RE: How do we identify design?

RE: How do we identify design? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

gluadys -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/9/2008 5:00:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: I would describe that as the development of biodiversity. You know, feel free to call it whatever you want, same point applies. OK, assuming that God ordained biodiversity, I see no problem with assuming God ordained an evolutionary process to produce it. quote: And now you are claiming ‘creationist’ refers to a ‘religious position’ as if ‘theistic’ doesn’t refer to a religious position. You are all over the board here. No, I said "evolutionist" does not refer to a religious position. "Theist" of course does. The problem with 'theistic' as in 'theistic evolutionist' is that is uses the adjectival form of "theist" and applies it to a non-religious term "evolution". Yet what that phrase actually refers to is a theist (noun) who can be characterized as "a theist who accepts evolution as described in science." Better then to reverse the function of the words and assign the adjectival form to "evolution" (i.e "evolutionary") as a modification of "theist". There really is no such thing as a theistic modification of evolution.

Jhud -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/9/2008 5:11:20 PM)
quote: OK, assuming that God ordained biodiversity, I see no problem with assuming God ordained an evolutionary process to produce it. Which is fine, for an assumption. But ID doesn’t assume, thus the difference. quote: No, I said "evolutionist" does not refer to a religious position. "Theist" of course does. The problem with 'theistic' as in 'theistic evolutionist' is that is uses the adjectival form of "theist" and applies it to a non-religious term "evolution". Yet what that phrase actually refers to is a theist (noun) who can be characterized as "a theist who accepts evolution as described in science." Better then to reverse the function of the words and assign the adjectival form to "evolution" (i.e "evolutionary") as a modification of "theist". There really is no such thing as a theistic modification of evolution. Well, I think this is simply more evidence that evolution simply isn’t a particularly useful word. ‘Evolutionary theist’ sounds like someone who believes God or gods can evolve. And indeed, there is an evolutionary contention that religious belief can evolve. So I think it becomes quickly apparent to even the most casual observer that evolution is a highly malleable term that tends to suit the user, whether they are using it in a religious way (as some religionists like Eckhart Tolle do) or they are attempting to apply it scientifically to religion itself.

gluadys -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/9/2008 8:11:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: OK, assuming that God ordained biodiversity, I see no problem with assuming God ordained an evolutionary process to produce it. Which is fine, for an assumption. But ID doesn’t assume, thus the difference. ID also claims that it doesn't speak of God. quote: quote: No, I said "evolutionist" does not refer to a religious position. "Theist" of course does. The problem with 'theistic' as in 'theistic evolutionist' is that is uses the adjectival form of "theist" and applies it to a non-religious term "evolution". Yet what that phrase actually refers to is a theist (noun) who can be characterized as "a theist who accepts evolution as described in science." Better then to reverse the function of the words and assign the adjectival form to "evolution" (i.e "evolutionary") as a modification of "theist". There really is no such thing as a theistic modification of evolution. Well, I think this is simply more evidence that evolution simply isn’t a particularly useful word. Words with a wide range of meaning need to be defined to be useful. "Evolution" as biologically defined is biologically useful. "Evolution" simply defined as "change over time" and applied to anything from the main stellar sequence to styles of popular music is not particularly useful. "Evolution" and its derivatives "evolutionism, evolutionist, evolutionary" applied to non-existent entities is worse than confusing. It is misleading. quote: ‘Evolutionary theist’ sounds like someone who believes God or gods can evolve. A belief that God or gods evolved would be a belief in divine evolution. In fact, if "theistic evolution" really meant something, it would be the belief that God(s) evolve and have nothing to do with biology. Unless one is Mormon. quote: And indeed, there is an evolutionary contention that religious belief can evolve. Well, religions certainly evolve in the sense of "change over time", but I take it you are referring to the possibility that the capacity/tendency for religious belief has a basis in biology and therefore is a product of biological evolution. This, of course, goes along with all the investigations into the evolution of the human brain and the associated human intellectual capacities. quote: So I think it becomes quickly apparent to even the most casual observer that evolution is a highly malleable term that tends to suit the user, whether they are using it in a religious way (as some religionists like Eckhart Tolle do) or they are attempting to apply it scientifically to religion itself. Yep, in the hands of a plurality of users words tend to be malleable within the limits of communicative usefulness. That is why languages also evolve. And it does mean taking the time to ascertain just what a person means by "evolution" whether they oppose or support it. For example, at this point, I don't really know what you think in regard to biological evolution.

Jhud -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/10/2008 9:55:18 AM)
quote: "Evolution" and its derivatives "evolutionism, evolutionist, evolutionary" applied to non-existent entities is worse than confusing. It is misleading. Then perhaps evolutionists should stop using those terms. quote: For example, at this point, I don't really know what you think in regard to biological evolution. I think I have been fairly clear on the matter.

gluadys -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/10/2008 10:42:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: "Evolution" and its derivatives "evolutionism, evolutionist, evolutionary" applied to non-existent entities is worse than confusing. It is misleading. Then perhaps evolutionists should stop using those terms. Not just "evolutionists". Everybody should stop using those terms. Unfortunately---no, fortunately--we don't have language police to enforce the practice. quote: quote: For example, at this point, I don't really know what you think in regard to biological evolution. I think I have been fairly clear on the matter. You often think you have been clear when you haven't been. Your terse aphorisms are not as clear as you think.

Jhud -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/10/2008 10:47:50 AM)
quote: You often think you have been clear when you haven't been. Your terse aphorisms are not as clear as you think. I think many people confuse clear answers with trite, simplistic answers; I'm not very good at those. If you have a specific question abut my thoughts on evolution I will be glad to answer.

gluadys -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/10/2008 1:08:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: You often think you have been clear when you haven't been. Your terse aphorisms are not as clear as you think. I think many people confuse clear answers with trite, simplistic answers; I'm not very good at those. If you have a specific question abut my thoughts on evolution I will be glad to answer. OK, do you think the standard model of evolution is responsible for any change in species at all?

Jhud -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/10/2008 1:13:23 PM)
quote: OK, do you think the standard model of evolution is responsible for any change in species at all? Yes.

gluadys -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/10/2008 1:46:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: OK, do you think the standard model of evolution is responsible for any change in species at all? Yes. Do you agree that cladistic speciation occurs and is a principal factor in generating biodiversity?

Jhud -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/10/2008 2:28:21 PM)
quote: Do you agree that cladistic speciation occurs and is a principal factor in generating biodiversity? Do I agree that different species have appeared and constitute the basis for the biodiversity we see, or do I agree that all the species that exist are the result of evolution and form the basis for the biodiversity we see?

gluadys -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/10/2008 5:04:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Do you agree that cladistic speciation occurs and is a principal factor in generating biodiversity? Do I agree that different species have appeared and constitute the basis for the biodiversity we see, or do I agree that all the species that exist are the result of evolution and form the basis for the biodiversity we see? Neither. I am asking specifically about cladistic speciation. What is your take on cladisitic speciation? Do you agree that cladistic speciation occurs? Do you agree with the analysis of why it occurs?

Jhud -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/10/2008 11:28:42 PM)
quote: Neither. I am asking specifically about cladistic speciation. What is your take on cladisitic speciation? Do you agree that cladistic speciation occurs? Do you agree with the analysis of why it occurs? Well, as I have said previously, I am skeptical of the notion of speciation because of the arbitrary notion of species. I agree that a single population of organisms can come to exist separately and remain distinct, perhaps indefinitely.

gluadys -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/11/2008 7:21:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Neither. I am asking specifically about cladistic speciation. What is your take on cladisitic speciation? Do you agree that cladistic speciation occurs? Do you agree with the analysis of why it occurs? Well, as I have said previously, I am skeptical of the notion of speciation because of the arbitrary notion of species. I agree that a single population of organisms can come to exist separately and remain distinct, perhaps indefinitely. And would you agree that the distinctiveness is seen in their genetic differences? And that lack of gene flow between separated populations ensures a degree of divergence over time?

Jhud -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/11/2008 10:48:27 AM)
quote: And would you agree that the distinctiveness is seen in their genetic differences? And that lack of gene flow between separated populations ensures a degree of divergence over time? Well, I don’t know that separate populations are necessarily all that distinct; indeed they may simply be geographically separated, with little difference genetically – or no more so than might exist between members of any population. That being said, the lack of gene flow may lead to genetic distinctiveness over time.

gluadys -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/11/2008 2:34:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: And would you agree that the distinctiveness is seen in their genetic differences? And that lack of gene flow between separated populations ensures a degree of divergence over time? Well, I don’t know that separate populations are necessarily all that distinct; indeed they may simply be geographically separated, with little difference genetically – or no more so than might exist between members of any population. Well, that would depend on the specific populations to be examined, right? We don't need to assume we are speaking only about vicariate species. quote: That being said, the lack of gene flow may lead to genetic distinctiveness over time. Would you not say that lack of gene flow would certainly lead to genetic distinctiveness over time? Not necessarily populations that couldn't re-integrate should gene flow be re-established, but certainly populations that could be distinguished by their unique genetic traits.

RCC -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/13/2008 7:35:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud RCC is wrong; there are IDists who believe just that. THe primary difference between an IDist and a theistic evolutionist is that an IDist believes there is objective evidence for his beliefs. You'll have to explain, Jack. ID asserts that certain biological structures (IC systems, long-necked giraffes, etc.) could not have evolved by blind natural processes without invoking fantastic improbabilities, and thus almost certainly required the intervention of an intelligence, correct? If these structures, systems, and organisms could not have evolved, then it follows that God did not create the universe in such a way that they could have evolved, right? If He didn't create such a universe, it follows that He either could not do so, or chose not to do so for some reason, right? Are there IDers who disagree with any of this? Also, I'd still be interested in an answer to my question as to why IDers believe (as many apparently do) that ID offers stronger support for Christian faith than mainstream evolutionary theory.

swan42 -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/13/2008 7:46:51 PM)
quote: I'd still be interested in an answer to my question as to why IDers believe (as many apparently do) that ID offers stronger support for Christian faith than mainstream evolutionary theory. ID offers some support for Christianity and mainstream evolutionary theory offers no support for Christianity. While at the same time, some think mainstream evolutionary theory is orthogonal to Christianity without being incompatible with Christianity; this is a statement about Christianity not a statement about evolutionary theory. ID also offers some support that aliens from outer space have terraformed this planet for unknown reasons.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 [7]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI