Reconciling Evolution & Faith

[KnightofChrist]

Natural selection in Darwinian Theory is left up to pure random chance. A intelligent designer cannot be part of the equation of such chance.

I've also heard of similar test, and they failed because in the end each 'life' on the computer had to be programed with a purpose.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1282708635' post='2162781']
Natural selection in Darwinian Theory is left up to pure random chance. A intelligent designer cannot be part of the equation of such chance.

I've also heard of similar test, and they failed because in the end each 'life' on the computer had to be programed with a purpose.
[/quote]

But the designer is shifting selection criteria in order to produce a different solution. Could the designer not shift this criteria with the purpose of intelligently achieving a specific design?

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1282708635' post='2162781']Natural selection in Darwinian Theory is left up to pure random chance.[/quote]The Theory of Evolution is [b]not[/b] a process left up to "[i]pure random chance[/i]"; my perspective coming from undergraduate studies to be a science major, taught by actual Scientists who are biologists, evolutionary biologists, and reading the text books relating to such. Not even Charles Darwin proposed natural selection was something of purely random chance. Perhaps you should consider enrolling in an actual class at a local community college or picking up a book from your local library, if your willing to propose it is purely "random", your not speaking of evolution.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1282709094' post='2162786']
The Theory of Evolution is [b]not[/b] a process left up to "[i]pure random chance[/i]"; my perspective coming from undergraduate studies to be a science major, taught by actual Scientists who are biologists, evolutionary biologists, and reading the text books relating to such. Not even Charles Darwin proposed natural selection was something of purely random chance. Perhaps you should consider enrolling in an actual class at a local community college or picking up a book from your local library, if your willing to propose it is purely "random", your not speaking of evolution.
[/quote]

There was no place for an Intelligent Designer in Darwin's Theory, it was left open to random chance, sorry buddy. This is why Darwinist hate Intelligent Design. More on this later. If I feel like it.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1282709531' post='2162792']There was no place for an Intelligent Designer in Darwin's Theory, it was left open to random chance, sorry buddy. This is why Darwinist hate Intelligent Design. More on this later. If I feel like it.[/quote]Intelligent Design is not science, in at least one of the court cases in the United States where these proponents of Intelligent Design kept insisting that it was science, in face of evidence that it wasn't, and total lack of evidence on their part to show that it was... the judge threatened to hold them in contempt of court if they continued to call it science without something to remotely consider it scientific.

If you are truly interested in debating against facts, I suggest at least finding a proper frame of reference and context, checkout from your local library "On the Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. I doubt you will find him describing his ideas concerning natural selection as "[i]purely random chance[/i]".

But no worries, nothing to be sorry about, I don't expect someone who is an advocate against science to be familiar with what scientific theory holds.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Mr.CatholicCat

[sixpence]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1282709531' post='2162792']
There was no place for an Intelligent Designer in Darwin's Theory, it was left open to random chance, sorry buddy. This is why Darwinist hate Intelligent Design. More on this later. If I feel like it.
[/quote]

you two are confusing the two parts of evolution:
1. mutation (pretty random) / crossing over (not so random)
2. selection pressure (very much not random)

[mommas_boy]

The problem here is that we should not be focusing on the random mutation, but rather the selection. To illustrate, here's a thought experiment.

Suppose that we have ten numbers, each between 1 and 10.

[code]
4 8 6 2 10 8 2 5 9 1 average=5.5
[/code]

We randomly choose 2, and add or subtract a random interger (1-10):

[code]
-1 8 6 5 10 8 2 5 9 1
[/code]

We select the five highest:

[code]
8 6 10 8 9
[/code]

... and allow them to "reproduce":

[code]
8 6 10 8 9 8 6 10 8 9 average=8.2
[/code]

Another iteration:

[code]
8 6 0 8 9 12 6 10 8 9
[/code]

[code]
8 9 12 10 9
[/code]

[code]
8 9 12 10 9 8 9 12 10 9 average=9.6
[/code]

As you can see, the act of [b]selecting[/b] is what provides the most power -- not the mutations. In fact, if I were to continue to select the five highest numbers, without mutating at all, the average would steadily rise until it reached 12 (all ten numbers would eventually equal 12). In this instance, it's me pulling the strings, and defining the selection criteria. I'm the intelligence. I designed the selection criteria to evolve a set of ten numbers that grew progressively larger. I could also design selection criteria that evolved a set of ten numbers that grew progressively more negative.

Why can't God be the one pulling the strings behind natural selection? Random mutations be damned ... I was able to leave mutations up to chance and still design my set of ten numbers that had a higher average than what I started with. I was able to "bring order out of chaos" -- to control random chance. Surely God can do the same with something more complicated.

[KnightofChrist]

It is know as Methodological naturalism, and it is a big part of Darwinian Theory.

"Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism

For this reason Intelligent Design is greatly frowned upon.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='mommas_boy' timestamp='1282710572' post='2162800']Why can't God be the one pulling the strings behind natural selection? Random mutations be damned ... I was able to leave mutations up to chance and still design my set of ten numbers that had a higher average than what I started with. I was able to "bring order out of chaos" -- to control random chance. Surely God can do the same with something more complicated.[/quote]Hopefully not seeming obtuse, perhaps because NATURAL selection, is regarding NATURE selecting. Unless you are willing to concede that God is a tinkerer, always modifying always adjusting, in such a sloppy process over billions of years... that God is nature.

[sixpence]

PS~ The Origin of the Species is sitting next to my bed (with Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and the Godless Delusion) if anyone needs me to look anything up in these

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1282710843' post='2162806']
PS~ The Origin of the Species is sitting next to my bed (with Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and the Godless Delusion) if anyone needs me to look anything up in these
[/quote]

I have my own copy but thanks.

[sixpence]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1282710688' post='2162803']
It is know as Methodological naturalism, and it is a big part of Darwinian Theory.

"Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses." [url="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism"]http://rationalwiki....ical_naturalism[/url]

For this reason Intelligent Design is greatly frowned upon.
[/quote]

are you suggesting that when a scientist is attempting to find a logical, defendable, testable explanation for a phenomenon, he should just throw up his hands in defeat when the answer is not immediately apparent and attribute the phenomenon to supernatural causes? you are not in a disagreement with evolution, you are in a disagreement with the purpose of scientific research...

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1282711090' post='2162808']
are you suggesting that when a scientist is attempting to find a logical, defendable, testable explanation for a phenomenon, he should just throw up his hands in defeat when the answer is not immediately apparent and attribute the phenomenon to supernatural causes? you are not in a disagreement with evolution, you are in a disagreement with the purpose of scientific research...
[/quote]

The supernatural should not be avoid completely. But that is just what many Darwinist demand. Only purely natural causes for lifes Origins to are be studied. Design from a higher or supernatural intelligence is never fruitful according to a Methodological naturalists, Darwin was clearly such a naturalist.

Edited August 25, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[sixpence]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1282711374' post='2162810']
The supernatural should not be avoid completely. But that is just what many Darwinist demand. Only purely natural causes for lifes Origins to are be studied. Design from a higher or supernatural intelligence rather than random chance is never fruitful according to a Methodological naturalists, which Darwin clearly was.
[/quote]

I am not saying that, in truth, God is not involved in the everyday working of His Creation; I am saying that science, by its definition, cannot test/prove supernatural causes, and therefore has nothing to say about the supernatural. A good scientist cannot confirm or deny anything that is not testable. A good scientist will not refute creationism and/or intelligent design; he will simply be able to tell you it is not within the realm of science

edit for typo

Edited August 25, 2010 by sixpence

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1282710793' post='2162804']
Hopefully not seeming obtuse, perhaps because NATURAL selection, is regarding NATURE selecting. Unless you are willing to concede that God is a tinkerer, always modifying always adjusting, in such a sloppy process over billions of years... that God is nature.
[/quote]

I do not profess that God is nature. I do profess that God controls nature. Hence, it is God performing the selection through his instrument, nature. The same way that I performed my selection through my instrument of the numbers.

Edited August 25, 2010 by mommas_boy