[i:67ad13dde6][color=green:67ad13dde6][/color:67ad13dde6][size=24:67ad13dde6][/size:67ad13dde6][/i:67ad13dde6] Theistic evolution is an oxymoron. It contradicts natural selection,not influences it:it is the new Omphalos argument that although selection appears to work mindlessly, there is a mind behind it. That presupposes backwards causation:"putting the future before the past, the effect before the cause, negat[ing] time. "End states are consequences[causalism-nature] , not foregone conclusions[teleology] of beginning states." To obviate this contradiction, theists propose the two category classification of origns[ science] or contingency and creation[ teleology] or necessary being, but that begs the question of the second category. :idea: :wink:
:wink: Yes,indeed. [And why would anyone want worship unless she is narcissistic?] How can such a god operate in the cosmos without being a god of the gaps? What does it mean to be an explanation for the functions of life forms when that contradicts purposeless natural selection,not a purpose in addition? As science shows no purpose, one cannot therfore say that there must be one anyway without begging the question. As Voltaire pointed out, updating him, the function of the nose is to breathe and smell ,but we give it purpose with our wearing glasses. The cosmos has functions ,but we give it purposes when we use any part of it for our benefit.We have no ultimate purpose but we give ourselves purposes. :mrgreen: [ Advocatus, help! I am under siege @ Theology Web as the only naturalist there in its new phase in the naturalist forum there.]
8-29-08 That is a different site! Theology Online.
[quote author=“skeptic griggsy”]And why would anyone want worship unless she is narcissistic?Here we are both in danger of letting our own biases interfere with our reasoning, I’m afraid. It’s possible there is a legitimate reason for wanting to be worshipped, which you would only be aware of if you happened to actually BE an all-powerful being.
Advocatus, help! I am under siege @ Theology Web as the only naturalist there in its new phase in the naturalist forum there.
Theology Web? I’ll check it out. Right now I’m already a little over-extended, but things have been slow at Planet Wisdom lately, so I might drop that from my To-do list.
By the way, some friends of mine at Planet Wisdom have created a site called Realistic Religion, which welcomes agnostics and other open-minded questioners of faith.
:D Advocatus,yes, there is that problem.You would have to go to the naturalist forum there.It takes a little effort,but the site has good naturalists and good theistic evolutionists. Another place is Kansas City Skeptics with Greg as the moderator. :wink:
” Adaptatation is “design” wrought by the impersonal forces of reproduction, survival and a changing enviornment as Douglas J.Futuyma notes. Natural selection is the mindless “designer.“Theistic evolution violates the razor as it requires ad hoc explanations for its god whereas selection fits the bill. Selection is a force in its own right,not dependent whatsoever on a mind. To see a mind that had us in mind is to beg the question. Theistic evolutionists while combatting creationism in the narrow sense fight for it on the basis of faith in the wider sense.
Oh let me find it. There is a site ran by a Christian and an atheist. I forget what it is called. Here it is: http://www.achristianandanatheist.com/index.htm It is called A Christian and an Atheist. However, I do not see anything on the topic you brought up though. I maybe mistaken, so you can look it over yourself to see if anything is on evolution. It’s mostly podcasts and forum though, with some a Faq too. Emery has site with essays, but I don’t see anything on topic there. I haven’t checked their board, but there maybe something there.
That is an excelent forum indeed. Also, try the Christian and the atheist forum. I have similar threads there and elsewhere. Now, I see this contradiction between natural selection and theistic evolution that theists can from their relgious viewpoint have.
As my friend the philosopher Paul Draper so notes, Eugenie C.Scott is ever so wrong in castigating us who declare that the weight of evidence shows no teleology whatsoever. Natural selection shows no direction and thus no divine input for direction. Theists merely say maybe this and maybe that that God could intervene at some point in nature. They indeed do assume what they should show that God wanted us whereas science shows that if the dinosaurs had not died out when they did , we would not be here nor would any other such beings. So, fine tuning and the probabillity and all other teleological arguments beg the question . They cannot overcome the presumption of naturalism as I so show in that thread. As the ignostic-Ockham cchallenge [ se the thread] show, God is so irrelevant anyway. This challenge that theistic evolution is nonsense underscores that challenge.
I think that we should emphasize this challenge to theistic evolutionists and to fundamentalists, that from the side of science indeed that nature shows no god intervening, so they have only the side of religion to rely on to conflate science and teleology. Scott is so scared that we new atheists in emphasizing this will scare special creationists away from becoming theistic evolutionists. She can hope they will accept evolution from the weight of evidence, not from not knowing what we so affirm that it shows no divine intervention, but she should not castigate us for affirming the truth!
I so applaud Stenger for his books showing no divine intervention whatsoever! Now, I don’t like his affriming nothingness as from where emerged Existence! No, from quantum fluctuations in a bounce to bounce or bud to bud way. And virtual particles do not come from nothing but from those very fluctuations as the material cause as my friend philospher Graham Oppy so notes.
See my friend Richard Carrier’s ” Sense and Goodness without God,” for material on naturalism. Also check out David Mill’s ‘Atheist Universe” and Philip Kitcher’s ‘Living with Darwin .”
All theism rests on the pareidolia [ like seeing Yeshua in a tortilla] that a caring ,super mind is behind and beyond Existence when as Existence is all , any divinity would have to be as the pagan gods, immanent and contingent.
Google skeptic griggsy to see what others have to say yea or nay against my arguments!
Double depression kept me from posting.
I am so modest! Indeed, as I merely want others to see that we do indeed have quite valid challenges to silly theism!
I agree that evolutionary biology directly contradicts the existence of a deity. So, of course, does reason render the idea of a god absurd.
Also, religious criticism is not only humanistic but humanitarian… something that enlightened and socially conscientious citizens should engage in whenever appropriate and possible. As for how to best go about this… it seems that we are resurrecting the question of strategy.
Serious biologists, in my experience, are almost as overwhelmingly non-religious as are serious philosophers. Yet many biologists feel that they have to play “nice” with religious dogmatists for fear of their funding being cut. I agree that religious nonsense needs to be opposed head on, but I am hard pressed to get angry with persons who do what they have to in order to get by in society.
Erasmusinfinity, thanks as I so agree with you. I propose that Scott and Ruse and Miller can say that from the side of religion that evolution and religion may quite well fit, but we others can say from the side of science, indeed not. This is a two-prong approach. One can be obscurantist with adding science to any superstition whether supernatural or paranormal as one so pleases. We naturalists should oppose all that.
Oh, I am not angry but so frustrated with Scott’s denying the weight of evidence in order to placate the superstitious. Ten years ago the late Steve Schafersman so opposed her.
@ Talk Reason, Amiel Rossow in his essay on the Yin and Yang of Kenneth Miller, shows the incompatabillity of the two and how Miller takes out teleology from the back door only to put it back through the back one. My use of teleology follows that of Weisz in
“The Science of Biology” rather than that of Ernest Nagel. Someone there takes on a fellow physicist for his theistic evolution.
I call this the atelic argument. [ It goes with Hume’s dysteological one.] Oh, why not press theists to account for dysteology without resorting to theodicy? One theist states that a limited god would have to make a perfect creation as not having the means to make the fluorishes omnipotent God can!
[ Double depression is, well, so depressing! ]
Axegrrl, she contemns us new atheists for noting that weight of evidence, calling it a philosophical point, overlooking the problem of demarcation as Draper notes, in arguing that evolution shows no need to posit God. She ever wants to reassure theistic evolutionists and to get creationists to become theistic evolutionists. Nay, the from the side of religion is what I note one can find as religion can adapt. Theists have to overcome the atelic argument, showing that science indeed shows no such evidence, at great odds from what scientists now do indeed find.
As Weisz notes in “The Science of Biology,” to invoke teleological causation is to invoke backwards causation- the effect before the cause, the future before the past, negating time. Scientists find no agent to pre-ordain our arriving. That is the point of the atelic argument in contrast to teleological ones- design, from reason, fine-tuning and probability- which beg the question that some agent pre-ordained our arrival. As observed in the current issue of Skeptic, had that meteor not caused the demise of the dinosaurs, no big brain being would have arrived!
So, the atelic argument affirms the presumption of naturalism, in accordance with the Razor.