Creation "science" and a Bible-based morality

[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