Is Labeling Evolution as Just a Theory in Textbooks a Reasonable Approach?

[baywax]

1. This doesn't disqualify the question. Because if life was indeed designed an intelligence would have been required.

"If" indeed... like I've already said, ID, (like "god"), are unproven hypotheses... its one big "if" with no substantial or even "intelligent" evidence being offered to prove it. Whereas natural selection (not only in life, but of the behaviours of energy and matter) has proven to hold many answers to how life and the rest of the universe got their start and are formed today.

2. The proof to a purpose is the fact that life actually does "survive". What caused nonliving matter to arrange itself to become living organisms? And why would those living organisms try to survive? To me it suggests purpose. There is no logical mechanism that propels this activity.

This is like asking what made energy form light or matter. These questions are being studied as we speak. If people don't have the patience to wait or the curiosity to study nature themselves to find out... they can always make up a source of intelligent design.

 

[NeoDevin]

I just watched the Ben Stein movie "Expelled".

I watched it too, after that we watched http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_Strippers" , I learned more from the second one.

I found it interesting. Biased but interesting.

I understand the movie was extremely biased but it makes some intriguing points worthy of open debate.

Biased is not quite the word I would use. "Incredibly misleading", "intentionally dishonest", "Lying pile of ****" are more accurate. See http://www.expelledexposed.com/" for more details.

Their are many accomplished highly esteemed intelligent scientists who question Darwinism.

The fact that you refer to evolution as "Darwinism" as if it were some sort of cult is very telling. Darwin was wrong about a great many of the details of the process, but he had the basic idea right. Since his time the theory has been tested, used to make (successful) predictions (like locations and time lines of fossils, which were later found), and modified to fit new evidence (genetics, gene transfer, and, more recently, epigenetics).

He makes the point that whether wrong or right,

No, he tries to claim that the theory of evolution has serious flaws... And the entire second half of the movie would make Godwin proud.

the questions should not be silenced. I tend to agree.

Intelligent design hasn't so much been expelled, as it has flunked out. There are many individuals (Discovery Institute for one) attempting to come up with some reasonable bit of science supporting their ID conclusion, they failed on the science part, so they switch to propaganda.

Darwin titled his book "Origin of Species". But could not, of course, determine an origin of a species. Noone has.

I don't know if this is ignorance, or just a lie on your part.

Putting together at least 250 particular proteins (how are proteins created in a sterile environment?) in a particular way in a particular order in perfect conditins to create a living cell and then then that cell being able to survice and replicate, deviate, evolve...

Yes, because that's the leading abiogenesis hypothesis... proteins just magically appeared and configured into a cell. Evolution is a mathematical fact for anything which reproduces with variation, if the variation affects the chances of further reproduction (assuming certain conditions on the rates of reproduction/variation). Which means that a cell is not required for evolution. A simple self replicating molecule will suffice. Such a molecule could eventually evolve into what we know as a cell. The cell is not the simplest form of self replicating system.

This is why ID looks like a viable theory.

You think you've found a flaw in the theory of evolution (which you haven't)... therefore "goddidit!" Brilliant! Why didn't I think of it. A negative argument for evolution is not an argument for ID. That would be like saying "Newton wasn't right about gravity... therefore fairies hold us down" (do you see the flaw in this logic?) There is not one single positive piece of evidence for ID.

There are just too many questions that aren't allowed to be asked. This is the question that doesn't have a satisfactory answer.

Please clarify exactly which questions aren't allowed to be asked, and which questions don't have a satisfactory answer?

Edited to add: Remember, Ben Stein is the man who said "Science leads to killing people".

 

[drankin]

"If" indeed... like I've already said, ID, (like "god"), are unproven hypotheses... its one big "if" with no substantial or even "intelligent" evidence being offered to prove it. Whereas natural selection (not only in life, but of the behaviours of energy and matter) has proven to hold many answers to how life and the rest of the universe got their start and are formed today.



This is like asking what made energy form light or matter. These questions are being studied as we speak. If people don't have the patience to wait or the curiosity to study nature themselves to find out... they can always make up a source of intelligent design.

Look, the question that is not proven or even explained is, "how did LIFE begin?". Evolution does not explain this. Evolution is a theory of how life, after the fact, mutates and developes into species. Evolution, suggests that over millions of years life on Earth as we know it, now exists. It's a good theory. It makes sense. But it doesn't answer the question we all want to know the answer to.

It cannot even touch on how life began. Show me the data on how this happened! Show me some good theory! Where is the science? This is an answer to a question that cannot even be asked without the baggage of religion. It's taboo. Is there funded research that even explores the question? If there is I would like to know. But I suspect that there is not any serious science focused on this because of the "religious" association. It's a question that is not allowed. What the hell?

 

[drankin]

I watched it too, after that we watched http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_Strippers" , I learned more from the second one.


Biased is not quite the word I would use. "Incredibly misleading", "intentionally dishonest", "Lying pile of ****" are more accurate. See http://www.expelledexposed.com/" for more details.

The fact that you refer to evolution as "Darwinism" as if it were some sort of cult is very telling. Darwin was wrong about a great many of the details of the process, but he had the basic idea right. Since his time the theory has been tested, used to make (successful) predictions (like locations and time lines of fossils, which were later found), and modified to fit new evidence (genetics, gene transfer, and, more recently, epigenetics).

No, he tries to claim that the theory of evolution has serious flaws... And the entire second half of the movie would make Godwin proud.

Intelligent design hasn't so much been expelled, as it has flunked out. There are many individuals (Discovery Institute for one) attempting to come up with some reasonable bit of science supporting their ID conclusion, they failed on the science part, so they switch to propaganda.

I don't know if this is ignorance, or just a lie on your part.

Yes, because that's the leading abiogenesis hypothesis... proteins just magically appeared and configured into a cell. Evolution is a mathematical fact for anything which reproduces with variation, if the variation affects the chances of further reproduction (assuming certain conditions on the rates of reproduction/variation). Which means that a cell is not required for evolution. A simple self replicating molecule will suffice. Such a molecule could eventually evolve into what we know as a cell. The cell is not the simplest form of self replicating system.

You think you've found a flaw in the theory of evolution (which you haven't)... therefore "goddidit!" Brilliant! Why didn't I think of it. A negative argument for evolution is not an argument for ID. That would be like saying "Newton wasn't right about gravity... therefore fairies hold us down" (do you see the flaw in this logic?) There is not one single positive piece of evidence for ID.

Please clarify exactly which questions aren't allowed to be asked, and which questions don't have a satisfactory answer?

Edited to add: Remember, Ben Stein is the man who said "Science leads to killing people".

Refering to your last question... my previous post.

NeoDevin, I'm not arguig for ID. I can't. I'm asking the question, "where did life begin?". I suspect that this is not a science that is even allowed to be seriously pursued.

Come on, give me something to chew on. Give me some data.

 

[NeoDevin]

Evolution does not explain [how life began].

Nor does it try to. Evolution only applies once there is reproduction with variation. That's sort of like claiming that neurology doesn't explain the formation of stars.

Evolution is a theory of how life, after the fact, mutates and developes into species.

Quite right.

But [evolution] doesn't answer the question we all want to know the answer to.

Who's "we all"?

Show me some good theory! Where is the science?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models" isn't a valid scientific reference, but this article appears to be well cited, and gives a good overview of some of the likely candidates (which are being investigated).

This is an answer to a question that cannot even be asked without the baggage of religion. It's taboo.

As evidenced by all the research cited in the wikipedia article, it's clearly not taboo. This is a lie promoted by the ID proponents. They're upset because their idea of ID didn't pan out. They couldn't find any supporting evidence, and no one will fund them. A child throwing a tantrum after being told "don't pull on the cat's tail", and complaining that the parents won't let him do anything.

Is there funded research that even explores the question? If there is I would like to know.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/72ulpx8362t840n7/" is one example. You can get the first page in the free preview, but the full text requires subscription.

But I suspect that there is not any serious science focused on this because of the "religious" association. It's a question that is not allowed. What the hell?

As I have just shown: You're wrong, there are plenty of scientists working on this. It's my favourite area of biology (even though I'm a physicist). For most scientists working in the field, there isn't much religious association to worry about (except the backlash from the uneducated public for finding an alternate explanation to "goddidit"). The people who bring the baggage to the table are those who have already decided on the answer based on their particular holy book.

 

[drankin]

Nor does it try to. Evolution only applies once there is reproduction with variation. That's sort of like claiming that neurology doesn't explain the formation of stars.

Quite right.

Who's "we all"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models" isn't a valid scientific reference, but this article appears to be well cited, and gives a good overview of some of the likely candidates (which are being investigated).

As evidenced by all the research cited in the wikipedia article, it's clearly not taboo. This is a lie promoted by the ID proponents. They're upset because their idea of ID didn't pan out. They couldn't find any supporting evidence, and no one will fund them. A child throwing a tantrum after being told "don't pull on the cat's tail", and complaining that the parents won't let him do anything.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/72ulpx8362t840n7/" is one example. You can get the first page in the free preview, but the full text requires subscription.

As I have just shown: You're wrong, there are plenty of scientists working on this. It's my favourite area of biology (even though I'm a physicist). For most scientists working in the field, there isn't much religious association to worry about (except the backlash from the uneducated public for finding an alternate explanation to "goddidit"). The people who bring the baggage to the table are those who have already decided on the answer based on their particular holy book.

Ok, Neo, I'm interested.

I don't understand much of what I read, but it sounds like there some research on the origin of life! I'm wrong! I've been snookered a bit by the movie. You seem to know something about the biology. Are there some conclusions that can be drawn from the research as of yet?

 

[arunma]

arunma: You seem to think that I'm a scientist ("When we, as scientists..."). That's not true; I'm simply a science enthusiast who trusts objective evidence over unfounded speculation. If I damaged the reputation of the scientists here, I apologize; the opinions I express here are my own, and should not be considered those of the scientific community.

I don't think you damaged the reputation of any scientists. There are quite a few scientists who practice a religious science-based atheism, who do most of the harm. Richard Dawkins is a prime example of how I think the issue of evolution should not be approached.

That said, I see that I have to clarify what I meant by "brainwashing" and "throwing the world into a dark age". Instilling a belief in a person using dishonesty by excluding evidence to the contrary IS brainwashing. It's not a pretty word, but it is very accurate in this case.

Let's get a reality check, here. Following is a definition of brainwashing that I found on dictionary.com:

1. a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs, originated in totalitarian countries, esp. through the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques.
2. any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, esp. one based on repetition or confusion: brainwashing by TV commercials.

Obviously definition 1 doesn't fit. And definition 2 is quite a stretch. Creationist scientists are liars, but they aren't practicing controlled indoctrination. The people who come to their seminars, museums, etc. are all coming of their own free will and are not under any coersion. As the definition itself suggests, we can only call creationism brainwashing in the same sense that, say, TV political ads are brainwashing. Use the term if you insist, but I think it has the wrong connotation here.

As for the possibility of a dark age, the stats regarding Americans' scientific beliefs are worrying, to say the least, and they hardly bode well for the future. As a Canadian, I'm also deeply worried that a large percentage of high-school students here consider evolution and Big Bang to be silly beliefs, and not accurate models of the universe. That is hardly an encouraging sign.

No it isn't encouraging, but there are a lot of factors in play here, and creationism is only one of them. Other factors probably include bad teachers, science-weak curricula, and (I'll get in trouble for this one) a strong emphasis on high school athletics. If everything religious people learn about evolution comes from Richard Dawkins, of course they're going to think that it's part of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy. I share your concern about the future of American (and Canadian) science education. So let's do something about it and get more science taught in high schools.

Creationism certainly isn't helping things, but dark ages can come about without it. See your average African or Southeast Asian third world nation.

I'm surprised that you think my posts contained fear tactics. Portraying creationism as harmful is hardly a "fear tactic"; using that logic, saying that anything holds back progress would also be a "fear tactic". And "emotional appeals"? If my support of objectivity appeals to your emotions, that's great, but it was intended solely as a logical argument.

I apologize if I insinuated that your post was comprised of fear tactics or emotional appeals. I mentioned them only because I find that many proponents of evolution use these rhetorical devices even as they attack creationists who do the same thing.

An example please?

At the risk of getting involved in the religious debate I hoped to avoid...

An excellent example of this is The Bacchae, a comedy of Euripides from 405 BC about the Greek god Dionysus. If I remember correctly, back in undergrad I ownd a textbook which claimed the following,

1.) Dionysus' initial rejection by his own family parallels Jesus' rejection at Nazareth as recorded in the Gospels.
2.) Dionysus' revelation of himself resembles Jesus' resurrection from death.
3.) The havoc that Dionysus wreaks on the city of Thebes resembles the second coming of Christ as recorded in the book of Revelation.

The idea is that the Gospels are fantasies that were written with this play in mind. Fortunately I was also required to read the actual play. There are several problems here, many of which become apparent if you read the primary source. First, the theme of rejection by family is so widespread in literature that the claim of forgery on this basis is spurious. Heck, read your average Vietnam vet's biography and you'll probably find exactly the same theme. Secondly, Dionysus' revelation of himself occurs in the context of him breaking out of the king's prison; it's a very weak comparison to bodily resurrection. As for the third claim, I fail to see how a bunch of women going insane, committing strange sexual acts, and killing the king is anything like what's described in the book of Revelation.

This is an example of a comparison of Jesus to other gods which turns out to be very poor upon examination of the primary source. I imagine if I started reading myths about Horus I'd find the same thing. But do you see how this is similar to creationist deceptions? This theory has been purported so many times that people simply assume it to be true without examining the evidence for themselves.

They have shown various holdiays in christianity (christmas for example) to come from pagan festivals, in order to ease the implementation of a new religion by a new ruling power. Depending where you read in the bible christ was supposedly born on many dates, with different christian sects celebrating on different days. The 25th was simply chosen as it aligned with a holdiay the people already had (I'll look up an example now).

It's widely known that Christmas is a made-up holiday. It is also not one of the most ancient holidays of Christianity, but rather a later add-on. Demonstrating the non-Christian origin of Christmas does nothing to support the idea that the Bible is a forgery based on Greek or Egyptian myths. Perhaps you'll want to better define what you mean when you say that Christianity is based on older religions. Do you mean that modern Christianity has been syncretized with other religions? Or do you mean that the historical accounts of Jesus are in fact mythology based on older mythology?

Furthermore, I'm not sure why you said that "depending on where you read in the Bible Christ was supposedly born on many dates." The Bible gives no specific date at all. But for what it's worth, based on circumstancial evidence scholars have a pretty wide consensus of April as being close to the true date of his birth.

Here is a link to a Christian website, read the first few paragraphs and it explains exactly how christmas isn't a christian festival and was adopted from paganism:
http://www.loughbrickland.org/articles/mass-easter.shtml

You say people who make claims christianity is linked to other religions give "academically-poor" arguments, yet here is a site from the religion itself which disagrees with your claim. Why would the christians argue it as well? If these aspects are tuly christians as you imply by the above statement, it doesn't make sense for them to argue against thems does it? So I think you should re-think your claim of the arguments being academically poor.

See my earlier comments on why the issue of Christmas is a red herring. But might I suggest that we wrap this conversation up soon before the thread gets closed. We do have that pesky rule on religious debates to worry about.

 

[NeoDevin]

Ok, Neo, I'm interested.

I don't understand much of what I read, but it sounds like there some research on the origin of life! I'm wrong! I've been snookered a bit by the movie. You seem to know something about the biology. Are there some conclusions that can be drawn from the research as of yet?

As I mentioned in my previous post, I'm a physicist, not a biologist or a chemist (though I'm going into medical physics, so I'll probably learn a lot of both over the next year). There are no definitive answers on exactly which chemical process lead to life, but there are a number of plausible candidates.

The basic idea is this: Prebiotic Earth had oceans that were basically a soup of organic molecules. Through some (as of yet) undetermined process a chemical, which could self replicate in these conditions was formed. Perhaps by single fortunate spark/lightning strike... this is where Stein gets his "lightning striking a mud puddle" idea, perhaps as a product of a thermal vent. It could have happened anywhere that the energy available is significantly higher than the "background" energy of the ocean. Note that by "self replicating" here what I actually mean is that it's a chemical which catalyses it's own formation from the available chemicals, either directly or indirectly (say chemical A causes the formation of chemical B, which in turn causes the formation of more A). There are candidates of both types which are plausible in what scientists believe the prebiotic environment was like. Remember that it would (theoretically) only take one single self-replicating molecule to evolve into life. So despite how unlikely it is (it may not even be very unlikely given the right conditions), given sufficient time, it was bound to happen.

You can check out the http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html" on the subject, which is written more to a lay-audience.

I'm heading to bed now, I'll try to answer any more questions you have on the subject tomorrow.

PS. I wasn't lying about what he http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHUmiwoO2uQ".

 

[vivesdn]

So despite how unlikely it is (it may not even be very unlikely given the right conditions), given sufficient time, it was bound to happen.

This is the key idea both for origin of life and for evolution.
As self-replication when we adddress organisms is not perfect, those 'copies' that replicate more or maintain replication on difficult conditions will increase in number over those that replicate less. When you understand that life works in this way (self-replication), evolution is just a consequence.

Given enough time, all ecologic space is to be filled.
The exact species is a matter of probability and opportunity.
What Darwin did not know is that there are by far more and powerful mechanisms than his punctual mutations (which of course play also a role).

 

[D H]

I don't understand much of what I read, but it sounds like there some research on the origin of life! I'm wrong! I've been snookered a bit by the movie.

Yep, you were snookered. The movie is pushing a "god of the gaps" argument, which is just a variant of the argument from ignorance logical fallacy. The problem with any god of the gaps argument is that science keeps filling in the gaps. Science has been working on filling in the gap between non-life and life for quite some time.

Some on-line references on the subject:

1. Astrobiology Magazine. http://www.astrobio.net/ An amazing site. The origin of life is one of their hot topics. An index of articles on the origin of life: http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_hottopic&id=25.

2. NASA's Astrobiology Program. http://astrobiology.nasa.gov. NASA is funding a lot of the work in this field. This is the website that covers that work.

3. AstroBiology.com. http://www.astrobiology.com/. Not nearly as good as the above two, but that is because Astrobiology Magazine is phenomenal and because the NASA site is paid for with your tax dollars.

4. Astrobiology Journal. http://www.liebertonline.com/ast. Peer-reviewed journal on the subject. Subscription required.

5. Panda's Thumb. http://pandasthumb.org A "voice for the defenders of the integrity of science". This site covers the movie Expelled extensively at http://pandasthumb.org/archives/expelled/ .


In print:

A fairly recent (2006) lay overview of the subject is the book "Gen·e·sis: The Scientific Quest for Life’s Origin" by Robert M. Hazen.

 

[JaredJames]

arunma, at what point did I specify what part of christianity is made of other religions?

let me answer that for you, I didn't.

I simply stated "We already know religions like christianity are based heavily on older religions, so how do we know what truth, if any, there is to a book such as the bible?".

As in, given the lack of evidence for pretty much everything in the bible and the fact we know they took aspects of other religions, how can we be sure there is any truth at all in the bible. You then said that all claims such as this gave "academically-poor at best" arguments. Blanketing my statement as incorrect. I did not say all claims were true, just that there are 'aspects' which are taken from various other religions. I suggest we leave this rest, I will not descend into an argument of religion with anybody. If you want to believe in the great pixie in the sky than that's up to you, don't try and convince me it must exist because of some book with a serious lack of evidence. If you want proof of why the bible (or any religious text should be ignored), write a book on a scientific hypothesis which contradicts itself in places, has no evidence what-so-ever to back it up and 'borrows' from other just as far fetched hypothesis' (again with contradiction and no evidence). Submit it for review and see how long it takes for you to become the laughing stock by all but just a few. If you want to know how easily people can be swayed into believing something google 'scientology'. Don't come at me with an argument that something exists/must be true if you cannot provide one shred of evidence to back up these claims. No Evidence, No Belief - Scientific or Otherwise.

Right back to the OP. This thread is on evolution not origins of life, as I pointed out earlier. Evolution is a proven theory with strong evidence to back it up, over the billions of years there has been life here. So firstly, Earth as 6000 years old is out the window.
Just because there is no scientific evidence to prove the current hypothesis' for the origins of ilfe, doesn't mean there never will be. Religion says to give up and just accept god did it. Now, this lack of evidence is not proof there is an all powerful gor or creator. In my opinion, I find it far more likely that life comes down to random chance billions of years ago than some intelligent designer (brining the question of who creates the creator?). The reason religion doesn't come into the exploration of the beginning of life is because it has NO evidence and therefore NO standing with it. When your house burns down, and the fire department look for the cause, they don't spend hours looking to see if 'god did it' to spite you do they? Because it just isn't pausible. Yes, science doesn't discount a creator, but it also can find no proof for it. I would rather wait until they can come up with a concrete answer to the question of 'how did life begin?' whether it's some random chance OR an intelligent creator, but I want the facts. To simply assume the latter now with no proof is plain foolish in my opinion. If we take the religious stance, we should just stop all research and accept that 'god did it' and spend all our time worshipping it. You cannot argue a god exists just because we can't explain something yet.

(And for the record, just because current origin of life hypothesis' may not work or haven't been studied enough, doesn't mean they all won't and we won't eventually come up with an answer, Rome wasn't built in a day). And yes, we ARE currently studying to find the orgins of life and the universe (uh I don't know, little place called CERN springs to mind).

 

[Hurkyl]

So despite how unlikely it is (it may not even be very unlikely given the right conditions), given sufficient time, it was bound to happen.

Given enough time, all ecologic space is to be filled.

The two of you are essentially making an $\infty \cdot 0$ error -- putting "incredibly unlikely event" together with "incredible amount of time to happen" gives you "no information". We need more information before we can seriously make claims like "given enough time, abiogenesis is bound to occur on Earth/some planet".

Even if you assume a universe that exists for an infinite amount of time, you still have no guarantee that abiogenesis is a probability 1 event: in a universe dying a heat death, the odds of abiogenesis will be sharply decreasing over time, which could (depending on the actual numbers) lead to abiogenesis having probability less than 1.

 

[Hurkyl]

If we take the religious stance, we should just stop all research and accept that 'god did it' and spend all our time worshipping it.

This really is a false dichotomy. Believing that 'God did it' does not preclude one from studying the way in which it was done, or the mechanisms God used to do it. A religion requires one to accept the tenets of its faith, but most do not forbid the use of science to flesh out the details. (e.g. to shed light on the question "is Genesis allegorical or literal?" in Christianity)

 

[JaredJames]

This really is a false dichotomy. Believing that 'God did it' does not preclude one from studying the way in which it was done, or the mechanisms God used to do it. A religion requires one to accept the tenets of its faith, but most do not forbid the use of science to flesh out the details. (e.g. to shed light on the question "is Genesis allegorical or literal?" in Christianity)

Does it not? Really? People being persecuted for their beliefs in science years ago and today. Go to the really religious places in America and try to get them to accept the FACTS of evolution (Richard Dawkins went to one and met the head of the church there, he mentioned evolution and the guy erupted in anger saying things like 'are you calling us animals?'. I'll let you make your mind up on that one). Yes there are scientists who try to understand why things are and are religious, fair enough, but I don't see the catholic church spending their money on research into life and its beginnings. They just accept god did it. And they expect everyone to believe what they are told as fact and then donate money and property to them for telling them what can only be described as stories and tell them to not use things like condoms. There is no sense in telling people things like this, supporting it with statements like it helps spread HIV and Aids. And on top of that, do they realize the world is becoming ever more overpopulated and telling people to keep going is ridiculous? Anyway I digress. The moment you say "we don't know the answer and therefore god must have done it" you are effectively giving up. That is what religions do, they expect you to take on blind faith what they say is the word of god.
Anyone seen this before? It's my background:
http://www.dbskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/the-scientific-method.jpg

 

[WaveJumper]

Science doesn't say if there is God or not. Only atheists and theists 'know' if there is God or not.

Why do people always seem to be attracted to extremes?

 

[WaveJumper]

The movie is pushing a "god of the gaps" argument, which is just a variant of the argument from ignorance logical fallacy. The problem with any god of the gaps argument is that science keeps filling in the gaps. Science has been working on filling in the gap between non-life and life for quite some time.

You aren't aware of your own ignorance. You think science has explained more than 1% of what we want to know?

Or do you assume science has already explained most of what is fundamentally important?

Even if, in 30 000 years science explains everything, how does that preclude a creator of the universe?

Existence requires an explanation. Within the atheist sect it might be totally unimportant, but there is a portion of the people who don't take everything at face value. We want to reach deeper than the blatantly obvious. We want to know everything, not just a narrow-minded outlook on reality that fails to explain a ton of very weird occurrences. Even if there is no God, We want to know what the system is that everything adheres to in this universe that makes possible its existence and the sustainability of life for billions of years. We don't see God in some gaps of knowledge, we see a possibility of some type of God/intelligence behind everything, including the sentences you are typing. We cannot rule that out, no one can, except the forever ignorant. We sometimes(including me) assume there is no god, but at the end of the day, it's still an assumption.

Evolution is pretty much a solid fact, the Earth is not 6000 years old but we cannot exclude the possibility of god being a team of scientists experimenting with Big Bangs from some other medium, or god being a software designer, or some other totally unknown and inconceivable phenomenon.

 

[JaredJames]

You aren't aware of your own ignorance. You think science has explained more than 1% of what we want to know?

Or do you assume science has already explained most of what is fundamentally important?

Even if, after 30 000 years science explains everything, how does that preclude a creator of the universe?

Existence requires an explanation. Within the atheist sect it might be totally unimportant, but there is a portion of the people who don't take everything at face value. We want to reach deeper than the blatantly obvious. We want to know everything, not just a narrow-minded outlook on reality that fails to explain a ton of weird occurences.

Firstly, I make no claim about what science has and hasn't explained, I simply point out that science provides evidence for its claims whereas religion does not. To say there ust be a creator without any proof is just ridiculous, and so is saying there isn't one. I just see no evidence that there is one. And no one has provided me any. So therefore I can't justify a belief in a creator. And who creates the creator? If everything is by random chance then at least you don't nd up with this infinite paradox.

Secondly, science has the fundamentals down pretty well, however if science explains everything, you would then know if there was a creator or not. A contradictory statement if I've ever seen one, it would not preclude anything, if there is evidence for let's say the creation of the universe and the origins of life, ther is then no requirement for a creator.

Thridly, why is it unimportant to the atheist? Why is an atheist narrow minded? To simply view religion is to be narrow minded, to simply view science is narrow minded, but given there is NO EVIDENCE for any religious claims, to disregard it is perfectly reasonable. In all the years that religion has been going, no one has provided any reliable evidence for its claims.

 

[WaveJumper]

Secondly, science has the fundamentals down pretty well, however if science explains everything, you would then know if there was a creator or not.

This is a good forum to learn that science cannot explain everything. Ask any scientist, any physicist on here. Science isn't all powerful, science isn't religion(although atheists tend to turn science into a religious shelter). We cannot explain everything, not ever. It's a religious belief, an utopia.

Thridly, why is it unimportant to the atheist? Why is an atheist narrow minded?

If you say - "I don't believe in God/I don't think there is a God", that'd be a fair statement. If you say "Those who believe in some intelligence behind the existence of reality are crazy/stupid" you become narrow-minded. You dismiss this opportunity by making a largely unfounded assumption that there cannot be(or shouldn't be) a certain type of creator.

 

[WaveJumper]

And who creates the creator? If everything is by random chance then at least you don't nd up with this infinite paradox.

But you still end up with a paradox of a different kind. Reality and existence are paradoxical, without a creator the existence of reality is even more paradoxical. It's just that atheism is blinding and comforting at the same time, preventing you from seeing the inherent paradox in all scenarios.

 

[JaredJames]

This is a good forum to learn that science cannot explain everything. Ask any scientist, any physicist on here. Science isn't all powerful, science isn't religion(although atheists tend to turn science into a religious shelter). We cannot explain everything, not ever. It's a religious belief, an utopia.

I never said science could explain everything, you said "if science was to explain everything". I simply responded to that 'if' scenario. As unlikely as it is, how do you know science can't explain everything? Perhaps one day we will be able to explain everything (unlikely, but no less likely than there being a god). If there is a creator, what would stop us learning enough to become on parr? To know 'everything' if you like. If one 'being' can do it, why can't we. You see, this type of argument is continuous and open so many hypothetical scenarios, none more plausible than the other. Claim all you like about religion but claims are NOT evidence.

If you say - "I don't believe in God", that'd be a fair statement. If you say "Those who believe in some intelligence behind the existence of reality are crazy/stupid" you become narrow-minded. You dismiss this opportunity by making a largely unfounded assumption that there cannot be(or shouldn't be) a certain type of creator.

I agree, I never said that. I suppose as much of an atheist I consider myself, if something really amazing happened (a miracle basically) I may change my mind (possibly agnostic), but it would take something mindblowing.

My problem is that religous people attack science with the argument that science can't accept that there was nothing before, it can't accept infinity. Yet they then claim there is a creator, now no one has answered the question, what creates the creator? Your paradoxical argument doesn't stand for me. Random chance does not lead to an endless chain of creators. There is evidence for science, there is no evidence for religious beliefs. If you want to believe in the great pixie in the sky go for it, but don't try and argue science unless you have facts to back it up.

 

[JaredJames]

As much as I would love to debate this with you, (I really do like a good debate, particularly on religion), I find myself spending far too much time on this thread and subject. So although I may drop in from time to time and give responses, I may not be here as much as I have. I think my viewpoint is clear. Until you can prove it, don't make wild claims.

 

[ideasrule]

I agree, I never said that. I suppose as much of an atheist I consider myself, if something really amazing happened (a miracle basically) I may change my mind (possibly agnostic), but it would take something mindblowing.

I wouldn't even require anything mindblowing. Religious people say science can't explain everything, but the day that any religion can explain any natural phenomenon unknown to the people 2000 years ago, I will convert to that religion on the spot. The explanation does not need to be airtight; it does not need to withhold the scrutiny of the entire scientific community for 150 years (something which the theory of evolution has done); it does not need to explain as much about the natural world as evolution, Big Bang, relativity, quantum mechanics, and many other scientific theories have.

Example: if I find that the Bible says "the planets orbit the sun in ellipses and the force between them falls as the square of the distance" or "the speed of light is the same for every observer", I'll convert to Christianity immediately.

 

[WaveJumper]

As unlikely as it is, how do you know science can't explain everything?

We are within what we are trying to describe. We can never know for certain if all that could exist lies within the universe. We can only assume it on various grounds but it is by no means 100% certain and it's a severe limitation. If we don't know this, how can we know what existence really is? We can't know if we have free will, we assume we do, but that's also untestable.

If there is a creator, what would stop us learning enough to become on parr?

Theoretically we can become what we now imagine God to be. The universe is an endless ocean of energy, there is potential, but the road is thorny. Even a teaspoon of vacuum energy is theorized to contain more energy than the most powerful nuclear bomb.

To know 'everything' if you like. If one 'being' can do it, why can't we. You see, this type of argument is continuous and open so many hypothetical scenarios, none more plausible than the other. Claim all you like about religion but claims are NOT evidence.

What religion are you referring to? When physicists are talking about god, more often than not, they don't refer to any religion.

My problem is that religous people attack science with the argument that science can't accept that there was nothing before, it can't accept infinity. Yet they then claim there is a creator, now no one has answered the question, what creates the creator?

Is this the only thing you don't know about what you experience as reality and universe?

Your paradoxical argument doesn't stand for me. Random chance does not lead to an endless chain of creators.

Your random chance that can explain everything is an imaginary concept. No one, not a single person on the planet knows if randomness exists at all. It makes sense that the particles in the Standard Model have the values they do because of "Random chance"?

There is evidence for science, there is no evidence for religious beliefs. If you want to believe in the great pixie in the sky go for it, but don't try and argue science unless you have facts to back it up.

You are not authorised to speak on behalf of science. You are authorised to speak on behalf of yourself and your fellow atheists. Science is about explaining what is testable. This does NOT mean that everything is testable.

 

[D H]

You aren't aware of your own ignorance.

You need to look in a mirror.

The term "god-of-the-gaps" originated with a Christian evangelical over 100 years ago. A Christian web site, http://www.theopedia.com/God_of_the_Gaps, says this about this style of argumentation:

God of the Gaps arguments are a discredited and outmoded approach to apologetics, in which a gap in scientific knowledge is used as evidence for the existence of God.​

The fallacy of argument from ignorance, aka argument to ignorance, aka appeal to ignorance, aka argumentum ad ignorantiam, was known to the ancients. Arguing that because science has no hard evidence of how life arose invalidates abiogenesis or evolution is fallacious. This is an argument from ignorance. Arguing that because science cannot prove that a supreme being does not exist means that a supreme being does exist is also an argument from ignorance. In both cases, the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises.

 

[WaveJumper]

I wouldn't even require anything mindblowing. Religious people say science can't explain everything, but the day that any religion can explain any natural phenomenon unknown to the people 2000 years ago, I will convert to that religion on the spot.

Look beyond the blatantly obvious. Why is an explanation possible? What makes this possible? Why is there something to be explained? And why is there someone to explain it?

 

[Emanresu56]

Existence requires an explanation.

No, it doesn't. Humans only desire explanations.

 

[WaveJumper]

You need to look in a mirror.

The term "god-of-the-gaps" originated with a Christian evangelical over 100 years ago. A Christian web site, http://www.theopedia.com/God_of_the_Gaps, says this about this style of argumentation:

God of the Gaps arguments are a discredited and outmoded approach to apologetics, in which a gap in scientific knowledge is used as evidence for the existence of God.​

The fallacy of argument from ignorance, aka argument to ignorance, aka appeal to ignorance, aka argumentum ad ignorantiam, was known to the ancients. Arguing that because science has no hard evidence of how life arose invalidates abiogenesis or evolution is fallacious. This is an argument from ignorance. Arguing that because science cannot prove that a supreme being does not exist means that a supreme being does exist is also an argument from ignorance. In both cases, the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises.

I am arguing that science cannot explain existence and the existence of reality(which is just about everything that can be perceived), and all the atheists who know what reality is and what existence is, are forever ignorant of their own ignorance. Including those who raise the God of gaps argument.

 

[Emanresu56]

I am arguing that science cannot explain existence and the existence of reality(which is just about everything that can be perceived), and all the atheists who know what reality is and what existence is, are forever ignorant of their own ignorance. Including those who raise the God of gaps argument.

First of all, you are misunderstanding what atheism is. Atheism is not a claim that god does not exist, it is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. That does not require the claim that god does not exist, nor does it require any claims at all. Second, most atheists do not claim to know any kind of an ultimate reality, in fact, some do not even agree with the idea of an ultimate reality. Third, how can you exclude the possibility of science explaining the "existence of reality"? Or do you agree that there is a possibility?

 

[WaveJumper]

Existence requires an explanation.

No, it doesn't. Humans only desire explanations.

Sorry, i require an explanation. If i decide to join the sect, i'll keep my blinders shut to these uncomfortable questions.

 

[Emanresu56]

Sorry, i require an explanation. If i decide to join the sect, i'll keep my blinders shut to these uncomfortable questions.

What "sect"? And if science cannot explain the existence of reality, how are you going to come to an explanation?

 

[ideasrule]

Look beyond the blatantly obvious. Why is an explanation possible? What makes this possible? Why is there something to be explained? And why is there someone to explain it?

I asked for an explanation of nature, not for more questions. You said that science can't explain everything; I say that if your religion can explain anything unknown to the ancients, I'll convert immediately. Of course, that explanation has to be backed up by objective evidence (what you called "the blatantly obvious"), not on further speculation.

 

[WaveJumper]

What "sect"? And if science cannot explain the existence of reality, how are you going to come to an explanation?

The sect that has "explained" everything. I never said we can explain Everything or hinted that we can come to explanations about everything.

 

[D H]

Where, oh where, have the moderators gone? This thread sure has gone downhill. I suggest deleting posts 295 and on (including this post).

 

[WaveJumper]

I asked for an explanation of nature, not for more questions. You said that science can't explain everything; I say that if your religion can explain anything unknown to the ancients, I'll convert immediately. Of course, that explanation has to be backed up by objective evidence (what you called "the blatantly obvious"), not on further speculation.

I have no religion whatsoever. I also don't belong to radical groups that have explained everything about existence and reality. Or who know that there is no explanation.

 

[Emanresu56]

The sect that has "explained" everything. I never said we can explain Everything or hinted that we can come to explanations about everything.

But you have claimed that science cannot explain everything, in which case, how are you going to come to an explanation, if you desire an explanation? I think science, if it can't explain everything now, is our best chance at explaining everything later. But, perhaps, there will always be insufficient data. I think these are very metaphysical statements in themselves, however.