Is Darwinian Evolution going extinct?

[ChristianPatriot]

I wish they'd have had someone well versed in biology/ genetics who differed in view for this interview. As someone might watch this and come away thinking what we haven't figured out about the origins of life is somehow evidence for the Christian God.

Did you actually watch it? Only one out of the three of those guys believes in a God and even the one that does never used God as an answer.

 

[Jludo]

But necessity demands it. There has to be a first "thing" in any framework, whether Darwinian or otherwise and if design be considered the most logical explanation for the existence of the universe then there must also be a first Designer. I would argue that the endless train of "well if x created the earth, what created x?" is easily answered by the existence of a Being that has 2 primary characteristics:

1. Eternality. Not merely ancient existence (implying a day before it existed in reality) but an actual lack of beginning or end as a core facet of the Being's existence. Being beyond time, the necessity of the Being being itself created is no longer logically demanded.
2. Transcendence. The Being must not merely exist in the void of the empty universe, but must also possess the power, creativity, and desire to break the most fundamental laws of our natural universe. This being must be able to create and destroy matter, to make out of nothing etc.

Otherwise, one has to come up with a means by which the universe, which at some point in the distant past was presumably "filled" with absolutely nothing...spontaneously generated the first somethings that eventually become all that currently is. The problem of naturalism which is stuck completely in the box of the physical universe without reference to transcendent Divinity is that there logically isn't one. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, period...unless of course you peek outside of the Universe to a power beyond it.

Doesnt this God of the gaps abstract the idea of god so far out as to make it less relevant than what we can scientifically figure out about the universe?

 

[Jludo]

Did you actually watch it? Only one out of the three of those guys believes in a God and even the one that does never used God as an answer.

I'm inferring from the handle of the poster and the agenda of the discovery institute that the posting of the video is an attempt to carve out some space for Jesus.
I don't take issue with Einstein invoking God, I do take issue with creationism.
If you can look at the problems with our current theories and find a solution in some sort of tangible, testable intelligent design theory, all the better for advancing our knowledge.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

I'm inferring from the handle of the poster and the agenda of the discovery institute that video is an attempt to carve out some space for Jesus.
I don't take issue with Einstein invoking God, I do take issue with creationism.
If you can look at the problems with our current theories and find a solution in some sort of tangible, testable intelligent design theory, all the better for advancing our knowledge.

I’d encourage you to at least attempt to watch it before critiquing it based on your personal biases of me and the institute. No mention of Jesus by me or during the interview. I specifically said modern science and mathematics in the OP. So that’s some major league inferring.

 

[Nevermore]

Doesnt this God of the gaps abstract the idea of god so far out as to make it less relevant than what we can scientifically figure out about the universe?

Yes, but I was merely attempting to concisely address why the idea of a Creating God does not merely add another line to the endless chain of "firsts" that must themselves necessarily have a predecessor.

From a scientific perspective I am a firm believer in micro-evolution: evolution within a species. My jersey cows are a perfect example of the concept under man's direction so how could I not? Macro-evolution, a transformation of one species into another by the long process of added adaptations has never been observed. It cannot be replicated. The fossil record does not indicate it, and the lack of intermediary species for any transition at any point seems rather damning to me.

 

[Jludo]

I’d encourage you to at least attempt to watch it before critiquing it based on your personal biases of me and the institute. No mention of Jesus by me or during the interview. I specifically said modern science and mathematics in the OP. So that’s some major league inferring.

I did watch it before critiquing, is that your only criticism of my critique?

Am I wrong for implying your take on it is some sort of evidence for a Christian God?
Nothing any of them said gives us any sort of knowable god

 

[Jludo]

Yes, but I was merely attempting to concisely address why the idea of a Creating God does not merely add another line to the endless chain of "firsts" that must themselves necessarily have a predecessor.

From a scientific perspective I am a firm believer in micro-evolution: evolution within a species. My jersey cows are a perfect example of the concept under man's direction so how could I not? Macro-evolution, a transformation of one species into another by the long process of added adaptations has never been observed. It cannot be replicated. The fossil record does not indicate it, and the lack of intermediary species for any transition at any point seems rather damning to me.

I'm not sure I'm convinced the missing pieces completely obliterate the overall theory, I think there are certainly major unexplained gaps in our knowledge but I think the general overall arch from simple organisms to complex organisms over time is still the picture that's painted isn't it?

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

How true is this really? We're talking about one planet, in one galaxy that has over 100 Billion planets, in a universe that has 100 Billion galaxies. To extrapolate life universe-wide solely based on what we have observed on Earth isn't practical. If I gave you a single piece of a 5000 piece puzzle, I bet you couldn't tell me what the entire picture was. And I do believe in intelligent design.

So far, we have only the one planet as an example. This doesn't require any extrapolation, though. It could happen independently in multiple places, or one or more hypotheses of panspermia may have spread "life" or the materials prerequisite for life, from one place to another. The unlikelihood applies to any number of biospheres.

But necessity demands it. There has to be a first "thing" in any framework, whether Darwinian or otherwise and if design be considered the most logical explanation for the existence of the universe then there must also be a first Designer. I would argue that the endless train of "well if x created the earth, what created x?" is easily answered by the existence of a Being that has 2 primary characteristics:

1. Eternality. Not merely ancient existence (implying a day before it existed in reality) but an actual lack of beginning or end as a core facet of the Being's existence. Being beyond time, the necessity of the Being being itself created is no longer logically demanded.
2. Transcendence. The Being must not merely exist in the void of the empty universe, but must also possess the power, creativity, and desire to break the most fundamental laws of our natural universe. This being must be able to create and destroy matter, to make out of nothing etc.

Otherwise, one has to come up with a means by which the universe, which at some point in the distant past was presumably "filled" with absolutely nothing...spontaneously generated the first somethings that eventually become all that currently is. The problem of naturalism which is stuck completely in the box of the physical universe without reference to transcendent Divinity is that there logically isn't one. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, period...unless of course you peek outside of the Universe to a power beyond it.

So now, not only are we talking about something unimaginably unlikely (life), but something infinitely more unlikely, a hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional being (as Douglas Adams would have, well, in fact did, put it) that not just is and always has been, but can do anything? Not just order, but perfect, infinite order, that just is, was, and always will be? So, what's the point of anything less? Perversity?

 

[NKBJ]

Who says that they can't or won't ever? Do you know why mammals became the dominant species on the planet?

So that Eve could have fur trim on the hem of her nighty to keep her throat warm.
That was from the novel M*A*S*H.

 

[NKBJ]

If natural selection made all those really specialized differentiations of life forms on the Galapagos Islands then how come so many of those far flung and widely separated islands across the Pacific have the same on them instead of different on each little outpost?

So the migrating humans could step right into what they were already comfortable with, same as going downstairs in the morning at a Holiday Inn Express.

 

[indiucky]

I do hope some of you actually watch the clip someday

I've watched it...This is a great debate....

[video=youtube;YJ0CQhjosas]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ0CQhjosas[/video]

 

[Jludo]

Meyer would get more positive attention if he wasn't working from the position how do we prove jesus.
He has valid criticisms of the current state of biological knowledge but his beliefs bias his view of what these outstanding questions in science mean.
It is a god of the gaps argument at its core. Which in and of itself isn't necessarily an issue, calling the unknown god. The issue is trying to connect this god of the gaps with the god of moses where there is no connection.

It's a philosophical argument masquerading as science, as a philosophical argument it's fun to engage with but what helpful bearing it might have on science I fail to see.

If at some point we have a full grasp on how life evolved from molecules to people then the argument will simply be pushed back to 'well god started the big bang/process toward life's
If someone was willing to state us attaining a firm grasp on how life evolved would dissuade them from belief in god then maybe this exercise is worth going through but I suspect any naturalistic explanations we come up with will fall under his umbrella of naturalistic according to Gods plan.

 

[tsm]

Interesting discussion video. A possible explanation could be that the original biological evolution process DID have sufficient time available to develop species (trillions of years or more) in spite of the virtually infinitesimal probability of coming up with useful and viable DNA sequences. That “first intelligence species” then instituted the simulation within which we live and limited our timescale to 13.8 billion years from start while only allocating 4.5 billion to development of earth life. Thus, it appears to us that not enough time has been available to overcome the tiny probability of making useful DNA strings which result in species differentiation. If we can never see the non-simulated reality, we’ll probably never figure it out completely.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Meyer would get more positive attention if he wasn't working from the position how do we prove jesus.
He has valid criticisms of the current state of biological knowledge but his beliefs bias his view of what these outstanding questions in science mean.
It is a god of the gaps argument at its core. Which in and of itself isn't necessarily an issue, calling the unknown god. The issue is trying to connect this god of the gaps with the god of moses where there is no connection.

It's a philosophical argument masquerading as science, as a philosophical argument it's fun to engage with but what helpful bearing it might have on science I fail to see.

If at some point we have a full grasp on how life evolved from molecules to people then the argument will simply be pushed back to 'well god started the big bang/process toward life's
If someone was willing to state us attaining a firm grasp on how life evolved would dissuade them from belief in god then maybe this exercise is worth going through but I suspect any naturalistic explanations we come up with will fall under his umbrella of naturalistic according to Gods plan.

I still think you fail to acknowledge that a single celled organism evolving into a human being over the span of billions of years just isn’t scientifically possible. It just isn’t man.

 

[Jludo]

I still think you fail to acknowledge that a single celled organism evolving into a human being over the span of billions of years just isn’t scientifically possible. It just isn’t man.

One way or another it must have happened, you believe god intervened through some unknowable way to get us from single cell to human?
The scientific community gets dinged all the time for hubris yet you're claiming a scientific explanation simply can not exist?
If we find a mechanism by which it was possible does that shake your belief in God?

 

[Jludo]

Honestly I dont see what the push for intelligent design is about. People of faith either believe god used evolution as we know it as part of his creating us or they believe god made us in an instant 6000 years ago. If they believe the former then every scientific discovery inherently aligns with their views. I dont understand the push for some sort of middle ground in Christian belief, is intelligent design the best creationists think they'll be able to come up with to oppose evolution?

I'd like to see the link between the Christian God and this jump from single cell to multicellular life or the cambrian explosion.
The bible leaves room for god to spend billions of years playing with organisms before he gets around to the point?

 

[ChristianPatriot]

One way or another it must have happened

Once again, scientifically speaking, the theory of evolution has been proven wrong. Evolution as a conduit for cells to become a species is impossible.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Honestly I dont see what the push for intelligent design is about. People of faith either believe god used evolution as we know it as part of his creating us or they believe god made us in an instant 6000 years ago. If they believe the former then every scientific discovery inherently aligns with their views. I dont understand the push for some sort of middle ground in Christian belief, is intelligent design the best creationists think they'll be able to come up with to oppose evolution?

I'd like to see the link between the Christian God and this jump from single cell to multicellular life or the cambrian explosion.
The bible leaves room for god to spend billions of years playing with organisms before he gets around to the point?

I don’t see it as a push. I see it as what the evidence suggests.

 

[Jludo]

I don’t see it as a push. I see it as what the evidence suggests.

Should it matter to you then? What difference does it make if God made us through some fully explainable materialistic process or if he stepped in here and there to help it along?

If in some alternative reality we had come to a perfect materialistic account of how life got here, would that make you believe God didn't exist?

Basically if your starting point is Christian God and whatever we discover inherently fits with god, why would it bother anyone whether we went down the evolution road or not?

 

[Jludo]

Once again, scientifically speaking, the theory of evolution has been proven wrong. Evolution as a conduit for cells to become a species is impossible.

I'm curious if you believe humans and primates evolved from a common ancestor?