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

[Mars Man]

Evolution, in one way of speaking about it, is a theory--the Theory of Evolution. Creation, in one way of looking at it, is an act--the Creative Act. However, evolution is a process, a dynamic development, or 'unfolding. Creation is a starting point of a said deliberation, or 'volition.' What can be said about the processes. What can be said about the act of creation. Are these two necessarily mutually exclusive? If so, in what ways? If not, in what ways? What are the full spectrum of evidence ranges involved in both, and what overlap might there be, if any? These, and many other questions and propositions will hopefully follow in good, and academically-based discussion and debate.

In another thread (The God Virus) this topic matter arose from around the post linked to here. Following that, a number of posts have been made, and for the purpose of consistency in topic range adherence, I wish to bring some of those points here. My hope is that we can continue that particular discussion and debate here, while cross-referencing to there, when need be.

In my post number 72 there, I had said the following:

That Neanderthals and ourselves interbred up to about 4% is as good as fact.​

While the comment had not been intended to make any comment towards the subject of evolutionary processes, it of course does so kind of naturally. AquaLung had responded towards that. (see link above)

Additionally, in post number 74, RolandtheHeadless made the following note:

Recent observations show variations in the cosmic background radiation, which reflect variations in the Big Bang that gave rise to structures (stars, galaxies) in the universe.

It is also not true that Darwinian evolutionists are stuck in dogma as much as Biblical creationists. Such an argument reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. In fact, any scientist who could discover a better theory for explaining the myriad species of life that live and have lived on the earth would make quite a name for himself in history.

But in 150 years of serious study of the problem, no such theory has survived.​

Replies to that had come there, and one might want to verify that flow, before going on here. While it is my hope that debate and discussion about this interesting conflict will continue here in this thread, it may at times be good to cross-reference there, since the matter of gods decreed to have executed acts of creation, will fall under the god heading, and substantiating those will have relevance here too.

 

[nahadef]

Upfront, I have to say, your choice of linguistics is off-putting. You might consider it appropriately accurate, but it's frustrating to have to read your post three times to know what you mean, and was one reason I dropped out of our last discussion here. Anyway....

Creation and evolution aren't mutually exclusive to me. The one is pretty self-evident, and the other a total human invention though. Ultimately, life could have been set in motion by something higher, and we resulted, but it's not an obvious assumption, and not something with any evidence at the moment. That we resulted from something previous seems pretty obvious at this point, just from the relation and differentiation of species on the planet now. So, I can't see a conflict of interest, pr se, but there is a very real conflict of evidence.

 

[Mars Man]

Creation and evolution aren't mutually exclusive to me.

Could I get you to please explain that more fully then, and with some citations? This is not to say that I am taking a position of disagreeing with you just yet, or that I am already preparing to counter argue, but simply to encourage better care with detail. Taking creation in the sense of an 'act of creation,' we would usually, as you might guess, suppose an 'actor,' so to speak. However, taking creation in the sense of a resultant processed-derived circumstance, that might not need anything other than natural elements, right? One good example of this is the camouflage that some particular animals produce.

So, I can't see a conflict of interest, pr se, but there is a very real conflict of evidence.

Yes, I take what you have said. Additionally, I find that there is such conflict, something of interest.

 

[AquaLung]

I think the main conflict is between Evolution, and specifically Biblical Creation (the account of Creation given in Genesis). In other words, it's not so much the idea of a Creator being involved in our existence, as is the idea of the Creation model given in Genesis. And I think this is primarily due to the content of the Bible itself, and it's description of the relationship between man and God. One of the evidences of this would be of course Theistic Evolution. The idea that God used evolution in the creation process.

The idea of an intelligent entity being responsible for our existence is not out of the question for most anyone due to the obvious complexities involved in the Universe. Had the Bible given a more universally favorable view of God (what guarantee is there that God will meet our personal standards?), scientists may very well be more open to ideas/theories outside of Naturalism (a world view).

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Scientists are concerned with observations, positing theories based on those observations, then testing the theories by making predictions that may turn out to be true or false.

For instance, we might posit a theory of gravity based on observations, then make a prediction: if I release this apple from my hand, it should fall to the ground.

Evolution and god-creationism aren't contradictory in themselves. Evolution theory doesn't purport to explain where the universe or life came from. We could say that God created the universe and life, and used evolution as the process to spread and diversify life. I know lots of Christians (the educated ones) who believe this.

The problem is that the above belief can't be equated to science. There are no observations, predictions, or tests involved in the above belief. It's sheer speculation to say that God did it. We might as well speculate that aliens did it. Or that some omnipotent beings have created the universe and everything in it as computer holograms. None of these hypotheses can be proved or disproved.

 

[Mars Man]

Good comments made. Here is where we do find one interesting point again, regarding AquaLung's post. It is true that we have more than just one creation proposition. The only reason we essentially find such great focus on the Tanakh's proposition, is because of Christian bias. The reason is of course understandable--the other systems have either died out, or, their propositions were rejected much earlier on. Here, is where we can begin to test the claim to know made by the proposition of the Tanakh.

As I will always argue for--since it's most evidently a brute truth of nature--scientific method in the broadest sense, as RolandtheHeadless is pointing out, is the only way to come to soundly know of nature with strong validity. The proposition that a center of intelligence is responsible for (holding it a little more relevant to evolutionary process) the fact that the H. sapiens exist, will require a claim to know that. That claim's content is testable. We have to ask how it is that the 'claim to know' has been acquired, and it will stand or fall on that.

I'll be back here with some of the data on the H. sapiens (as talked a little about in that other thread) a little later on. I think that as the thread goes on, we might want to test the Genesis account, because that is the one that most all proponents for a creative act. As for testing that very god model,that'll surely be the other thread.

 

[BrianLewis]

For instance, we might posit a theory of gravity based on observations, then make a prediction: if I release this apple from my hand, it should fall to the ground.

When we say that we know what gravity is, what we really mean is we know where it exists and we can measure the affect it has on an object. We, however, do not know what it is, or we could fabricate and manipulate it. Likewise, when one is educated, one can observe the affect that God has on a situation or an individual.

I find it interesting that you used gravity as an example. I have always wondered why scientists take their knowledge for granted when it comes to gravity. Wouldn't the power to manipulate gravity be extremely beneficial for society?

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

I don't think science takes its knowledge of gravity for granted. Newtonian physics does take the force of gravity for granted, and so does engineering.

But physicists, mathematicians, and cosmologists are deeply interested in the subject of gravity. They've come up with theories (e.g., gravitons), even spectacular theories, like Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, which postulates gravity as a warp in spacetime. And more recently, dark energy (anti-gravity?).

Modern scientists are still trying to figure out gravity, and to find a theory that unifies the four forces of nature.

 

[Half-n-Half]

When we say that we know what gravity is, what we really mean is we know where it exists and we can measure the affect it has on an object.

An important distinction, I agree. Although I would expand and say we can also predict its affects as well.

We, however, do not know what it is, or we could fabricate and manipulate it.

As far as we know, gravity only arises from objects with mass/energy. I don't think completely knowing something means you can manipulate it if the laws of physics prohibit you to in the first place. But in a sense, we can "fabricate" gravity in particle accelerators.

Likewise, when one is educated, one can observe the affect that God has on a situation or an individual.

The problem is that it is very difficult to distinguish God from known, natural explanations. Of course, you can probably never really know if someone actually, say, had a conversation with God.

I find it interesting that you used gravity as an example. I have always wondered why scientists take their knowledge for granted when it comes to gravity. Wouldn't the power to manipulate gravity be extremely beneficial for society?

Gravity is probably the most frustrating phenomenon for high-energy physicists since no one has provided a successful theory that correctly predicts gravity on very small length scales. I'm sure it would be beneficial if it were possible, but so would nuclear fusion. That doesn't mean we can do it (yet).

 

[nahadef]

Could I get you to please explain that more fully then, and with some citations?

Citations? I don't think you need them. Most hardcore evolutionary proponents don't rule out the possibility of a creator, they just point out that there is zero evidence of it. A great example is Dawkin's the God Delusion, which for all the hoopla about it, doesn't rule out the existence of God, just the likeliness of it (that I remember, I read it five years back). I agree with that line of thought. It seems unreasonable to say there could be no creator, and anti-scientific, to tell the truth.

That said, I am comfortably atheist. I've asked the questions, done the research, and don't find humanity's general concept of God plausible or likely in any way (unless you believe God is a sadist). Maybe I could imagine a deist idea of an apathetic God, but then it makes belief irrelevant, since God wouldn't care, and there would be no heaven or hell.

So, evolution happens, and we don't know if that spark for life was innate in the universe, or created by something outside (or inside) of the universe, but I don't see a true conflict of interest. The Genesis story, with Adam? Total conflict, but that is not my notion of the creation act.

 

[AquaLung]

Scientists are concerned with observations, positing theories based on those observations, then testing the theories by making predictions that may turn out to be true or false.

For instance, we might posit a theory of gravity based on observations, then make a prediction: if I release this apple from my hand, it should fall to the ground.

Evolution and god-creationism aren't contradictory in themselves. Evolution theory doesn't purport to explain where the universe or life came from. We could say that God created the universe and life, and used evolution as the process to spread and diversify life. I know lots of Christians (the educated ones) who believe this.

The problem is that the above belief can't be equated to science. There are no observations, predictions, or tests involved in the above belief. It's sheer speculation to say that God did it. We might as well speculate that aliens did it. Or that some omnipotent beings have created the universe and everything in it as computer holograms. None of these hypotheses can be proved or disproved.

The problem is, once one is open to the possibility of a Creator, they've submitted to the idea of the super-natural (by human standards). They've already stepped into the problem of entertaining the out of the ordinary (naturalist realm). If they go that far, why would creation via an intelligent designer have to have been produced through evolution?

 

[BrianLewis]

The problem is, once one is open to the possibility of a Creator, they've submitted to the idea of the super-natural (by human standards). They've already stepped into the problem of entertaining the out of the ordinary (naturalist realm). If they go that far, why would creation via an intelligent designer have to have been produced through evolution?

That's true. However, the real problem is trying to persuade closed minded individuals. I over read it the other day, but look at the title: "A Conflict of Interest - Evolutionary Process .vs. Creation Act. " Looks like someone's mind is already set.

That said, I am comfortably atheist. I've asked the questions, done the research, and don't find humanity's general concept of God plausible or likely in any way (unless you believe God is a sadist). Maybe I could imagine a deist idea of an apathetic God, but then it makes belief irrelevant, since God wouldn't care, and there would be no heaven or hell.

You did your own research, or are we talking about trusting what a fellow man fed you? I really see no basis for this in my own studies. If you did do your own studies, could it be a bad translation?

 

[Half-n-Half]

The problem is, once one is open to the possibility of a Creator, they've submitted to the idea of the super-natural (by human standards). They've already stepped into the problem of entertaining the out of the ordinary (naturalist realm). If they go that far, why would creation via an intelligent designer have to have been produced through evolution?

By creation, do you mean the universe, or Earth, or life on Earth? When you mix terms like "evolution", which is about the diversity of life on Earth, and "creation" it's hard to distinguish which you mean. But, why couldn't creation via an intelligent designer have been produced through evolution? After all, it's what we see the evidence for. Unless we're being deceived, I'd say if there is a creator he did it through naturalistic means.

 

[Mars Man]

Citations? I don't think you need them. Most hardcore evolutionary proponents don't rule out the possibility of a creator, they just point out that there is zero evidence of it.

I see no reason to disagree with this observation as it is worded. What a creator may be, in essence of actuality, is some tendency in pattern processing within nature at large. I'll take this point up later, then, and see if I can cite some examples. To be clear, my purpose for asking for such was not to challenge, but rather to help build a good discussion.

A great example is Dawkin's the God Delusion, which for all the hoopla about it, doesn't rule out the existence of God, just the likeliness of it (that I remember, I read it five years back).

Good point. I am pretty sure Dawkin refutes the god model, and that is the whole point. A lot of folks--and some of them quite well steeped into the philosophies and theology, even--have trouble at first seeing this point. (Not all, mind you, but a lot.) There are many god models out there, Yahweh is by no means the first. A number of these had been described, just like Yahweh, to creator gods. The Christian god too, is considered to be the creator god.

We can have the notion of something acting as a creator, in whatever general fashion the evidence for such presents itself in. There is no evidence of any such anthropomorphic male being such as is the common creator god model, as is described and prescribed by the information sources which had given us those gods. This is the difference. Therefore God (and please keep in mind that this means the Christian god, not Yahweh, nor Allah, nor any other god) has failed.

That said, I ... don't find humanity's general concept of God plausible or likely in any way (unless you believe God is a sadist). Maybe I could imagine a deist idea of an apathetic God, but then it makes belief irrelevant, since God wouldn't care, and there would be no heaven or hell.

Yes, I understand. Again, just to help enforce it with better accuracy and correctness, God refers to a single god model, not all, or any of them. (and of course not any of the goddesses that we have had)

So, evolution happens, and we don't know if that spark for life was innate in the universe, or created by something outside (or inside) of the universe, but I don't see a true conflict of interest. The Genesis story, with Adam? Total conflict, but that is not my notion of the creation act.[/QUOTE]You bring up some good points here. Over time I reason that those too should be touched on here. That evolution is best thought of as a process, is quite certain, I argue. As relates to life forms here on the planet Earth, we only look essentially to this bio-zone for understandings on the processes leading to cellular function. This means that our area of interest is Earth bound.

One question, here, please. I could be reading you wrongly, and just want to see if I am; please. I had used the terminology in the title as a play on meaning of a cliche. I wonder if you understand that. It's not that the 'interest' is in conflict, but that the 'conflict' (and that there is conflict is for sure) is of interest. I look forward to your involvement with this discussion too !

 

[Mars Man]

The problem is, once one is open to the possibility of a Creator, they've submitted to the idea of the super-natural (by human standards).

This is false, however. In fact, again, it is evidence of what I have mentioned elsewhere before; Christian bias. (Simply remaining relevant to Christendom, as English speakers largely are members of.) For example, we can say that protein synthesis in cellular function related to memory storage creates the memory traces. We have the notion of processes by which a resultant state is achieved, which can be worded in such language--i.e. the latter was created by the former. Whatever larger drive, so to speak, may be found through which resultant circumstances can more so be reasoned to have come, that can be the creative force, or process 'law.' There is no reason to have to accept any human created anthropomorphic, personified type something.

They've already stepped into the problem of entertaining the out of the ordinary (naturalist realm). If they go that far, why would creation via an intelligent designer have to have been produced through evolution?

Therefore this hardly follows at all. First of all, again, the very word 'design' is totally off. That there are widespread patterns of processing results seen throughout nature at large, is of course a fact. That a pattern equates a design, is incorrect.

 

[Mars Man]

That's true. However, the real problem is trying to persuade closed minded individuals. I over read it the other day, but look at the title: "A Conflict of Interest - Evolutionary Process .vs. Creation Act. " Looks like someone's mind is already set.

I do not disagree with your drive, at all. What I would like to see, is you putting your money where your mouth is, then. AND... honestly (as those who know me will soon be quick to assert as being a quality of mine) I do not mean this in any contempt-based manner, but simply because you have so far presented yourself as being a bit of a 'drive-by-one-liner' type poster, and I'd love to have you get more involved. Let's have a good discussion and debate. Let's put our 'hard cold cash' on the barrelhead.

You did your own research, or are we talking about trusting what a fellow man fed you? I really see no basis for this in my own studies. If you did do your own studies, could it be a bad translation?

Interesting. I'd just like to ditto that last portion I have written just above; please.

 

[BrianLewis]

Can someone here tell be how having a non-functional sixth finger makes you a sex object? From my experience, all abnormal mutations for humans are extremely unattractive and are a burden to those trying to get some action. If you are claiming that having a non-functional sixth finger can help an individual survive some disaster where all individuals with five fingers perished, I can't really see that either. Humans aside, animals function in the same manner. All creatures seem to have an innate desire to copulate with something normal, not something abnormal.

you have so far presented yourself as being a bit of a 'drive-by-one-liner' type poster,

Actually, I decided to abandon the other thread because I saw our debate as a way of indirectly publicising a stupid book. And I have trouble not commenting on something if I actually read it. There are also times where reason flies out the window and people just start ranting. I'll abandon those threads too.

 

[AquaLung]

That's true. However, the real problem is trying to persuade closed minded individuals. I over read it the other day, but look at the title: "A Conflict of Interest - Evolutionary Process .vs. Creation Act. " Looks like someone's mind is already set.

I agree. Trying to persuade others is near impossible (or impossible). I tend to believe that if anyone here (or any other similar environment) at any point does become persuaded, it will more likely happen when least expected, from one maybe not even trying to persuade (strictly observational). Maybe because that's how it seemed to happen with me. Although I think the prayers of those who seemed to make the least impression, but were the most directly proactive, played a big part in my belief. The words I took notice of were from one who would be considered very unlikely, the other was indirect (not directed towards me).

But none of what I stated is etched in stone. God works in different ways with different people. And there's always that more Road To Damascus experience as well.

 

[AquaLung]

By creation, do you mean the universe, or Earth, or life on Earth? When you mix terms like "evolution", which is about the diversity of life on Earth, and "creation" it's hard to distinguish which you mean.

Yes, when referring to the Universe, I actually am meaning to encompass that whole spectrum. And I understand your point about the term "evolution". Although I relate the term creation to Biblical Creationism, it seems to me that the term creation can be used in a general fashion as well to merely describe the Universe, nature, life, etc.

But, why couldn't creation via an intelligent designer have been produced through evolution?

I'm actually not even really disputing one considering that. What I am questioning is, the idea that it would have to be through evolution.

After all, it's what we see the evidence for. Unless we're being deceived, I'd say if there is a creator he did it through naturalistic means.

How does one create a universe by naturalistic means? If you, for instance, were to create a universe, what would you do (or what would be the first thing you would do)?

 

[AquaLung]

This is false, however. In fact, again, it is evidence of what I have mentioned elsewhere before; Christian bias. (Simply remaining relevant to Christendom, as English speakers largely are members of.) For example, we can say that protein synthesis in cellular function related to memory storage creates the memory traces. We have the notion of processes by which a resultant state is achieved, which can be worded in such language--i.e. the latter was created by the former. Whatever larger drive, so to speak, may be found through which resultant circumstances can more so be reasoned to have come, that can be the creative force, or process 'law.' There is no reason to have to accept any human created anthropomorphic, personified type something.

I'm not making a claim that one has to accept a personified something, which has been a point of mine all along. It would be the insistence that there is not an intelligent designer/creator involved, or that the, or possible designer/creator (we'll stick with that term for now) is some sort of force of nature that doesn't have any type of personality (the force be with you, etc.), or that a creator cannot be ascribed to one of the world's religions.

Therefore this hardly follows at all. First of all, again, the very word 'design' is totally off. That there are widespread patterns of processing results seen throughout nature at large, is of course a fact. That a pattern equates a design, is incorrect.

That may be based on opinion, who you ask, etc. It could be taken up with various people who may make such a claim like the philosopher Antony Flew (although he's now deceased).

Flew says that he simply: 'had to go where the evidence leads.'[8] His atheism truly was provisional and 'subject to correction by further evidence and further argument. . .'[9] 'It speaks very well of Professor Flew's honesty,' observes America's pre-eminent philosopher of religion, Alvin Plantinga: 'After all these years of opposing the idea of a Creator, he reverses his position on the basis of the evidence.

A Change of Mind for Antony Flew

 

[Mars Man]

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 problem is, once one is open to the possibility of a Creator, they've submitted to the idea of the super-natural (by human standards). They've already stepped into the problem of entertaining the out of the ordinary (naturalist realm).

This is false, however. ... There is no reason to have to accept any human created anthropomorphic, personified type something.

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'm not making a claim that one has to accept a personified something, which has been a point of mine all along. It would be the insistence that there is not an intelligent designer/creator involved, or that the, or possible designer/creator (we'll stick with that term for now) is some sort of force of nature that doesn't have any type of personality (the force be with you, etc.), or that a creator cannot be ascribed to one of the world's religions.

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?

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?

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.

That may be based on opinion, who you ask, etc.

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.

It could be taken up with various people who may make such a claim like the philosopher Antony Flew (although he's now deceased).

Flew says that he simply: 'had to go where the evidence leads.'[8] His atheism truly was provisional and 'subject to correction by further evidence and further argument. . .'[9] 'It speaks very well of Professor Flew's honesty,' observes America's pre-eminent philosopher of religion, Alvin Plantinga: 'After all these years of opposing the idea of a Creator, he reverses his position on the basis of the evidence.A Change of Mind for Antony Flew

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.

 

[Mars Man]

Can someone here tell be how having a non-functional sixth finger makes you a sex object?

Not quite sure of where you may have gone astray in your line of thinking, but you seem to have missed some important points along the way about sexual selection processes. Perhaps they'll come up later, I guess.

Actually, I decided to abandon the other thread because I saw our debate as a way of indirectly publicising a stupid book. And I have trouble not commenting on something if I actually read it.

I will agree with you that what has transpired on that thread, could be seen as off-topic, if the topic were the book alone. However, I am not sure of that (maybe I'll go back and check it out for clarity). We could, of course, move over quite comfortably from that particular thead to this one here--hoping the link works right, if you are interested, BrianLewis.

There are also times where reason flies out the window and people just start ranting. I'll abandon those threads too.

While I do think I understand your emotional drive here, and what you want to say, I'd like to point out a couple of things. The circumstance of 'reason flying out the window' should be left to mean exactly that; really. When a person refuses to reason though a sound and valid process, or
results what would otherwise be described as 'intellectual dishonesty, ' then I agree, we have a bit of a problem. Being unreasonable, however, does not, in and of itself, make one to be therefore 'ranting.' A person can rant while being fully reasonable. However, I do agree with the conclusion that far more often than not, what is often seen as 'ranting' reflects a high degree of absence of rational (thus reasonable) and sound and valid (thus reasonable) content. I would think that we two, then, at least, would want to avoid such.

 

[BrianLewis]

Not quite sure of where you may have gone astray in your line of thinking, but you seem to have missed some important points along the way about sexual selection processes. Perhaps they'll come up later, I guess.

Yeah, genetic mutation gives survivability and they then reproduce passing on genetic traits. That's what's being preached correct? My point being: In the real world, people view mutations to be unattractive. Tell me how these opposites mesh into a consistent theory. If we cherish genetic diversity so much - being great darwinistic thinkers here - why do people have surgery to remove a 6th finger or a tail? Shouldn't we embrace and encourage mutations?

 

[Mars Man]

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.

I wouldn't think that it was essentially genetic mutation, per se, which led to survivability, because with that line of reasoning, nothing survives until some genetic mutation has occurred. The process of change, which is what evolutionary theory is built on, is just that change. To what effect or outcome that change will have over time, will have to stand the test of time. Now, today, we only have this time, so it's hard to see the changes--although some have been seen; at least one, that I know of. However, with an array of data from biological studies and paleontological studies, as well as genetical studies, we can trace points of changes. Sometimes these are not so precise, but some times they are. I don't have time at this sitting to present any, but do plan on doing that over time.

Trust me, however, on that 6th finger. If the Neanderthals had developed the guitar by that time, and if those lady folks just loved that one rocker who could do those extra licks with such greater-than-Jimi-and-Stevie-put-together ease, then we might have a whole bunch of, if not only, working sixth finger folks walking around. Of course, it were like some non-performing-at-all-limb extension or craniopagus parasiticus-like matter, then nothing would have become of it. After all, peacocks do have their tails at a cost, and the cost did pay off in the long run.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

So some interesting points being raised.
Are evolution and creationism mutually exclusive - as pointed out above no they are not.

However - It is worth pointing out that if people were actively designed, they were designed very badly. Almost everything within the human body has some serious flaws. If you were going to design a Human - why on earth would you give it an Appendix?

As for arguing about how mutations need to provide a definitive benefit to be carried over - or else they would be deemed unattractive.
It's worth pointing out that Blue eyes, Blonde hair, Red Hair, Large breasts, Large penises, Wide hips etc. all came about as mutations.

So to say that people find mutations unattractive is just false.

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

Equally I find it most telling that of all the creation myths, (and lets call stories stories), all about how god creates all sorts of things, but doesn't create Time. Which seeing as people in the days when those books were written had no understanding of time. So when did god create Time?

well let's look at Genesis.
"In the Beginning there was the word"

no reference there to there being a word BEFORE the beginning. Which means the word / creator / god existed only after or at the beginning.
Which means it would not have been able to create the beginning, as it did not exist then

So Time existed before god - so God can't have created everything then eh.....