avocationist
Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
Russell,
| Quote | | Avocationist, in response to a suggestion that he had tacitly accepted "natural selection":It just won't work. Random mutation isn't capable. Find more mechanisms. That one won't do.It's important to keep your terms straight. "natural selection" and "random mutation" are two completely separate things. When you say "random mutation isn't capable": capable of what? Incapable of supplying the raw material for natural selection to act on? What evidence do you rely on, other than your personal incredulity? And when you say "random mutation", are you talking just about point mutations, or are you including chromosomal rearrangements, transpositions, duplications, etc.? |
You are right I wasn't being clear. Puck said that if we admit that an intelligence that is less than the Supreme created life forms, that I have admitted natural selection. But natural selection is a completely passive form of intelligence. And random mutation is not even a passive form of intelligence. I think both are inadequate to their tasks. Of course things get more interesting as we learn about more mechanisms. Many things that go on during meiosis appear very active and intelligent. I read a little about transpositions, rearrangements, etc., but I had a hard time differentiating what we actually know about them versus the conjecture that has been added. So, I just don't know enough about those other mechanisms, except that they appear to be candidates for ID.
I value my personal incredulity a lot, don't you? I can't imagine doing without it.
*******************
Stephen Elliott,
| Quote | | It simply says, that all species on the planet have a common ancester (or words to that effect). |
Well later evidence shows this isn't quite true, but I'm not sure how important a point this is.
| Quote | | Geographical seperation of creatures of the same species can accelerate differentiation between offspring of the divided species. |
But it's conjecture that this can lead to new species.
************************
PUCK,
I did answer a previous post which you may not have seen. It's in about the middle of the now page 14.
| Quote | If i tell you that water has suddenly started flowing out of a rock.....how would you explain it?
Would you attribute it to the same phenomenon that is reported in the bible....or would you attempt to find a natural source for the water?
You would most likely try and find a natural source for the water.
You may not find one...and at that point you may attribute it to a supernatural cause.
Science, however, always attempts to find the natural solution. They may never find one....and that would validate your belief in a supernatural cause.....but because they learn nothing from a supernatural cause....they will always strive to learn more.
You cannot fault science for taking this approach. If you do fault science for assuming a naturalistic world...then you are faulting them for being skeptical. |
My approach is a little different. And this speaks also to the remarks of GCT. Of course there are no supernatural scientific methods and of course I cannot fault science for taking the approach that they use. The thing is I see no need for the word 'natural' because there is so little meaning to the word supernatural.
Let us say I cannot find a natural explanation for the water. Does that mean it was supernatural? Well, it might mean that some other being caused it, or that sometimes human beings (Moses for example) tap into some forces in nature that we had hitherto not known about. Should our dogs regard our actions as supernatural because they cannot fathom how we did them? By this type of definition of supernatural, we have already entered the realm of supernatural beinghood as compared to ourselves millenia ago, or even hundreds of years ago.
The only question about any phenomenon is how did it occur. That it occured by some utterly coherent process is without doubt. The only question for science is whether our tools will come to understand it. I tend to be very optimistic that it will. When the word supernatural is used, in most minds it means magic. I think there is resistance on the part of many scientists to accepting a spiritual reality because they think it means: acceptance of incoherent goings-on in the universe; submitting to an unlikeable God.
I don't care if your fairy godmother waves her wand and a coach and six appear. If she did it, it was within the laws of nature. We must figure out how it was done.
It isn't that I fault science for being skeptical, it's that I fault people for thinking that the alternative to methodical investigation is to assign magic. This is equally so for religionists and atheists. I fault them for thinking that the existence of God is in any way opposed to nature and how nature works. In other words, there's no "either-or"
No one phenomenon is more natural or supernatural than another. Our reality has much depth to it, and we are investigating its depths and parameters. Reality is all of a piece and ultimately there cannot be separations into different realms called natural and supernatural - there can only be ignorance that creates what appear to be gaps.
***************
GCT,
| Quote | | But, I thought this was about science, and not religion? |
Yeah, I'm new here and I do not want to be annoying. Problem is the topic comes up all the time. I think its unavoidable because the core of this whole debate is about whether we live in a purely material universe or not. There's no way really to discuss ID or evolution as understood by many of its most famous proponents without taking atheism/theism into account.
My biggest interest is more philosophical, about the nature of reality itself, conscousness, and what human beings are doing with themselves. I see that it is very hard for most people to approach truth objectively because their emotions color their motives.
To me it appears that there is a blockage in ability to communicate because for many on the 'scientific' side religion is repugnant to them. I find good reasons for that.
In my opinion, Christianity is stuck in the dark ages, and is only beginning to think about moving out. On the other hand, many in the scientific community, reacting to that primitiveness, are in a state of suspended animation in their ability to find more useful ways to think about reality.
Time for the deer to move out of the headlights.
|
