On Darwin.

[anthropo-eccentricism]

The point, while maybe overstated in the OP, is the Darwinism removes the necessity of a guiding intelligence, as commonly accepted up until the time, and thereby any reason to take the natural world as evidence of one.

I realize my rhetoric often borders on the hyperbolic. But do note how I qualified myself.

3) Nature itself is creative. Matter can no longer be understood as lifeless, formless clay upon which intelligent beings stamp their designs. Matter is not sterile or inert. With Darwin, God is murdered, and humans are decentered. God is no longer needed to account for creativity and life.

Emphasis added. It should go without saying that my claim that Darwin murdered God is an invocation of the Nietzschean maxim. The proclamation that God is dead means that we no longer need to take the hypothesis seriously; it doesn't do anything for us, it is dead, useless.

[Typist]

If you don't think the legitimacy of Darwinian evolutionary theory has any impact at all on the question of God, then you're deluding yourself.

It definitely has an impact. It deludes folks like yourself in to thinking they've somehow proven their favorite theory on infinite scale questions.

It's like reading a car manual until we understand all the systems in detail, and then declaring this proves that nobody made the car. Sloppy.

[anthropo-eccentricism]

It definitely has an impact. It deludes folks like yourself in to thinking they've somehow proven their favorite theory on infinite scale questions.

I think you might actually just be "trolling" to see the lengths to which I'll go in responding to you. But I'm not exactly sure. If you can't see how the thesis that humans are animals that evolved the same way that all other animals did, non-purposively, by chance, and through a mechanism that works foundationally by death, that they came about as an accident and could just as easily not have survived or not have evolved at all, if you can't see how this impacts the concept of God, then we've little left to say to each other. First: it means that God did not create humans; at best, it means He created simple forms of bacteria and hoped that millions and millions of years down the line, something resembling a being with intelligence would emerge from the piles of failed adaptations and decomposed bodies. Second: it means that God is not working actively to minimize suffering; rather, He created a mechanism whereby death works to drive further creation: natural selection. Third: it means that God did not have a plan. Adaptation, mutation, and natural selection work mostly by chance, and everything that happened could easily have happened otherwise. And you still fail to see the impact?

It's like reading a car manual until we understand all the systems in detail, and then declaring this proves that nobody made the car. Sloppy.

This analogy fails in every regard. The proper analogue to your example would be the following: With a working knowledge of anatomy and an understanding of the human organs, we can conclude that no one created the human body. But this isn't at all what I've said. My claim is that by understanding the process of evolution, which includes much more than the anatomy of the human body, it includes its genus as well as the process that drove it, we no longer need to invoke God to account for the existence of the human being, the existence of higher intelligence, the existence of a proliferation of different types of animals, and so on. This is because evolution tells us how these things came about. Whereas we once said: human beings were created by God to hold dominion over the rest of nature, we now know that a claim like this can only work by ignoring the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary. Humans are part of nature; they do not stand over and above it. They came about, just as everything came about. This hurts the concept of God. If you are, as James is, working off an idiosyncratic concept of God that evolution somehow corroborates, then please make it clear. If not, then I can only assume that you have no intention to argue in good faith and are content with offering nothing more than the odd inflammatory line, proclaiming nonetheless that you have the better of the argument, and that I'm unreasonable and deluded.

[Typist]

The point, while maybe overstated in the OP, is the Darwinism removes the necessity of a guiding intelligence, as commonly accepted up until the time, and thereby any reason to take the natural world as evidence of one.

Another member of the forum provided this example. I apologize for not remembering who, and crediting them appropriately. Dear reader, if it was you, please claim your credit, for it's a good example.

Imagine you're walking through the woods, and come upon a 747 airliner. You've never seen such a thing before. If you then assumed this mysterious 747 was created by some form of intelligence, why would you assume this? Go in to this please. Why did you assume intelligence as the source?

Why didn't you assume that the sophisticated complexity of the airliner, which you can observe for yourself, fell in to place by random chance?

I don't claim this argument is proof of anything, but it is a thoroughly reasonable argument.

Other evidence may of course be compelling, or not. But it's generally considered good form to provide evidence for existence, as there are a great many more things that don't exist than do. If that's not too convoluted a turn of phrase

Understood. And this is my demand as well.

Please show us the evidence for the existence of anyone's ability to arrive at meaningful answers to questions the scale of the God proposal.

These processes are wholly immanent to nature; there's nothing transcendent being evoked to account for them.

That's not theological, that's a description of the mechanism.

The phrase "there's nothing transcendent being evoked" is very simply nothing other than a theological assertion.

The accurate, factual, reason based statement that should replace this wild speculation is...

We the scientists aren't aware of anything transcendent being evoked.

Which might quickly be followed by...

Until only 100 years ago, we the scientists weren't aware of 99+% of all of reality. And may still be in that position.

Put another way, the fact that somebody doesn't see something does not automatically equal nothing being there. A lack of evidence sufficient to conclude the question one way or another proves....

Ignorance.

You may invoke all sorts of things in your description of evolution, but the theory itself as put forward by Darwin doesn't.

Does Darwin himself invoke the various fantasy knowings being sold in this thread, or does he wisely stick to facts?

Are you asking for concrete evidence of a lack of existence? Really?

I'm asking anyone who claims to know to provide evidence of such an ability.

Allow me to extend the same warning to you as I did to a-e: be civil, please, or you will be warned. You seem dead set on making this a personal matter of cutting someone down to size, for some reason; this is not acceptable.

I agree the rhetoric is out of hand on both sides, and will make a good faith effort to comply with your request.

I have no personal animosity for the OP, and wish him well in his studies.

I'm responding to a very long standing pattern of such intellectually arrogant claims by many young punk posters on many forums, and am hoping that a bit of public embarrassment might assist some of our young friends in being more thoughtful in their public declarations. If I should embarrass myself in such a project also, ok, so be it, then I must need a teaching as well, we never get too old for that.

[Typist]

I think you might actually just be "trolling" to see the lengths to which I'll go in responding to you. But I'm not exactly sure.

No, I'm not trolling, and hold a sincere point of view here. But I do agree we've gotten a bit too wound up in our exchanges, and am agreeable to dialing back the rhetoric.

You wish to declare your loyalty to reason, and I support you in this goal. I'm challenging you to surrender further to reason.

You have adequate evidence to make convincing statements about the process by which life continually adapts to it's environment. I have no complaint with you here, and have already stated you make these points in an articulate and intelligent manner.

You don't have adequate evidence to make infinite scale type statements, and so I am suggesting loyalty to reason involves recognizing this, and that the appropriate reason based declaration in the absence of convincing evidence either way is....

I don't know.

"I don't know" may not be a satisfying destination, but reason is more ruthless than any Jehovah, and doesn't give a shit about that.

[Typist]

First: it means that God did not create humans; at best, it means He created simple forms of bacteria and hoped that millions and millions of years down the line, something resembling a being with intelligence would emerge from the piles of failed adaptations and decomposed bodies.

Right, it could be that some intelligent agent used evolution to create and manage all life, including humans. We would do the same thing ourselves if we could, create a system that took the job off our hands.

Second: it means that God is not working actively to minimize suffering; rather, He created a mechanism whereby death works to drive further creation: natural selection.

Yes, death fuels life and life leads to death. You've described a system. You've proven nothing about who might have created the system, and what their intention might be.

Third: it means that God did not have a plan. Adaptation, mutation, and natural selection work mostly by chance, and everything that happened could easily have happened otherwise.

Chance is God's plan. Or so the theist can so very easily say, and you have nothing with which to refute it. Casino's use chance in much the same way. Each individual transaction is based on chance, but the casino knows the odds are weighted in favor of a certain outcome.

And you still fail to see the impact?

I've already explained what the impact is, and out of respect for you and the mod, will not repeat myself.

My claim is that by understanding the process of evolution, which includes much more than the anatomy of the human body, it includes its genus as well as the process that drove it, we no longer need to invoke God to account for the existence of the human being, the existence of higher intelligence, the existence of a proliferation of different types of animals, and so on.

As far as I know, nobody is requiring you to invoke God in your personal explanation of reality.

Whereas we once said: human beings were created by God to hold dominion over the rest of nature,

Please prove that some intelligent agent didn't use evolution to create human beings, and that you would be in a position to understand the intentions of such an agent, should one exist.

Humans are part of nature; they do not stand over and above it.

I agree with this, just not the way you came to it. I actually feel humans are hanging on to the bottom rung of the ladder, but that's a topic for another day.

If you are, as James is, working off an idiosyncratic concept of God that evolution somehow corroborates, then please make it clear.

We're working off the same system.

1) You want evidence of God, or you decline to believe in God.

2) I want evidence of anybody's ability to answer infinite scale type questions, or I decline to believe in such ability.

[Only_Humean]

Imagine you're walking through the woods, and come upon a 747 airliner. You've never seen such a thing before. If you then assumed this mysterious 747 was created by some form of intelligence, why would you assume this? Go in to this please. Why did you assume intelligence as the source?

This is merely the blind watchmaker argument, which is precisely what the theory of evolution disarms.

Other evidence may of course be compelling, or not. But it's generally considered good form to provide evidence for existence, as there are a great many more things that don't exist than do. If that's not too convoluted a turn of phrase

Understood. And this is my demand as well.

No, you're placing the burden on the sceptic. If you have further evidence for the existence of a guiding intelligence, accepting that evolution places the evidential status of your 747 in question, please share it.

Please show us the evidence for the existence of anyone's ability to arrive at meaningful answers to questions the scale of the God proposal.

This is sophistry. A proposal needs some evidence or argumentation; scale alone doesn't cut it.

The phrase "there's nothing transcendent being evoked" is very simply nothing other than a theological assertion.

The accurate, factual, reason based statement that should replace this wild speculation is...

We the scientists aren't aware of anything transcendent being evoked.

No, the theory itself is wholly known, unlike reality. It's known because it is a theory, and has been formulated. And it evokes no transcendence.

Put another way, the fact that somebody doesn't see something does not automatically equal nothing being there.

Of course not. But it is a fine working hypothesis, if no-one else can show any reason that something is there.

If your friend claims there is a ghost in the darkened room next door and offers as evidence that he has heard it, and you find that that noise can be clearly explained by the wind whistling through the chimney, do you still hold that there is a ghost in the next room? Do you let the fear of ghosts hold you back from entering the room? That does not seem the rational path.

Are you asking for concrete evidence of a lack of existence? Really?

I'm asking anyone who claims to know to provide evidence of such an ability.

So... "yes". Yet that's not how rational standards of enquiry, be they scientific, judicial or theological, work. At least, not since the 16th Century

I'm responding to a very long standing pattern of such intellectually arrogant claims by many young punk posters on many forums, and am hoping that a bit of public embarrassment might assist some of our young friends in being more thoughtful in their public declarations. If I should embarrass myself in such a project also, ok, so be it, then I must need a teaching as well, we never get too old for that.

This is not the forum to mount your personal crusades against imagined foes. And if your chosen form of embarrassment is to bait them into ill-temper, it's you that will be warned. That's all.

[Typist]

This is merely the blind watchmaker argument, which is precisely what the theory of evolution disarms.

This is merely an empty declarative statement, devoid of any useful explanation of why you hold this view.

No, you're placing the burden on the sceptic.

The burden is not a ball that gets passed back and forth. Everybody who makes a claim bears their own burden. If anybody claims they know XYZ, they bear the burden for demonstrating such an ability.

A proposal needs some evidence or argumentation; scale alone doesn't cut it.

I'm afraid scale is relevant here, as the God proposal is that of an entity above and outside of the system of reason we would use to evaluate the claim. That is, as usually defined, a God would not have to be logical, as it was God that created the logic.

I've used the example of the owner of this forum.

The forum owner created the rules. The forum owner can change the rules at any time. Thus, we can't assume the forum owner will act in a manner consistent with known rules, as they are not bound by the rules they themselves created.

We are bound by the rules, we are within the system, and we can be analyzed by that system. The forum owner is above and outside the system. The forum owner is in a fundamentally different situation than we are.

So... "yes". Yet that's not how rational standards of enquiry, be they scientific, judicial or theological, work. At least, not since the 16th Century

So I'm supposed to believe in your ability to answer infinite scale questions based on faith alone? You refuse to provide evidence of such an ability?

And if your chosen form of embarrassment is to bait them into ill-temper, it's you that will be warned. That's all.

I'm not baiting anybody. I am rather, joining the question the OP asked us to address, in the very same manner the OP himself addressed the questions he wished to investigate.

Further, but briefly because it's off topic, I would suggest that anonymous screen names have no reason to fear other anonymous screen names. On internet forums, all wounds are self inflicted.

[anthropo-eccentricism]

I'm responding to a very long standing pattern of such intellectually arrogant claims by many young punk posters on many forums, and am hoping that a bit of public embarrassment might assist some of our young friends in being more thoughtful in their public declarations.

You think you've embarrassed me? Read back over our exchange. You've been consistently unreasonable. Given everything you've conceded to the theory of evolution, you maintain that the existence of God remains unquestioned. This cannot possibly be the Judeo-Christian God.

[...]as the God proposal is that of an entity above and outside of the system of reason we would use to evaluate the claim. That is, as usually defined, a God would not have to be logical, as it was God that created the logic.

Of course, you define God as beyond logic, and so beyond the realm of rational discourse entirely--for how could we say anything at all about a God to which neither the law of self-identity nor the law of non-contradiction applies? Why even invoke such a conception of God when you concede openly the impossibility of evaluating claims about Him one way or the other? Surely, you see the horrific fallacy here. Working within such an understanding of God, the problem isn't that evolution doesn't touch Him, the problem is that nothing at all human is capable of touching him--not philosophy, not argument, not theology, not doctrine, not scripture, nothing. He is, as you've said: outside of reason. And yet you act as if this conception of God is common enough to go without saying. Because, until now, you've yet to expound it. By keeping secret your concept of God, while simultaneously insisting that the theory of evolution leaves His existence unquestioned, you've been nothing short of intellectually dishonest.

[James S Saint]

I will go along with the notion being expressed that "we" don't need the common "God" concept if understanding the universe is all we need.

But I can't go along with the notion that understanding the universe is really all we need.
And Darwin fails miserably on the other needed aspects.

[Only_Humean]

This is merely the blind watchmaker argument, which is precisely what the theory of evolution disarms.

This is merely an empty declarative statement, devoid of any useful explanation of why you hold this view.

And so is that.

I hold the view because it's the blind watchmaker argument, substituting a 747 for a pocketwatch.

A proposal needs some evidence or argumentation; scale alone doesn't cut it.

I'm afraid scale is relevant here, as the God proposal is that of an entity above and outside of the system of reason we would use to evaluate the claim. That is, as usually defined, a God would not have to be logical, as it was God that created the logic.

If you're arguing for an a-rational god who is outside the rules of logic, then you're not relying on reason. Yet this is precisely what you claimed to be doing, against "theological" assertions. If you attack the OP for making theological assertions, it seems strange to counter them with wilder, more theological and less rational speculation on your own part.

So... "yes". Yet that's not how rational standards of enquiry, be they scientific, judicial or theological, work. At least, not since the 16th Century

So I'm supposed to believe in your ability to answer infinite scale questions based on faith alone? You refuse to provide evidence of such an ability?

It is of interest only if you're interested in reason and rational debate in good faith. It's not for everybody. I'm not claiming any magical abilities for you to believe in, I'm saying that in rational discourse claims of existence require proof. There are several centuries of evidence and argument backing this up; if you don't believe it, it will handicap your abilities to think critically and argue rationally. But I can't make you believe it.

This may help clarify matters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

I'm not baiting anybody.

You are talking of young punks, juvenile high horses and using sarcasm. I assume we're both old enough not to be coy about it.

[Typist]

Given everything you've conceded to the theory of evolution, you maintain that the existence of God remains unquestioned.

I maintain that all claims on the subject remain unproven, and that no claimant has provided convincing evidence of their ability to answer such questions. The existence of God has always been questioned.

Of course, you define God as beyond logic,

It's not my definition. A dominant definition of God is that of an all powerful intelligent agent that created everything. This is what the word "God" generally means in common usage.

Starting from this typical definition, it's a mere baby step to propose that such an entity would be beyond logic. Or to be more precise, such an entity could, like the forum owner, choose to remain above and outside the rules that it created, and thus we would have no way of knowing if our reasoning applied to it or not.

...and so beyond the realm of rational discourse entirely--for how could we say anything at all about a God to which neither the law of self-identity nor the law of non-contradiction applies?

It seems we've proven that we're perfectly capable of having rational discourse on the subject of God. Whether this discourse accomplishes anything is another matter.

Why even invoke such a conception of God when you concede openly the impossibility of evaluating claims about Him one way or the other?

I'm not personally declaring God exists. I'm claiming you have in no way proved that it doesn't. I'm claiming we don't know.

This is very very simple. You have not proven your ability to know such things, thus I don't believe in that ability.

It's the very same test which you apply to the God proposal.

The problem you're having is that you want to apply this test to other people's claims, but not to your own. This is a form of intellectual dishonesty which is very common in most ideologies, including both theism and atheism. First a conclusion is reached via faith, and then hand picked arguments are arranged to support the conclusion. This isn't reason.

Working within such an understanding of God, the problem isn't that evolution doesn't touch Him, the problem is that nothing at all human is capable of touching him--not philosophy, not argument, not theology, not doctrine, not scripture, nothing.

You might be interested in another thread we're working on, which is addressing this question. To greatly summarize, you said "nothing is capable of touching God". Take that literally, and you've opened the door to new territory that can be explored. Or not, as you wish.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=179239

By keeping secret your concept of God, while simultaneously insisting that the theory of evolution leaves His existence unquestioned, you've been nothing short of intellectually dishonest.

My concept of God is hardly secret, very simple, and stated all over the forum. I have no idea if one exists, and neither does anybody else.

My writing can be confusing to some forum posters, as they arrive on the scene all geared up to fight the same old theism vs. atheism debate which they've memorized from previous encounters. It's sort of like a ritualized dance where everybody knows the steps assigned to them, and thus they're comfortable with the routine.

In your case, you've suited up to do battle with theists. But I am not a theist. I'm challenging you with the very same reason you yourself are attempting to use. I'm challenging you from inside of your own camp, an unexpected direction perhaps.

I'm using atheist reasoning (no belief without proof) and following that reasoning through to it's logical conclusion.

Unless you can convincingly demonstrate an ability to know what does or doesn't lie at the heart of all reality (an arena we can't even define) then I choose not to believe you possess such an ability.

Your own reasoning...

Applied to yourself.

[Typist]

Hello again,

I hold the view because it's the blind watchmaker argument, substituting a 747 for a pocketwatch.

I have no objection if you find that you can not address this argument, whatever you want to call it. I can't address it either, and that's what makes it interesting to me. Labeling the argument is not meeting the argument.

If you're arguing for an a-rational god who is outside the rules of logic, then you're not relying on reason.

I'm not arguing FOR such a god. I'm only saying that if anything like the normal definition of the word "God" exists, an all powerful creator of everything, it would be, by that definition, above and outside of the rules of logic. This is very clearly quite simple reason.

Yet this is precisely what you claimed to be doing, against "theological" assertions. If you attack the OP for making theological assertions, it seems strange to counter them with wilder, more theological and less rational speculation on your own part.

My theological assertion, which is repeated all over the forum, is that we're all talking out of our butts when it comes to theological assertions of any flavor. "All" would include me as well.

In the other thread I referenced above, we're exploring how this shared ignorance might be put to good use.

So I'm supposed to believe in your ability to answer infinite scale questions based on faith alone? You refuse to provide evidence of such an ability?

It is of interest only if you're interested in reason and rational debate in good faith. It's not for everybody. I'm not claiming any magical abilities for you to believe in, I'm saying that in rational discourse claims of existence require proof.

As I keep repeating ad nauseam, I'm saying EXACTLY THE SAME THING. The only difference is that I'm applying this process equally to everybody and all claims.

One More Time: If a speaker can not prove they have the ability to know what does or doesn't lie at the heart of all reality, reason, as you yourself describe it, requires us to not believe in such an ability.

There are several centuries of evidence and argument backing this up; if you don't believe it, it will handicap your abilities to think critically and argue rationally.

I'm arguing more rationally than those who are engaging me here. You are applying reason to one side of the argument, the side you hope to defeat. I am applying reason equally to all sides of the argument. I'm demanding you be loyal to your own chosen method, reason.

You are talking of young punks, juvenile high horses and using sarcasm. I assume we're both old enough not to be coy about it.

I'm talking of young punks and juvenile high horses because I have proof of their existence. I'm using sarcasm to prove that even old punks can ride juvenile high horses.

Cutesy tootsy cleverness aside, your points are reasonable and I'm attempting to comply, as I believe the other posters are as well. You are playing a useful role by suggesting we kids in the playpen take a time out.

[brevel_monkey]

I'm not personally declaring God exists. I'm claiming you have in no way proved that it doesn't. I'm claiming we don't know.

This is very very simple. You have not proven your ability to know such things, thus I don't believe in that ability.

It's the very same test which you apply to the God proposal.

The problem you're having is that you want to apply this test to other people's claims, but not to your own. This is a form of intellectual dishonesty which is very common in most ideologies, including both theism and atheism. First a conclusion is reached via faith, and then hand picked arguments are arranged to support the conclusion. This isn't reason.

No one can prove that anything doesn't exist. However, it looks rational to assume that:

For any given conceivable thing, if there is no evidence for its existence, then it does not exist.

This is rational because there is an indefinitely large number of conceivable things, yet only a finite number of existing things, such that the probability of any given conceivable thing existing (when there is no evidence for that things existence) is next to zero. This is basically the rational behind Occam's razor, which atheists effectively apply to god. (resisting bearded-god joke here).

When someone says 'dragons don't exist', nobody jumps out at them and says 'you can't prove that', because its just common sense to assume that something that we a) have no evidence for existing and b) can track back (as a concept) to a bundle of old stories now known not be true , does not exist.

[Only_Humean]

I have no objection if you find that you can not address this argument, whatever you want to call it. I can't address it either, and that's what makes it interesting to me. Labeling the argument is not meeting the argument.

It's been addressed by biologists and mathematicians, who've all found evidence that a guiding intellect is not necessary for the appearance of design, and that randomness combined with selection pressures are sufficient given the timescales involved. It's been done for several complex biological structures. That's why it's not evidence for a guiding intellect - because an explanation without an intellect makes as much sense, and is more parsimonious.

If you're arguing for an a-rational god who is outside the rules of logic, then you're not relying on reason.

I'm not arguing FOR such a god. I'm only saying that if anything like the normal definition of the word "God" exists, an all powerful creator of everything, it would be, by that definition, above and outside of the rules of logic. This is very clearly quite simple reason.

But reason doesn't apply to this God, so you can't make any such conclusion.

My theological assertion, which is repeated all over the forum, is that we're all talking out of our butts when it comes to theological assertions of any flavor. "All" would include me as well.

Then I have no reason to pay any heed to your assertion, surely?

It is of interest only if you're interested in reason and rational debate in good faith. It's not for everybody. I'm not claiming any magical abilities for you to believe in, I'm saying that in rational discourse claims of existence require proof.

As I keep repeating ad nauseam, I'm saying EXACTLY THE SAME THING. The only difference is that I'm applying this process equally to everybody and all claims.

One More Time: If a speaker can not prove they have the ability to know what does or doesn't lie at the heart of all reality, reason, as you yourself describe it, requires us to not believe in such an ability.

I am saying that I have the ability to draw conclusions on something's existence based on a lack of any compelling evidence for that thing. Don't you? Do you live in a world of fairies, unicorns and Easter bunnies? I believe not.

[Typist]

It's been addressed by biologists and mathematicians, who've all found evidence that a guiding intellect is not necessary for the appearance of design, and that randomness combined with selection pressures are sufficient given the timescales involved. It's been done for several complex biological structures. That's why it's not evidence for a guiding intellect - because an explanation without an intellect makes as much sense, and is more parsimonious.

But it's an explanation of how the system works. NOT an explanation of where the system itself came from. It's a classic case of finding what one wants to find.

Scientists are highly educated mechanics. As mechanics, they naturally and understandably have a bias to see reality as a mechanism. There's nothing wrong here, they are just doing what they do.

And once the highly skilled mechanics understood how the mechanism works, they are satisfied, because this is the nature of a mechanic. This is all very useful indeed, truly it is, but....

This mechanical analysis doesn't touch the infinite scale questions.

And it doesn't touch those questions for a very good reason. Because to deal with those questions directly and honestly would take the highly skilled mechanics beyond their area of expertise, beyond their natural talents, beyond the arena where they are the experts, the valued big shots etc.

Addressing the infinite scale questions takes one beyond the realm where the unknown can be measured, analyzed and made known, and thus beyond science.

Religion exists for a reason.

I'm not blaming scientists in any way, and I do celebrate their unique and significant talents. I'm only pointing out that their talents, like anybody's talents, are limited. Science is a tool, not a God.

I'm just asking scientists to be loyal to science, and recognize their own very understandable bias. Which I'm sure many of them do, and these are the most interesting scientists.

But reason doesn't apply to this God, so you can't make any such conclusion.

Good point, indeed, indeed. Do you see the beauty of this?

If both reason and faith are shown to be inadequate, then nobody including me knows what the #$%^ we're talking about, and thus....

We are all in the same boat, and on the same team.

And the best goals of religion are reached.

The problem is, our ape genes are absolutely fascinated by social competition agendas, and so the simple truth that nobody is superior to anybody else is immediately rejected by all parties. This is the triumph of ancient primitive emotion over reason.

People of reason can show their loyalty to reason by rushing forward to embrace the fact of ignorance, and reject the fantasy superiority dance. But instead, we use reason to keep on dancing the same old dance. So close, and yet so far....

Then I have no reason to pay any heed to your assertion, surely?

There you go, you're catching on now. You have no reason to believe the bible thumpers, or the scientists, or me, or yourself, or anybody else. You are left with nothing. That's where an objective observation of reality will lead you. To nothing.

And then the question might become, what shall I do with this nothing?

This is a very practical question, come to by reason alone. No gods were invoked in the production of this message. A person of reason is in no way in conflict with their loyalty to reason by seeing the limits of reason. It's a very reasonable process!

I am saying that I have the ability to draw conclusions on something's existence based on a lack of any compelling evidence for that thing. Don't you? Do you live in a world of fairies, unicorns and Easter bunnies? I believe not.

Once again, repeated for the 147th time, please apply your own reasoning to your own conclusion.

You don't believe in God, based on a lack of evidence. Good work, no problem so far.

Now....

You don't believe in your ability to come to an answer to infinite scale questions, based on a lack of evidence of such an ability.

Belief in a God, and belief in an ability of this magnitude, are equally speculative assertions. There's no fundamental difference between these two statements. Both are wild leaps of faith. Theism and atheism are two different flavors of the same fantasy knowings ice cream.

I'm absolutely positive that nobody knows anything!!

[lizbethrose]

I often think we've yet to fully absorb the revelatory insights of Darwinian theory. I'd like to discuss his impact, his importance. What follows are five brief interrelated, revolutionary points to initiate discussion. Some of these theses do not originate with Darwin, but most find their highest articulation in his writing.

1) Nature is not supposed to be anything. This is perhaps the fundamental Darwinian insight: nature is non-teleological; it is without purpose. are, and they are as much as all else. Nature is Nature does not prefer one thing to another; it doesn't prefer at all.

2) Difference is creative, not deviant. ... all is copy, all is repetition. Nature is a moving simulacra.

3) Nature itself is creative. Matter can no longer be understood as lifeless, formless clay upon which intelligent beings stamp their designs. ...it is all this without need of recourse to vitalistic, animistic, or theistic/deistic hypotheses. At the center of Darwinian thought is the thesis that matter has the capacity to self-organize, to form pattern, and to generate life.

4) Design no longer requires a designer. The Intelligent-Designers will have no friends here, and for this reason--I'll keep this point short. If you're still holding on to a vestige of hope in intelligent design, then this isn't the thread for you.

5) Humans are animals. Nature has no preference for Earth and its rich ecosystem over Mars and its desolate wasteland. Nature just is what it does… Including what it does through us and our technologies.

I've taken the liberty of reducing the OP down to what I think are the salient points. I've done so because I don't understand why the thread got entangled in an argument about the existence of some sort of creative spirit.

If you look at the structure of the OP, it's remarkably well-written and follows the essayist rule of presenting a thesis, explaining the thesis, and recapping the original thesis using different words.
A=A because of B (C, D, etc.); therefore, given the validity of B, etc., A=B=A.

I disagree with 2) because I don't think Nature can be called a "moving simulacra." Then, again, I may simply not fully understand a-e's use of the word 'simulacra.' IOW, I'm not sure if Nature is simply a repetition of itself with the attributes of a simulacrum.

I wonder, sometimes, if newbies are subjected to some sort of initiation hazing.

[anthropo-eccentricism]

Thank you for the kind words, lizbeth.

[...] I don't understand why the thread got entangled in an argument about the existence of some sort of creative spirit.

Typist explains himself here. As for me, I concede the possibility that my acquiescence in such an argument was a regrettable decision.

I'm responding to a very long standing pattern of such intellectually arrogant claims by many young punk posters on many forums, and am hoping that a bit of public embarrassment might assist some of our young friends in being more thoughtful in their public declarations. If I should embarrass myself in such a project also, ok, so be it, then I must need a teaching as well, we never get too old for that.

Whether or not he succeeded in his endeavour is another issue entirely.

I disagree with 2) because I don't think Nature can be called a "moving simulacra." Then, again, I may simply not fully understand a-e's use of the word 'simulacra.' IOW, I'm not sure if Nature is simply a repetition of itself with the attributes of a simulacrum.

My use of the term was provocative. All it's meant to denote is the claim that since there are no essences, no norms or eternal forms against which we may compare subsequent variations and declare them impoverished, since, in short, difference is not deviant, then it follows that the original/copy dichotomy must be done away with. Everything is as equally original as everything else. Or, in more provocative terms: all is copy; for if everything is original, then nothing is--that is, there is no one original against which all else can be labeled copy. Is that any clearer?

I wonder, sometimes, if newbies are subjected to some sort of initiation hazing.

Ah, of course.

[Typist]

Hi there Lizbeth,

I've taken the liberty of reducing the OP down to what I think are the salient points. I've done so because I don't understand why the thread got entangled in an argument about the existence of some sort of creative spirit.

This is pretty easy to explain.

1) Participation by other members has so far been minimal.

2) Those who participated addressed the parts of the thesis that interested them. As you've seen, what interested this reader were the essentially theological arguments attempting to hide under the flag of science.

1) Nature is not supposed to be anything. This is perhaps the fundamental Darwinian insight: nature is non-teleological; it is without purpose. are, and they are as much as all else.

Nature is a VERY BIG word, as it includes all of the natural world extending out billions of light years in all directions and perhaps beyond, to an undefined, unknown and conceivably unimaginable distance. Thus, extremely broad statements about nature such as "nature is not supposed to be anything" reaches such a level of wild infinite scale speculation that it is no longer fairly called science, but is more properly labeled religion. I'm not objecting to religion, only to religion being called science.

4) Design no longer requires a designer. The Intelligent-Designers will have no friends here, and for this reason--I'll keep this point short. If you're still holding on to a vestige of hope in intelligent design, then this isn't the thread for you.

This statement is of course a direct engagement of specifically religious schools of thought, which concern themselves with intelligent designers, that is, creators. This is a direct engagement of the God proposal, with nothing more to back it up than those who put forward the God proposal have to offer. Infinite scale speculation is infinite scale speculation is infinite scale speculation, whoever does it, or whatever they call it.

The OP would like you to believe I am attempting to drag the thread off topic, but the facts are I am responding directly to essentially religious points central to his argument. He is of course entirely entitled to his religious beliefs, no complaint there. But he did post them in a public forum and ask for response, which has been shared as requested.

5) Humans are animals. Nature has no preference for Earth and its rich ecosystem over Mars and its desolate wasteland. Nature just is what it does… Including what it does through us and our technologies.

This is of course more of the same. How does the OP know what Nature does or doesn't have preference for??? This statement presumes that one young member of one species on one planet in one of billions of galaxies is able to understand the most fundamental nature of all of reality, an arena which none of us can even begin to define. This isn't science or reason, but well articulated entertaining wild speculation.

I like wild speculation. I especially enjoy well articulated entertaining wild speculation, which the OP has proven he is qualified to share. All I can suggest is that if any of us don't want our wild speculation bubbles popped, internet forums are probably not a good place to share them.

[James S Saint]

I have to agree that Typist is taking the more rational "neutral perspective". The problem with that is that such people (such as myself) end up having to always defend the less popular stance.. sometimes a bit self-defeating in the Nietzschian sense.

[Typist]

.. sometimes a bit self-defeating in the Nietzschian sense.

Please allow me to reveal my ignorance of "Nietzschian sense". Clue me in?

[Tab]

I'm sorry, I had hoped to get something out of a contribution to this website. I was, quite obviously, completely mistaken. Have none of you taken an introductory science class? A class in critical thinking? It's as if I'm struggling to reason with fools. I didn't say I was arguing on behalf of Darwin, I said that I would summarize his insights to begin a discussion in the vein of Darwinian evolutionary theory. I fully concede that I don't consider Darwinian biology in need of substantiation. It's well-known, well-substantiated, and well-taken. There have certainly been important developments since, but to call the evolution-generating engine of difference a theological assertion is frankly quite hilarious.

Don't worry about some of the people here, more ego on their mental shelves than there are books. Great OP.

I agreed pretty much with everything, though would point out that "nature is not supposed to be anything" and "nature is creative" seem to be in conflict. The 'supposed' saves it, I erm, suppose.

I'd say "nature is extremely conservative" and sometimes has a little creativity imposed upon it in extremis via enviromental change. If we're including sexual selective pressures then yes, evolution does get a little funky - though more in an "exaggerate a feature already present" kinda way, than abstracted creativity.

[turtle]

i still think there is a lot we do not know about the nature of evolution...
evolutionary theory is not dogma at this point in time...

[phyllo]

The Muslims knew about evolution in the middle ages. By the time Darwin came along, they had a very sophisticated theory supported by observations. They believed that evolution is part of God's creation and that there is a purpose to it. Man evolved from apes and is evolving to a higher state ... saint ... angel ... god.

Evolution does not exclude God.

Islamic views on evolution are diverse, ranging from theistic evolution to creationism. Muslims believe in a God as the Creator, as explained in the Qur'an. Throughout history some Muslim thinkers have proposed and accepted elements of the theory of evolution, while believing in the supremacy of God in the process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution

[Typist]

Man evolved from apes and is evolving to a higher state ... saint ... angel ... god.

We see a pattern of non-life becoming life, which becomes ever more sophisticated and intelligent life. All agreed so far.

Chart this pattern forward some number of eons, and you've got yourself a God. At the point when this entity becomes all powerful and is no longer bound by space and time, it doesn't matter when it became a God, as it's always been and always will be. No seriously, it clearly says this right on the back of this cereal box, and it's really good cereal!

In other news...

Some posters are sincere in their celebration of Darwin's accomplishment, but what they may not realize is that they are actually disrespecting the accomplishment when they attempt to marry it to infinite scale speculation.

By such an attempt what they are really saying is that Darwin's accomplishment is not sufficiently spectacular on it's own, and needs to be improved with a bunch of other add on stuff. This is like telling your girlfriend you love her, but she really needs some new outfits. (Kids: Don't try this at home!)

Darwin discovered the mechanism by which life on one planet continually adapts to it's environment. A big deal all by itself. Love your favorite theories as they are, not as you wish they were, just like the girlfriend.