True2Ourselves
Already a member? login
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
  
+
Register FAQ A-Z directory Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

True2Ourselves Forums   > Community Topics > Christianity & Science  > filling the gaps

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-09-2013, 07:57 PM
Linsinbigler's Avatar
Representative Clergy
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,150
Default filling the gaps

Critics of theistic evolution and intelligent design combat it with a "god of the gaps" argument. Of course, there are several problems with this.

Besides the fact that theistic evolution and ID theories are not "gaps based" (actually while some include gaps-based argumentation as a corollary, the central argument does not hinge on it at all), there are other problems here.

Atheists themselves make "gaps fallacy" argumentation, e.g., that the gaps in Darwinian theory can only be filled in by materialism (thus materialism just replaces theism).

Going back to the "watch." We indeed know that a watchmaker goes through a process, and evolution, to make a watch. First of all, the existence of various materials that can be put together to make a watch is incredible of itself. But then, there is the process.

In the end, the only difference that I see in terms of theory of origin between atheism and theism is that one claims an unguided random process of increasing complexity into greater harmonious processes and the other claims a guided process of increasing complexity into greater harmonious processes.

Both Hitchens and Dawkins agreed with one another that the argument from design is he most intriguing and on some levels convincing (they just did not find it convincing enough).
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-09-2013, 10:32 PM
LatentAuthor's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 582
Default Re: filling the gaps

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linsinbigler View Post
In the end, the only difference that I see in terms of theory of origin between atheism and theism is that one claims an unguided random process of increasing complexity into greater harmonious processes and the other claims a guided process of increasing complexity into greater harmonious processes.
Evolution does not claim an unguided random process increased complexity, it claims that unguided random variation and non-random selection produced the complexity we observe today.
__________________
"However vast the darkness. . .we must supply our own light."
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-09-2013, 11:28 PM
Suspended for Review
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,359
Default Re: filling the gaps

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linsinbigler View Post
Critics of theistic evolution and intelligent design combat it with a "god of the gaps" argument.
I wasn't aware of this.

Theistic evolution means to me that someone believes that evolution has a supernatural cause, but that the process is identical to one where it is claimed that it is entirely natural.

Intelligent Design is simply not science.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-09-2013, 11:53 PM
Linsinbigler's Avatar
Representative Clergy
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,150
Default Re: filling the gaps

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad View Post
I wasn't aware of this.

Theistic evolution means to me that someone believes that evolution has a supernatural cause, but that the process is identical to one where it is claimed that it is entirely natural.

Intelligent Design is simply not science.
Theistic evolution holds that the process is identical to one of the variants claimed to be natural. However, it holds that the processes are not random but guided. The belief that there was only a first cause and the rest is random is Deistic evolution, not Theistic (the latter necessarily having God involved in the entire process).
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-10-2013, 12:05 AM
Linsinbigler's Avatar
Representative Clergy
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,150
Default Re: filling the gaps

Quote:
Originally Posted by LatentAuthor View Post
Evolution does not claim an unguided random process increased complexity, it claims that unguided random variation and non-random selection produced the complexity we observe today.
I disagree. Non-random? Random includes:
"Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution."
Natural selection would fall within this definition and therefore you cannot call it non-random
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-10-2013, 02:37 AM
Suspended for Review
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,359
Default Re: filling the gaps

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linsinbigler View Post
I disagree. Non-random? Random includes:
"Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution."
Natural selection would fall within this definition and therefore you cannot call it non-random
The selection of a mate, by whatever criteria, is non random. The fertilization of an egg by a sperm is random.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-10-2013, 12:13 PM
LatentAuthor's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 582
Default Re: filling the gaps

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linsinbigler View Post
I disagree. Non-random? Random includes:
"Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution."
Natural selection would fall within this definition and therefore you cannot call it non-random
Ugh, more word games. Look at the very next definition from the one you quoted, which incidentally was in reference to math and statistics,:
3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance. (source)
In natural selection all outcomes are not equally likely. The environment determines which variations will be beneficial, which will be negative, and which will be neutral. Therefore, it is not a random process.

Evolution is the product of random variation and non-random selection.
__________________
"However vast the darkness. . .we must supply our own light."
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-10-2013, 07:26 PM
Linsinbigler's Avatar
Representative Clergy
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,150
Default Re: filling the gaps

Quote:
Originally Posted by LatentAuthor View Post
Ugh, more word games. Look at the very next definition from the one you quoted, which incidentally was in reference to math and statistics,:
3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance. (source)
In natural selection all outcomes are not equally likely. The environment determines which variations will be beneficial, which will be negative, and which will be neutral. Therefore, it is not a random process.

Evolution is the product of random variation and non-random selection.
First of all, the term "random" was used for broader cosmology (note that with respect to that, I said not evolutionary theorists but rather atheists and theists). We are not playing words games, but if we were, you would be losing. I made a claim and then gave the definition of the word that I intended. Your emotional reaction has caused you to become nonsensical. I am the on who made the claim, you picked a variant definition to the one I intended to make a rebuttal, so gave the specific definition I intended. Your next move is to eliminate the definition that gave and replace it with #3? It seems you don't understand the basics of how to debate.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-10-2013, 09:17 PM
Suspended for Review
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,359
Default Re: filling the gaps

Either you are talking at cross purposes or you are wrong in saying this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linsinbigler View Post
Natural selection would fall within this definition (as noted) and therefore you cannot call it non-random.
Natural selection is not random, therefore it is entirely correct to call it non-random. The clue is in the term itself. See this from Berkley (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...ticle/evo_32):

At the opposite end scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random-but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!

Itís often why the big male elephant gets to play with all the lady elephants.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-10-2013, 09:30 PM
LatentAuthor's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 582
Default Re: filling the gaps

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linsinbigler View Post
First of all, the term "random" was used for broader cosmology (note that with respect to that, I said not evolutionary theorists but rather atheists and theists).
Within the context of my reply I was quite clear that I was referring to evolution and not cosmology. If you were discussing cosmology and not biological evolution in your use of the term "random" you might have saved yourself the trouble and clarified it then.

Quote:
I made a claim and then gave the definition of the word that I intended. Your emotional reaction has caused you to become nonsensical. I am the on who made the claim, you picked a variant definition to the one I intended to make a rebuttal, so gave the specific definition I intended. Your next move is to eliminate the definition that gave and replace it with #3? It seems you don't understand the basics of how to debate.
Your variant definition is not applicable to evolution, which was the topic I engaged you on. The fact that you chose to attempt to apply it is not an argument.
__________________
"However vast the darkness. . .we must supply our own light."
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions Heneni Theology 25 08-07-2009 12:52 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:11 AM.


true2ourselves
 
 
 

Flashcoms

You need to upgrade your Flash Player.

Version 8 or higher is required.

download from http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29