science as atheistic). Not only wrong, but betraying significant ignorance.
There's the scientific theory, there's the "let's credit god" apology, and there's 'nothing-but-god creationism.

not that evolution is always atheistic - but I rejected Christian theistic evolution and went straight to atheistic evolution.

No, no you did not. If you referred to it as atheistic evolution, you were still giving credit to creationist attempts to control the debate. Like their idea thsst you could not study evolution without abandoning God completely. This is wrong. This is their false claim.

All science is neutral on the supernatural, or it isn't science.

For color theory chart there's the light filter chart and pigment-based chart, right?
Not atheistic color chart versus stained-glass-windows color chart.

 

[excreationist]

I'm saying there is atheistic evolution and theistic evolution -

I get that.
And i'm saying you're wrong to do that (save only that you refer to every single science as atheistic). Not only wrong, but betraying significant ignorance.
There's the scientific theory, there's the "let's credit god" apology, and there's 'nothing-but-god creationism.

Well I was a high school student - I didn't know much about valid arguments, etc. At that time I didn't use the term "atheistic evolution" but I was focusing on YEC vs unguided evolution (with no intelligent force). I was aware of (intelligently) guided evolution but I didn't seriously consider it at that time.

not that evolution is always atheistic - but I rejected Christian theistic evolution and went straight to atheistic evolution.

No, no you did not. If you referred to it as atheistic evolution, you were still giving credit to creationist attempts to control the debate. Like their idea thsst you could not study evolution without abandoning God completely. This is wrong. This is their false claim.

Well I didn't claim to not be wrong at the time.

All science is neutral on the supernatural, or it isn't science.

Though for some reason I think scientists tend to be less likely to believe in the supernatural....

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well I was a high school student - I didn't know much about valid arguments, etc. At that time I didn't use the term "atheistic evolution" but I was focusing on YEC vs unguided evolution (with no intelligent force). I was aware of (intelligently) guided evolution but I didn't seriously consider it at that time.

not that evolution is always atheistic - but I rejected Christian theistic evolution and went straight to atheistic evolution.

No, no you did not. If you referred to it as atheistic evolution, you were still giving credit to creationist attempts to control the debate. Like their idea thsst you could not study evolution without abandoning God completely. This is wrong. This is their false claim.

Well I didn't claim to not be wrong at the time.

All science is neutral on the supernatural, or it isn't science.

Though for some reason I think scientists tend to be less likely to believe in the supernatural....

They believe. They just don't cite them at work.

And i don't care if you used 'atheistic evolution' then. You're using it now.
You really should know better.
Atheists tha t accept evolution based on the science just call it evolution.
Theists thst accept evolution based on the science just call it evolution.

Creationists that want their victims too scared to learn the science call it atheistic evolution...

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes, every single scientific throry lacks a belief in anything supernatural.
But it does not make sense to split off 'atheistic evolution' from creationism unless you refer to every science as atheistic.
'Recent findings in atheistic geology...'
'A professor of atheistic biology...'
'A lot of atheistic computing nerds scrambled for Y2K...

Reminds me of a guided tour at Mammoth Caves National Park. The ranger began by saying that there are many stories about how these caves were formed. it seemed odd until I realized we were in Kentucky. He then went on to say he was giving the scientific account. He didn't say he was giving the atheistic geological account. No doubt there were plenty of religionists about who believed the caves were formed when a 600 year old man built a magic boat on orders from a magic sky voice.

Like the Brooklyn alphabet: fuckin' A, fuckin' B, fuckin' C...
Atheistic geology, atheistic geography, atheistic anthropology, atheistic paleontology, atheistic electricity...

I mean, no one divides it as Thor-throwing fulminology versus atheistic fulminology. It's just, "[ZAPP! Rrrrrrrumble!] That was a good one!"

 

[excreationist]

They believe. They just don't cite them at work.

And i don't care if you used 'atheistic evolution' then. You're using it now.
You really should know better.
Atheists tha t accept evolution based on the science just call it evolution.
Theists thst accept evolution based on the science just call it evolution.

Creationists that want their victims too scared to learn the science call it atheistic evolution...

There is theistic evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
What do you call it if it is evolution that isn't theistic? (non-theistic evolution?)

"Theists that accept evolution based on the science just call it evolution"

Then why is there a Wikipedia article called "theistic evolution"?

In the "external links" there is a (non-working) link for:
Spectrum of Creation Beliefs From Flat Earthism to Atheistic Evolutionism, including Theistic Evolution

 

[Keith&Co.]

They believe. They just don't cite them at work.

And i don't care if you used 'atheistic evolution' then. You're using it now.
You really should know better.
Atheists tha t accept evolution based on the science just call it evolution.
Theists thst accept evolution based on the science just call it evolution.

Creationists that want their victims too scared to learn the science call it atheistic evolution...

There is theistic evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
What do you call it if it is evolution that isn't theistic? (non-theistic evolution?)

Science.

"Theists that accept evolution based on the science just call it evolution"

Then why is there a Wikipedia article called "theistic evolution"?

Theistic evolution is not called that becuse theists believe in it.
Rather, it is evolutionary theory that depends on divine action, in some or all parts.

In the "external links" there is a (non-working) link for:
Spectrum of Creation Beliefs From Flat Earthism to Atheistic Evolutionism, including Theistic Evolution

Big whoop.
It's still a stupid term to use, a stupid distinction to make, and a stupid practice for anyone who is not trying to villify science.

 

[excreationist]

Theistic evolution is not called that because theists believe in it.
Rather, it is evolutionary theory that depends on divine action, in some or all parts.

So "theistic evolution" is roughly "evolutionary theory that depends on divine action, in some or all parts".... what about evolutionary theory that explicitly involves no divine action?

....It's still a stupid term to use, a stupid distinction to make, and a stupid practice for anyone who is not trying to villify science.

I think it is an important distinction to make between guided evolution and naturalistic evolution... in fact I've created threads on that topic.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Theistic evolution is not called that because theists believe in it.
Rather, it is evolutionary theory that depends on divine action, in some or all parts.

So "theistic evolution" is roughly "evolutionary theory that depends on divine action, in some or all parts".... what about evolutionary theory that explicitly involves no divine action?

....It's still a stupid term to use, a stupid distinction to make, and a stupid practice for anyone who is not trying to villify science.

I think it is an important distinction to make between guided evolution and naturalistic evolution... in fact I've created threads on that topic.

Back in the day YECs were all about "special creation." Yours is just "special evolution," evolution by divine fiat. It's dopey stuff, there isn't any such thing.

 

[excreationist]

....I think it is an important distinction to make between guided evolution and naturalistic evolution... in fact I've created threads on that topic.

Back in the day YECs were all about "special creation." Yours is just "special evolution," evolution by divine fiat. It's dopey stuff, there isn't any such thing.

My belief is that an intelligent force started with some life forms (like chameleons and butterflies and flowers) and then generated a plausible evolutionary history for the DNA (and geology, etc). So it appears that evolution was naturalistic and happened over millions of years. Though I think our current simulation server has only been explicitly simulating our world for a relatively short amount of time. The idea may be dopey but perhaps some of the specifics are quite original....

 

[ideologyhunter]

Back in 2009, when this site was called freeratio, a member who went by jonJ posted this, on the topic of needing a god to understand the universe:

More generally, how can postulating a mysterious unknowable intangible extra-terrestrial being of infinite power actually explain anything? At best you can only go from: "I don't know how it happened" to "God did it, so I don't know how it happened."

I was going to paraphrase his thought in my own little post, but he said it with such precision that he deserves the attribution.

 

[abaddon]

At best you can only go from: "I don't know how it happened" to "God did it, so I don't know how it happened."

Or from "I don't know how it happened" to "a powerful alien engineer did it, so I don't know how it happened [but that a Mind might have done it gives me solace]".

The maneuver doesn't seem to only be about explaining things. The pay-off is the solace, not the explanatory power.

 

[excreationist]

Back in 2009, when this site was called freeratio, a member who went by jonJ posted this, on the topic of needing a god to understand the universe:

More generally, how can postulating a mysterious unknowable intangible extra-terrestrial being of infinite power actually explain anything? At best you can only go from: "I don't know how it happened" to "God did it, so I don't know how it happened."

I was going to paraphrase his thought in my own little post, but he said it with such precision that he deserves the attribution.

The reason I think I'm probably in a simulation has nothing to do with evolution - it is partly due to Elon Musk's reasoning and many personal experiences like receiving a sealed upside down Bible within days of reading another upside down for the first time (to try and annoy God to get him to poison me - to use that as evidence that the hospital is trying to poison me)



It was a cheap but deluxe 2011 NIV with colour maps and a dictionary, and red text for Jesus' words. Some of the red is much lighter than others (a second issue). And John 7:53-8:11 is in black italics - meaning that Jesus didn't say it. The section says:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+7:53&version=NIV

[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]

​

It is right before the text - not just in the footnotes.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+john+5%3A7-8&version=NIV
Some Fundies would have a problem with 1 John 5:7-8 in the 2011 NIV... unlike the KJV it doesn't fit the trinity which the NIV footnote says "not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century".

The regular and large print Bibles at my church (see post #62) are all 2011 NIV Bibles as well so they have that note about John 7:53-8:11 as well - even though the church is very conservative and doesn't allow the ordination of women, etc.

Though like I've said, "I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, or hallucinations". For me I think it would usually be seen to be coincidences - including those two songs that caused me to stop gassing myself.

 

[DBT]

Pattern recognition sometimes works against us. Percival Lowell, for instance, saw canals on mars (not only him). The more he looked, the more canals he saw.

 

[sdelsolray]

The reason I think I'm probably in a simulation has nothing to do with evolution - it is partly due to Elon Musk's reasoning and many personal experiences like receiving a sealed upside down Bible within days of reading another upside down for the first time (to try and annoy God to get him to poison me - to use that as evidence that the hospital is trying to poison me)
...

Yikes!

 

[excreationist]

Pattern recognition sometimes works against us. Percival Lowell, for instance, saw canals on mars (not only him). The more he looked, the more canals he saw.

So they thought that things that looked like canals were canals.... a more severe example of finding non-existent patterns is from A Beautiful Mind:

(go to 57 seconds in)

 

[DBT]

Seeing patterns where patterns don't actually exist can be somewhat problematic.

 

[excreationist]

Seeing patterns where patterns don't actually exist can be somewhat problematic.

The technical term seems to be "Apophenia"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

 

[Keith&Co.]

So "theistic evolution" is roughly "evolutionary theory that depends on divine action, in some or all parts".... what about evolutionary theory that explicitly involves no divine action?

Once more, science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA.
It states 'This is what happened.' It cannot state whether or not a deity was involved in making it happen.

An ATHEIST theory would specifically exclude divine action. Science doesn't do that.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So "theistic evolution" is roughly "evolutionary theory that depends on divine action, in some or all parts".... what about evolutionary theory that explicitly involves no divine action?

Once more, science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA.
It states 'This is what happened.' It cannot state whether or not a deity was involved in making it happen.

An ATHEIST theory would specifically exclude divine action. Science doesn't do that.

A creationist or someone into woo or magic or supernature or some other "untestable" claim might say to a scientist, "I believe in a god and god is something that cannot be tested for." The dispassionate scientist might likely respond, "That's interesting. How do you suppose we can test your claim using the scientific method?"

I don't think religion or woo or supernature of magic or any such claimed phenomenon is anti-science. But certainly many of the people who believe in these things are very, very anti-science. And that makes scientific sense and can be explored using the scientific method by simply testing for scientific literacy in an adherent.

I would feel quite threatened and be afraid of something as powerful and revealing as scientific progress if I didn't understand it. It would be as if people were speaking in a different language, one that I cannot even begin to understand, let alone use to communicate. And that's how science is for many people.

 

[atrib]

....I think it is an important distinction to make between guided evolution and naturalistic evolution... in fact I've created threads on that topic.

Back in the day YECs were all about "special creation." Yours is just "special evolution," evolution by divine fiat. It's dopey stuff, there isn't any such thing.

My belief is that an intelligent force started with some life forms (like chameleons and butterflies and flowers) and then generated a plausible evolutionary history for the DNA (and geology, etc). So it appears that evolution was naturalistic and happened over millions of years. Though I think our current simulation server has only been explicitly simulating our world for a relatively short amount of time. The idea may be dopey but perhaps some of the specifics are quite original....

What you believe is not important (except perhaps to you). What you can demonstrate through evidence and reason is important. Simply repeating what you believe, instead of what you can actually support with evidence and reason, is not going to convince anyone. It is merely preaching.

 

[atrib]

....But it does not make sense to split off 'atheistic evolution' from creationism unless you refer to every science as atheistic.

I'm saying there is atheistic evolution and theistic evolution - not that evolution is always atheistic - but I rejected Christian theistic evolution and went straight to atheistic evolution.

You are wrong, and unwilling to listen to what other people are telling you. There is biological evolution, which is a natural process that has been observed and tested. Biological evolution is neither theistic or atheistic, just as gravity and star formation and weather are neither theistic or atheistic. They are all natural processes that can be observed and tested by humans. You would be foolish to call gravity "atheistic", yet you have no problem referring to evolution as such. This is because your judgement is clouded by your bias.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

....But it does not make sense to split off 'atheistic evolution' from creationism unless you refer to every science as atheistic.

I'm saying there is atheistic evolution and theistic evolution - not that evolution is always atheistic - but I rejected Christian theistic evolution and went straight to atheistic evolution.

You are wrong, and unwilling to listen to what other people are telling you. There is biological evolution, which is a natural process that has been observed and tested. Biological evolution is neither theistic or atheistic, just as gravity and star formation and weather are neither theistic or atheistic. They are all natural processes that can be observed and tested by humans. You would be foolish to call gravity "atheistic", yet you have no problem referring to evolution as such. This is because your judgement is clouded by your bias.

They are using awfully contrived labels. Better labels would be naturalistic evolution (which occurs naturally) and divine evolution (which occurs naturally by the design of some god(s)).

 

[Keith&Co.]

You are wrong, and unwilling to listen to what other people are telling you. There is biological evolution, which is a natural process that has been observed and tested. Biological evolution is neither theistic or atheistic, just as gravity and star formation and weather are neither theistic or atheistic. They are all natural processes that can be observed and tested by humans. You would be foolish to call gravity "atheistic", yet you have no problem referring to evolution as such. This is because your judgement is clouded by your bias.

They are using awfully contrived labels. Better labels would be naturalistic evolution (which occurs naturally) and divine evolution (which occurs naturally by the design of some god(s)).

Is there a science that DOESN'T occur naturally?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You are wrong, and unwilling to listen to what other people are telling you. There is biological evolution, which is a natural process that has been observed and tested. Biological evolution is neither theistic or atheistic, just as gravity and star formation and weather are neither theistic or atheistic. They are all natural processes that can be observed and tested by humans. You would be foolish to call gravity "atheistic", yet you have no problem referring to evolution as such. This is because your judgement is clouded by your bias.

They are using awfully contrived labels. Better labels would be naturalistic evolution (which occurs naturally) and divine evolution (which occurs naturally by the design of some god(s)).

Is there a science that DOESN'T occur naturally?

Apparently there is because we have a subforum called Natural Science. By implication there must be unnatural sciences.

But all science by definition is natural so I don't really get the distinction. The bias certainly comes from that human propensity to think of ourselves as not being another evolved organism, not being part of the animal world, part of nature. It's how most of us are raised to think so I guess it's natural.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I'm pretty sure divine evolution is the god of old-time Palestine killing off humanity in chapter 7 of his mind-blowing book and then turning up as the god of love 'n' mercy in Party II.

 

[excreationist]

What do you call it if it is evolution that isn't theistic? (non-theistic evolution?)

Science.

....Once more, science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. I agree with Jimmy Higgins in post #122 that it could be called "naturalistic evolution".

 

[excreationist]

They are using awfully contrived labels. Better labels would be naturalistic evolution (which occurs naturally) and divine evolution (which occurs naturally by the design of some god(s)).

I prefer "guided evolution" because it could be possible it is part of a simulation and an AI is involved that some people wouldn't consider to be a god. Or there could be retrocausality (probably not) where things from the future affect the past - also not involving a god.

 

[excreationist]

.....Biological evolution is neither theistic or atheistic....

But what about naturalistic biological evolution and guided biological evolution?

 

[Keith&Co.]

....Once more, science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. I agree with Jimmy Higgins in post #122 that it could be called "naturalistic evolution".

Please identify the contradiction.

And please identify any area of actual scientific investigation that is not naturalistic.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But what about naturalistic biological evolution and guided biological evolution?

In the first, you add a word unnecessarily.
In the second, you add an intelligence baselessly.

 

[excreationist]

....Please identify the contradiction.

"....What do you call it if it is evolution that isn't theistic?" "Science"

"....Once more, science is neutral on divine action"

I asked you what to call evolution that isn't theistic and you said "science".

And please identify any area of actual scientific investigation that is not naturalistic.

You said "science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA" i.e. you seem to be saying that science does not specifically exclude divine action....

 

[excreationist]

But what about naturalistic biological evolution and guided biological evolution?

In the first, you add a word unnecessarily.

But many theists believe in biological evolution that is not completely naturalistic....

In the second, you add an intelligence baselessly.

You said ".....science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA" - are you saying that according to science (including biological evolution), divine action could be possible?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Creation "science" and a Bible-based morality

They are using awfully contrived labels. Better labels would be naturalistic evolution (which occurs naturally) and divine evolution (which occurs naturally by the design of some god(s)).

I prefer "guided evolution" because it could be possible it is part of a simulation and an AI is involved that some people wouldn't consider to be a god. Or there could be retrocausality (probably not) where things from the future affect the past - also not involving a god.

Guided. Yup, the guided AI intelligence that gave us Sickle Cell.

It takes some serious misunderstanding to think a super long and terribly imperfect process of evolution is ‘guided’.

Must be a pretty stupid entity that is guiding evolution!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

....Please identify the contradiction.

"....What do you call it if it is evolution that isn't theistic?" "Science"

"....Once more, science is neutral on divine action"

I asked you what to call evolution that isn't theistic and you said "science".

And please identify any area of actual scientific investigation that is not naturalistic.

You said "science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA" i.e. you seem to be saying that science does not specifically exclude divine action....

Speaking only for myself, if someone claims divine intervention then I should be able to design an experiment and make observations based on their definitions and claims. In other words what they are claiming to be divine intervention is nothing more than a claim that can be empirically documented. Carl Sagan was one to say we should make such investigations and perform such experiments based on observations.

The problem arises when one cannot define terms. If I cannot define my terms then I cannot design experiments or make observations to either confirm or deny claims. For example people use the word miracle to describe natural phenomena all the time. If a miracle is something that happens very infrequently but is statistically predictable than their miracle is simply a natural event. They can apply any label they wish but it is still natural.

If you are not familiar with the scientific method and do not understand the scientific method then we have a language barrier at least, and at worst an inability to communicate productively. Science is merely accumulated knowledge based on rational observation and experiment.

 

[Elixir]

But many theists believe in biological evolution that is not completely naturalistic....

In the second, you add an intelligence baselessly.

You said ".....science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA" - are you saying that according to science (including biological evolution), divine action could be possible?

Anything is possible, or nothing that doesn't happen was ever possible - take your pick.

In science, "could be possibles" are only useful as the basis for questions such as "How, specifically, could this [unexplained thing] be possible?". Effective answers to that question always start with positing causes that are known to have effects via (somewhat at least) understood mechanisms. One can ask "If someone threw gas on here and lit it on fire, what would we expect to find in the ashes?". Asking What should we see in the ashes if GOD burned down this house??!" has never once proven to be a productive approach for science. And it never will be, because this hypothetical GOD, can have ANY EFFECT HE WANTS on ashes.

The rhetorical question of "could divine action be possible?" is a matter for philosophers, not scientists.

I will say though, that if the creation of the process of evolution was creditable to any God, it would be that God's #1 greatest achievement by my rating.

 

[atrib]

.....Biological evolution is neither theistic or atheistic....

But what about naturalistic biological evolution and guided biological evolution?

Why did you delete the rest of the post where I explained my position?

There is biological evolution, which is a natural process that has been observed and tested. Biological evolution is neither theistic or atheistic, just as gravity and star formation and weather are neither theistic or atheistic. They are all natural processes that can be observed and tested by humans. You would be foolish to call gravity "atheistic", yet you have no problem referring to evolution as such.

Everything we know about the universe with any degree of confidence is based on our observations of nature, and our inferences derived from those observations. Adding naturalistic before the word evolution is a trivial distinction that adds no no value to the discussion. You are only trying to muddy the waters here.

Sometimes the process of evolution is guided by humans; we select livestock and plants to enhance certain characteristics of these organisms, but this is not the context in which you use the word guided evolution. Again, you are trying to muddy the waters in order to support your biases.

I know what you believe because you have made those claims before in other threads. If you want to provide an alternate model for evolution that contradicts our understanding of how evolution happens, you should provide evidence to support your beliefs. Do you have evidence that our understanding of how naturalistic evolution works is seriously flawed?

 

[excreationist]

Guided. Yup, the guided AI intelligence that gave us Sickle Cell.

It takes some serious misunderstanding to think a super long and terribly imperfect process of evolution is ‘guided’.

Must be a pretty stupid entity that is guiding evolution!

Like I said in post #109 I think evolution just appears to take a long time and it appears to be naturalistic. If this is a simulation there are two main possibilities for the evolution we can detect:

- Evolution is guided and it starts off with some forms of life and created a plausible evolutionary history -

- Or evolution is not guided and it simulates it for hundreds of millions of years and you have to be happy with whatever the flip of the coin ended up with.

In video games the world is designed by intelligences (or uses a designed procedural generation system) and usually involves injustice and things that can harm or kill the player - the problems in our world could be intentional.

About the non-obvious intelligent force I believe in:

 

[excreationist]

Why did you delete the rest of the post where I explained my position?

I disagreed with:

"Biological evolution is neither theistic or atheistic, just as gravity and star formation and weather are neither theistic or atheistic"

I mean I've heard the term "theistic evolution" a lot - and it refers to biological evolution. I don't think your example of gravity disproves that evolution can be considered theistic. I didn't respond to that and other parts because I think my counter-argument would probably seem even weaker than usual.

Adding naturalistic before the word evolution is a trivial distinction that adds no no value to the discussion.

Yes it means that no intelligent force was intervening - intervention vs no intervention is a big deal.

I know what you believe because you have made those claims before in other threads. If you want to provide an alternate model for evolution that contradicts our understanding of how evolution happens, you should provide evidence to support your beliefs. Do you have evidence that our understanding of how naturalistic evolution works is seriously flawed?

I've been saying that it appears that evolution is naturalistic and that I'm unable to prove to skeptics that it is guided. (which is the whole point of a non-obvious God and the Futurama quote in post #137)

 

[atrib]

....Please identify the contradiction.

"....What do you call it if it is evolution that isn't theistic?" "Science"

"....Once more, science is neutral on divine action"

I asked you what to call evolution that isn't theistic and you said "science".

And please identify any area of actual scientific investigation that is not naturalistic.

You said "science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA" i.e. you seem to be saying that science does not specifically exclude divine action....

You are suggesting that theistic claims are deserving of equal footing and equal consideration with the scientific model of evolution. You are wrong. We have no evidence that divine entities from outside our universe are interacting, or have interacted with anyone or anything in the visible universe. Given this lack of evidence, it is impractical and foolish to live our lives as if such interventions were real.

 

[excreationist]

You are suggesting that theistic claims are deserving of equal footing and equal consideration with the scientific model of evolution.

Theists would claim that there could be evidence such as irreducible complexity - I think that there were no jumps in evolution - that it seems perfectly naturalistic....

You are wrong. We have no evidence that divine entities from outside our universe are interacting, or have interacted with anyone or anything in the visible universe.

Yes that's exactly how it appears to skeptics.

Given this lack of evidence, it is impractical and foolish to live our lives as if such interventions were real.

Well the Bible says to not put God to the test... but basically my experiences have just caused me to feel more hopeful in my life

 

[excreationist]

Speaking only for myself, if someone claims divine intervention then I should be able to design an experiment and make observations based on their definitions and claims. In other words what they are claiming to be divine intervention is nothing more than a claim that can be empirically documented....

That seems to involve skeptics and like I've said, "I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, or hallucinations". Then there is the Bible saying "Don't put God to the test". I think the purpose of this is to make the simulation more immersive. It is also a case of playing "hide and seek" with God....

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So everything points to a simulation. Concurrence, contradiction, simplicity, complexity, symmetry, incongruence... it all points to simulation.

 

[Elixir]

Speaking only for myself, if someone claims divine intervention then I should be able to design an experiment and make observations based on their definitions and claims. In other words what they are claiming to be divine intervention is nothing more than a claim that can be empirically documented....

That seems to involve skeptics and like I've said, "I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, or hallucinations".

There is reason to think that, given the history of things things that have been attributed to gods and then found to have earthly causes. The defining characteristic of this "god of the gaps" is that it gets smaller, and smaller and smaller.

Then there is the Bible saying "Don't put God to the test". I think the purpose of this is to make the simulation more immersive. It is also a case of playing "hide and seek" with God....

Nah. I think "Don't put God to the test" is sage advice to explain things in a useful manner if you can, instead of incuriously invoking "divine" explanations that are not falsifiable. IOW, do your testing without using gods.
Even Behe had to admit that his IC example of the flagellum was wrong, in that credible evolutionary pathways exist.

 

[Elixir]

So everything points to a simulation. Concurrence, contradiction, simplicity, complexity, symmetry, incongruence... it all points to simulation.

A simulation that points to itself. Hmmm.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is reason to think that, given the history of things things that have been attributed to gods and then found to have earthly causes. The defining characteristic of this "god of the gaps" is that it gets smaller, and smaller and smaller.

Then there is the Bible saying "Don't put God to the test". I think the purpose of this is to make the simulation more immersive. It is also a case of playing "hide and seek" with God....

Nah. I think "Don't put God to the test" is sage advice to explain things in a useful manner if you can, instead of incuriously invoking "divine" explanations that are not falsifiable. IOW, do your testing without using gods.
Even Behe had to admit that his IC example of the flagellum was wrong, in that credible evolutionary pathways exist.

But the Wizard said not to pay attention to the guy behind the curtain.

 

[excreationist]

So everything points to a simulation. Concurrence, contradiction, simplicity, complexity, symmetry, incongruence... it all points to simulation.

Like I've said, I think "I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, or hallucinations". I think that theory also covers non-naturalistic things like a simulation. That way the simulation is as immersive as possible. Like that Futurama God quote says, "when you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all".

There is reason to think that, given the history of things things that have been attributed to gods and then found to have earthly causes. The defining characteristic of this "god of the gaps" is that it gets smaller, and smaller and smaller.

I'm saying there is no evidence that can convince skeptics of the existence of God so there is no compelling evidence for them for ANY "god of the gaps". So if God is playing "hide and seek", when he is "hiding" it is completely from view....

 

[DrZoidberg]

So "theistic evolution" is roughly "evolutionary theory that depends on divine action, in some or all parts".... what about evolutionary theory that explicitly involves no divine action?

Once more, science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA.
It states 'This is what happened.' It cannot state whether or not a deity was involved in making it happen.

An ATHEIST theory would specifically exclude divine action. Science doesn't do that.

Laplace is the one who said it the best I think. He was a Christian. He simply removed any mention from his scientific work because he didn't think it aided understanding of what is going on in his scientific model.

The point of science is to add clarity to how the world works. Theology, is by it's very nature, mystical and nebulous. Ie "God works in mysterious ways". If God is mysterious keeping God in your theory makes your theory harder to understand, no matter if God really is involved. By removing any mention of God Laplace made his scientific theories much more clear.

It's the same deal with the theory of evolution. The idea that God guides evolution, nudging it in various direction, adds nothing to the theory. No matter if God really is doing it or not.

As Laplace pointed out, we're always better off removing God from any scientific theory.

This brings us to why Creationists or "creation science" stubbornly feels the need to insert God into every scientific theory. It's not to add an clarity. Nor is it an attempt to understand the world. It's not about science at all.

We live in a world where science and scientific language is the highest authority. If we want authority we need to coach our ideas in scientific language. It's not harder than that. Creation Science are religious people trying to sneak in on a free ride to get authority. It's transparent what they're doing. It's dumb.

 

[DrZoidberg]

....But it does not make sense to split off 'atheistic evolution' from creationism unless you refer to every science as atheistic.

I'm saying there is atheistic evolution and theistic evolution - not that evolution is always atheistic - but I rejected Christian theistic evolution and went straight to atheistic evolution.

You are wrong, and unwilling to listen to what other people are telling you. There is biological evolution, which is a natural process that has been observed and tested. Biological evolution is neither theistic or atheistic, just as gravity and star formation and weather are neither theistic or atheistic. They are all natural processes that can be observed and tested by humans. You would be foolish to call gravity "atheistic", yet you have no problem referring to evolution as such. This is because your judgement is clouded by your bias.

Our evidence for gravity is actually quite weak, as scientific theories go. It's based on science on one celestial body. We have no idea what kind of gravitational weirdness we might find out there. We do hope that our science here has nailed it. But it's still just a hope.

We just think it's a strong theory because anyone can test it by themselves. But they're all on the same celestial body. It's the same data point.

While the theory of evolution is supported by billions of independent individually verifiable data points. The theory of evolution is an incredibly strong scientific theory.

 

[Keith&Co.]

....Please identify the contradiction.

"....What do you call it if it is evolution that isn't theistic?" "Science"

"....Once more, science is neutral on divine action"

I asked you what to call evolution that isn't theistic and you said "science".

And please identify any area of actual scientific investigation that is not naturalistic.

You said "science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA" i.e. you seem to be saying that science does not specifically exclude divine action....

Um, yeah?
I do not see a contradiction.

What do you think 'atheist' means when you say 'atheist evolution?'

 

[Keith&Co.]

But many theists believe in biological evolution that is not completely naturalistic....

....such as...?

In the second, you add an intelligence baselessly.

You said ".....science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA" - are you saying that according to science (including biological evolution), divine action could be possible?

Yeah. Could be. Still, no scientific evidence for the supernatural influence.