A Conflict of Interest - Evolutionary Process .vs. Creation Act

[nahadef]

BrianLewis doesn't understand the theory of evolution. If he's interested in understanding it, that's great and I support it, but otherwise... No need to spread disinformation.

 

[AquaLung]

In view of the great discussion/debate exchange which is now in progress, on a number of fronts, I wish to see if I might push to continue that, and yet, if I can, with some degree of further coherence.

​

The first quote had been made to RolandtheHeadless, but the point had been made, and was public, so I had responded towards correcting it. But, one can ask if it needs correction.

I kind of wonder if this doesn't need to be parsed a little; but let me see. We can see some tale-tell signs along the way. For one, the word creator in the first quote above was capitalized. That points to theist-involved religious belief system doctrine--primarily by Christian influence. Then we see it being claimed that the notion of 'a creator' represents a singularity of a notion--as the countable noun most clearly identifies--which again tend to identify it with having come through the Christian, or biblical, line of doctrine. We find, in that first quote, that a strong connection is made between the presented notion of 'a creator' and that circumstance, or condition, of being 'supernatual.' Why is this?

The term supernatural of course is not in the Bible, but I think I think it's the best description of actions taken by a personality that defy any type of explanation. A term that is often used, usually I think meant to be derogatory in reference to miracles presented in the Bible, is the word magic. Fortunately, because of the generally accepted position of a possible intelligent entity acting in the role of a creator, the term magic is not applied.

When we're talking about the act of creating a universe, we immediately (and I think rightly so) apply the action to an unseen source, and an entity so far above our comprehension, that we cannot honestly relegate the action to an easily explained source. Even if one attempts to apply an ET type of personality to the action, it obviously wouldn't be your typical Roswell/Area 51 character.

 

[AquaLung]

Therefore it will be seen, AquaLung, that up to this point, you very much appear to be bound to the notion of a supernatual individual entity-of-a-thing. Do you wish to hold the term 'supernatural' here to be of the common definition sense--namely, that which is not, thus beyond and above all natural circumstance and condifion?

Basically, yes.

Now, in what you have more recently posted, I think I can see what you are getting at, but am a tad bit uncertain due to the way that second sentence had started off--having followed the first, which had been responded to what I had written. Therefore please do correct me where I have taken you incorrectly in the following.

You state that you do not claim that for one to understand (as I take it) an act of creation, that one has to see the actor as being an anthropomorphic being, or personified in any manner. You do state, on the other hand, that you claim object to 1) one's insistence that there had not been an anthropomorphic, or personified being involved, 2) that a possible anthropomorphic, or personified being (hereafter designer/creator) is not a designer/creator, and 3) that any of the worlds theist-invovled-religious-belief-system said creator gods could not have actually been as that particular information source had claimed such god had been, the creator. (The one and only, or, at least the highest.)

I'll wait to see if I have understood you correctly firstly, then will point out what I see in this. Perhaps that will be on the "sister" thread, though, since it will deal with gods and goddesses more.

As I'm sure you are aware, I believe that the Creator is God as presented in the Bible (I generally capitalize God and Creator in respect to God the Creator according to my belief). I believe that all references to God in both the Old and New Testament are one and the same. So this obviously means that I don't believe the Quran's rendition, Mormon Bible's rendition, etc. I can't (and don't) expect anyone else to accept it. All I can do is explain why I believe what I do, and make certain suggestions to consider here and there. The problem with the issue of Creator/creator/God/god is that it plays a significant role in our various educational systems. In early European history, belief in God was not really optional. In modern times in the western world, specifically thinking the U.S. where I reside, we have pseudo-rights depending on certain environments. In some arenas, belief in a creator (including deism) is the preferred option. In some arenas like the educational arena, the belief in a creator is acceptable as long as it falls within a certain boundary. The effects of going outside of the boundary can have unfavorable results.

It could be, that's true, but what it would be opinion of, actually, is how the words are defined, and nothing more. I do know, from experience, that a whole bunch of folks are not too keen on paying attention to word usage--especially in this area. I am always reminding of what the Chicago Manual of Style (one of the sources for formal publishing) said, that this area has way to much run-away capitalization, for example. The same is true for word usage too. A pattern, by better definition sense range, does not imply a design. A design, as a countable noun, will, by better definition sense range, infer a purpose for usage or effect desired--as an objective, of sorts. It is a fact that we see re-occuring pattern in nature all over the place. That is nature. That there is a pattern does not automatically draw the conclusion that that pattern is a design. This is where we find some leakage coming in; especially that of a Christian bias mind-set.

As I had mentioned in one of two threads, there are other forms of discovery to consider that don't fall into the conventional science category like archaeology (sort of an off-shoot), and history.

No, this is not a good source to refer to. Antony Flew went through a slow cognitive decline ending in major cognitive dementia in his later years. The book, written in 2007, was very much pushed by one Roy Abraham VArghese. Flew's wife, while not knowing the fuller degree of how much, exactly, of her husband's mental failing had been taken advantage of, did say that at any rate, as a deist, he denied all formal 'revealed' religious systems. N.T. Wright, who of course is well known in biblical literature circles for his unending and heavily leaning-to-one-side-of-the-evidence positions, also wrote an introduction (with a strange invitation [as it would appear] from Flew himself).

In an interview with Mark Oppenheimer (New York Times magazine ("The Turning of an Atheist" Nov 4, 2007) by Kenneth Grubbs provided evidence to what may have been the 'rule of the day,' when Oppenheimer said that Flew had told him he had not written the book. He said that Flew had told him, without any ambiguity, that the book had been, "Roy's doing." There is yet further involvement, however, according to what Varghese, the publisher (Harper One) had not been so happy with some of the prose, and had asked one Bob Hostetler, an evangelical pastor, to 're-write' some of it to make it more reader-friendly.

Then finally, the proven need for Varghese to have had 'proof' by a third party friend of Flew (professor Richard Swinburne, a famed Christian apologists [one who is agnostic or atheist can have Christen friends, of course, as I even have a Christian mother and sister]) that Flew himself had been mentally sound enough to be proposing his views. This was before writing, and, along with what had been later gleaned from his wife, actually sets the whole project into a very serious misconduct realm. One fact is that two-thirds of the book is Varghese writing for Flew, with whatever degree of that having been re-written by Hostetler, and the remaining one-third was Varghese writing for himself against 'new atheists' in Appendix A, with Wright's 28 page Christian dissertation (written as himself) in Appendix B.

This book is neither a good source, nor do the arguments that seem to present themselves in it follow through. The prime reason for that, is that we have to go back chronologically and see where the whole idea of a god came from in the first place. As long as people fail to do that, they are going to fail to be realistic about the most methodologically correct process of coming to understand.

On the contrary I would maintain that he is a very good example. For one, I don't think his dementia is really any kind of an issue. In and of itself alone wouldn't be worth bringing up, therefore it's necessary to attempt to add further skeptic fodder like the Christian evangelist influence on his book. I had actually watched an interview with Antony Flew discussing his change of view, and he was obviously quite coherent. I really didn't intend to promote the book in any way, just using him as example of someone who without a hand on his back using him as a mouth-piece, maintained that he believed that evidence pointed to a creator. It's been fully understood by myself that he never (as far as we know) converted to Christianity.

I have no doubt that he has also been used by Christians as a sort of a touche to atheists. At the same time, his departure from atheism seemed to be a blow to many, and it's a shame that his dementia (and I think old age in general) was brought up in relation to his change of mind.

 

[BrianLewis]

But you see, BrainLewis, I was kind of hoping that you might put something a little more relevant out for discussion, because the example of a sixth finger is not really the level of 'mutation' that is considered; it's a different thing, essentially. Especially is this the case for sexual selection processes.

So, if it looks bad, it doesn't apply? That's shoddy science. I don't see how it would not apply, it is a genetic trait passed to offspring.

although some have been seen; at least one, that I know of.

Can't read your mind sorry.

It's worth pointing out that Blue eyes, Blonde hair, Red Hair, Large breasts, Large penises, Wide hips etc. all came about as mutations.

The ends justifying the means seems like poor science to me.

I also find it interesting that someone mentions that Genesis conflicts directly with the theory of evolution, not mentioning that Genesis if taken literaly contradicts itself.

Where so? Did you actually study it in the original language before saying that, or are you being a parrot?

A day is a measurement of time defined by a single rotation of earth. If there is no earth there can be no "day"

If you actually read the Bible, you would know that "a day" is actually 1,000 years.

BrianLewis doesn't understand the theory of evolution. If he's interested in understanding it, that's great and I support it, but otherwise... No need to spread disinformation.

Feel free to explain then.

 

[Mars Man]

So, if it looks bad, it doesn't apply? That's shoddy science.

It's just that this (the statement you have made) does not follow at all ! It appears that you are not really grasping the specifics of mutational changes which stick, and amount to change. It is not a matter of looks in just any old fashion whatsoever. Furthermore, hand development worked along the domain of mobility and increasing flexibility through usage, as best as can be understood. Larger brain development likely spurred this firstly, but we can think of it as being somewhat simultaneous when stepping back to take a look at it.

I don't see how it would not apply, it is a genetic trait passed to offspring.

No, this is incorrect, to the extent that you are talking of members of the Homo genus. When I get the chance, I'll run down that case, then.

One question I would like to ask here, please, is what your particular background is, in regards to your formal education, and in-formal education. The reason for this, is because I would like to kind of have an idea at what level of knowledge to target my presentation. Personally, evolutionary biology is not my field of interest, but I have generally kept up with it. I have done more reading in other areas related to evolution theory. This is mostly in-formal education, but at the professional level. I am continuing with that at present, but only on the side. What about yourself?

 

[BrianLewis]

One question I would like to ask here, please, is what your particular background is, in regards to your formal education, and in-formal education. The reason for this, is because I would like to kind of have an idea at what level of knowledge to target my presentation.

It is a dangerous matter to gauge individuals based on formal education. I have met far more intelligent people that never had the chance to attend college. That said, I have taken anthropology classes, and agreed with what was being fed to me at the time, as do all young people when faced with "higher education." However, over time I realized that an individual cannot truly understand the world until they disregard what they were told and learned over again with an objective mind. Only then did I see how preposterous the evolutionary theory is, along with other social trends such as psychology and the like.

 

[Mars Man]

While "dangerous" would not be the better choice of word by any reasonable means, the particular level of formal education that a person may have, is nothing more than just that; it's just a fact. Therefore "erroneous" would be the word of choice for one who were to use that data (that fact) to conclude something which the fact alone says nothing about.

I see. I would like to then make your presentation and such, therefore. Just to claim that evolutionary theory is wrong, without making any demonstration towards supporting that claim, is not going to be any better than the other way around, either, right? Now, since you have claimed to know that evolutionary theory is preposterous, can we take it that that means you claim to know that an act of creation is what is not preposterous? In other words, since you seem to say that life forms could not have just developed into higher forms over millions of years, do you say that an act of creation put all forms in place as were, and/or are?

 

[BrianLewis]

I see. I would like to then make your presentation and such, therefore. Just to claim that evolutionary theory is wrong, without making any demonstration towards supporting that claim, is not going to be any better than the other way around, either, right?

I believe I did. My contention is that when people accept evolution, they are doing so by looking only at the macro level. The theory makes absolutely no sense when looking at it in the micro level. The "demonstration" I made was simply brushed off because it did not conform with the theory. If every "demonstration" that does not conform with the theory is dismissed, what you have is your own little religion, not a theory.

The word "dangerous" applies if you consider another human's feelings.

 

[Mars Man]

First of all, I apologize for missing the word 'you' in my original text (as you had quoted above). It should have read, "I would like you to then make..." What you presented about a sixth finger is not a matter of evolutionary process, in the specific sense. I feel you have missed the concept. However, I will let that be, and will see if I can present stuff that help. It looks to me that you are just talking, more than anything else, through emotional content. Anyway, no time now. I'll be back.

 

[BrianLewis]

However, I will let that be

Why? Is this thread not about learning? If 2 individuals can state that I am wrong to use that as an example, yet cannot say why, is it really wrong, or do they just realize that they don't know themselves. I have to wonder, when all there is is an "Because I said so" argument going on. That seems a far more emotional response than my posting.

 

[Mars Man]

The thread is for a process of educational function; for sure. It has become clear, however, that you may not have a clear grasp of the difference between a 'mutation' in the sense range that evolutionary theory uses that term, and 'malfunction.' It'll take some thinking to see what approach of entry may be best.

When I had written, 'I will let that be,' I had thought that I would just leave that for the moment. Do you wish to work on that point about a malformed hand, then?