Theology IV

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by inked

Coffehouse,

"Science, in its purest form, is only seeking knowledge to understand what and how."

That, my friend, is a goal.

Goal: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goal

1. the result or achievement toward which effort is directed; aim; end.

Synonyms 1. target; purpose, object, objective, intent, intention. 2. finish.

1. The purpose toward which an endeavor is directed; an objective.

1. the state of affairs that a plan is intended to achieve and that (when achieved) terminates behavior intended to achieve it

2. The final purpose or aim; the end to which a design tends, or which a person aims to reach or attain.


You seem to have confused "specific answer" or "predetermined answer" with goal (op cit).

******************************************

Inked! I'm surprised that you did not read my entire post. You would then hav seen that I write as an explanation that.. "Science thus really only has one goal, to understand more, which really isn't the sort of goal that has been discussed in this thread, which comes back to your own post"

Originally Posted by inked

So the phrase "survival of the fittest" is a mere teleological anthropomorphism? In which case, randomness which eventuates in survival is the end result of material processes only. So is there an inconsistency in your understanding of "survival of the fittest"? It seems it is merely a mode of saying that which survives is best and what is best is what survives, which seems circular. And, since all is the product of randomness, why should I accept your randomness rather than my own?

That is circular logic that you must stand accountable for yourself, because it isn't what I wrote nor meant in my post! Let's see what I actually wrote and I'll try to convey my meaning once again Inked:

The terminology is what seems to confuse, and that's alright because I find it confusing too. The point, which is subtle but important, that I make by agreeing that 'Evolution is blind' is that although the process itself, by natural selection, is the survival of the fittest, which is not blind (quite the contrary) to genes, favourable and unfavourable depending on the environment, there is not a certain destiny involved. There is not a goal which species evolve towards. There is not a final stage, a target goal, where homo sapiens reach some final culmination of years of development. There isn't a pre-determined end result that is inevitable. What I am trying to convey here, in very non-scientific language, is that the process of evolution never meant to create such a fantastic variety of cats, or snakes or ants. It happened because environments changed, certain characteristics evolved due to eating behaviour, diurnal and noctural behaviour, lack of this and surplus of that.
We have a typical example in the flightless birds on the Galapagos Islands who, because of no natural enemy on the island, could walk around willy-nilly and as of today do not fly. They don't need to.
In the context of this terminology that we are discussing we can say that the parts of the bird that no longer were necessary, namely strong, working wings, seized to perform the traditional function of flying.
The evolution of birds has been the uniform development into winged flight. What is happening to this bird, is devolution. The bird's wings are seizing to perform the function that birds' wings are supposed to perform. One can therefore say, metaphorically speaking, that evolution is blind. Birds develop characteristics in the most unlikely directions, not entirely randomly, but definitely not with a conviction nor a purpose nor a reach towards a certain goal. I'll leave it at that You can disagree, but this is how I see it.

To keep this relevant to the thread I think the goalless nature of evolution shows the lack of a mover, if you will, a God or Gods. Evolution, in my opinion, is in so many ways incompatible with what is written in the Bible. An important difference, irreconciliable at that, with both the Bible and any Creationist argument, is the DNA and chromosone evolution in human beings with relation to our primate cousins, but that's another discussion!

[katya]

Inked, I agree with you that science/scientists have goals, and it wasn't me who said otherwise. But if you can separate science (as something in the minds of men) from the laws of Nature, could you explain whether the latter is or is not blind, from a scientific standpoint?

Personally, I admit to being somewhat if a romantic and fancy that there is probably some sort of guiding life force, unscientifically. By intuition, that is.

[inked]

Originally Posted by katya

Regardless, Inked, the point is that evolution does not have a goal. The natural order of the universe does not have a goal. Part of the practice of science is finding "whys" and so on, but that science is created by humans. The underlying order (or disorder) of the universe is not, and it is also different from the scientific method. So saying that men try to find the TOE and equating that with Nature having a goal doesn't make much sense to me. Science as a discipline has a goal but the things scientists study do not.

Since this is the theology thread, I will assert that the natural order does have a goal and it is mankind, made in the image of God. It is in fact the reality of a Creator which allows order to exist since it originates in Him. To religious folk of the scientific method, the creation is the second book in which God has revealed himself. The first would be the Bible.

Science actually originates from the mind of man grasping the order that is in God and revealed in the universe which He made. That's why science works. There is an underlying order from the Creator. And science makes the assumption that "as here, so everywhere" but materialistically denies its origin in the Creator.

Science has a goal which is to understand the order of creation. The things scientists study have a goal, too. They exist to reveal the glory of Him Who made them.

This is the THEOLOGY THREAD, after all.

[inked]

Coffehouse,
"there is not a certain destiny involved. There is not a goal which species evolve towards. There is not a final stage, a target goal, where homo sapiens reach some final culmination of years of development. There isn't a pre-determined end result that is inevitable."

That would be non-theistic, strictly materialistic evolution, of course.

The concept of theistic evolution would disagree.

Both are based in science which observes, records, analyzes and theorizes, so we should differentiate between them.

I think you are assuming that science is strictly materialistic only. That is a false assumption.


"The evolution of birds has been the uniform development into winged flight."

Ostritches?
And those other big flightless birds:
"There are about forty species in existence today,[2] the best known being the ostrich, emu, cassowary, rhea, kiwi, and penguins. It is believed by some that most flightless birds evolved in the absence of predators, on islands, and lost the power of flight because they had few enemies — although this is likely not the case for the ratites; the ostrich, emu and cassowary, as all have claws on their feet to use as a weapon against predators."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flightless_bird

"To keep this relevant to the thread I think the goalless nature of evolution shows the lack of a mover, if you will, a God or Gods. Evolution, in my opinion, is in so many ways incompatible with what is written in the Bible. An important difference, irreconciliable at that, with both the Bible and any Creationist argument, is the DNA and chromosone evolution in human beings with relation to our primate cousins, but that's another discussion!"

You assume a goalless nature of evolution and assert it, but that dies not make either the case.

I can assert that evolution is compatible with the Bible because I do not have to be forced into a purely materialistic understanding of the nature of the Scripture.

Do explain how DNA and chromosome evolution in relation to our primate cousins disproves what? in the Bible. I'd be interested no end.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by inked

That would be non-theistic, strictly materialistic evolution, of course.

The concept of theistic evolution would disagree.

Both are based in science which observes, records, analyzes and theorizes, so we should differentiate between them.

I think you are assuming that science is strictly materialistic only. That is a false assumption.

Inked, I really can't wait to be shown the building blocks of 'theistic evolution' and how that works. Evidence for this is most welcome.

Originally Posted by inked

"The evolution of birds has been the uniform development into winged flight."

Ostritches?
And those other big flightless birds:
"There are about forty species in existence today,[2] the best known being the ostrich, emu, cassowary, rhea, kiwi, and penguins. It is believed by some that most flightless birds evolved in the absence of predators, on islands, and lost the power of flight because they had few enemies — although this is likely not the case for the ratites; the ostrich, emu and cassowary, as all have claws on their feet to use as a weapon against predators."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flightless_bird

You have an amusing way of taking things out of context, when a sentence later I show an exception in the said flightless bird on the Galapagos Islands. But I'm glad you gave a number, about 40. Reinforces the point I was making. Thanx.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

I can assert that evolution is compatible with the Bible because I do not have to be forced into a purely materialistic understanding of the nature of the Scripture.

No one said a god isnt using evolution to its ends by careful manipulation so subtle as to be undetectable by humans thus far. But this does not mean that evolution itself is a guided process toward a goal anymore than a rock is an object specifically created to bust a window or crack a skull. Rather it can be used for such a purpose by a thinking being. But put it back down and it remains always a rock.

[Rían]

*gives IRex a virtual hug and then runs out*

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

No one said a god isnt using evolution to its ends by careful manipulation so subtle as to be undetectable by humans thus far.

Ah, but I disagree so wholeheartedly with that notion IR, though I'm glad you share the view of blind evolution.
But a theistic evolution? Is it possible to sink lower? Seriously now Inked. Let's see some consistency here. Either you support the Genesis in the Bible and agree to God's creation process or you don't. If you believe in this you can't believe in evolution and you certainly can't do this watered-down, half-way, willy-nilly approach where God uses evolution. That's kicking the Bible where it hurts while conceding just how reality-whopping the theory of evolution really is. It is the only adequate theory so far. Theistic evolution does really only one thing: and that is to damage its own religion, Christianity. It's a ridiculous idea that shoots down God's 'special creation' of all livings things to in return take the credit of a scientific theory that has spent years trying to shatter the mind-boggling ignorance of earlier times' Origin of Man-views, specifically the Bibles! They are NOT compatible.

That's a mouthful but I mean seriously... the nerve

[katya]

CH, I have to disagree with you, mostly. There are all kinds of ideas of God that are compatible with the theory of evolution, including, under the right interpretation, the Christian one. Not all Christians believe in the literal truth of the bible, especially the old testament. I don't think that has anything to do with the reality of Christ and God His Father (wow lots of caps!). I can kind of see how you think it is strange to believe that a God would use evolution as we know it, but it depends on His personality. I can also see how men not being the special creation of God and the reason for the universe goes against traditional belief systems, but there could be all kinds of Gods, and even Christian God might work in a way we can't hope to understand.

Originally Posted by inked

Since this is the theology thread, I will assert that the natural order does have a goal and it is mankind, made in the image of God.
[...]
The things scientists study have a goal, too. They exist to reveal the glory of Him Who made them.

Says you. That's what we're saying, isn't it? That religion/religious folk assume these things, and science/scientists do not. That's all I was trying to resolve anyway. I guess we were also saying that scientists (and me) don't think that evolution has a goal. The theory of evolution is a strictly logical cause-and-effect sort of thing. If you try and say God caused it, and has a reason for doing so, that's completely different from the theory itself.

[inked]

Of course says me, katya!

I am not alone, however. I think there is a whole school of thought called intelligent design along these lines.

However, since this is the theology thread, I will observe that many people are not locked into a materialistic definition of words such that the passage of time in Genesis requires a 24 hour day. Some are. But what is clearly a description of origins has as its primary purpose the identity of the Divine Maker from whom all things arise - even matter itself - by His word. It is not a scientific treatise on the matter in the sense of modern (postEnlightenment) words. One has to make a literary determination about the source material type or genre before one can begin to grasp it.

"In the beginning God created"... the essential point. Since I was not there in person (although I am old, just not that old) -nor was the immediate human author of Genesis, by the way - I fail to see how what is obviously a poetic statement about origins has to be interpreted or understood in modern materialist terms ONLY. Seems perfectly rational to me that Creation from the Big Bang forward has followed the physical laws of this universe which were also created at the same moment - ex nihilo.

I find it fascinating that there is this sudden insistence upon either/or. What is really at issue are fundamental religious assertions of opposing religious concepts - a materialist religion (this is all there is and contains all that can be known) versus a sacramental religion (God made all and all reveals Him). Billions of persons live without that dichotomy being insisted upon.

[katya]

Now I see where you're coming from I don't think we are really disagreeing. Not that I share your religious beliefs, but I think we more or less agree on whatever we were talking about before.

[inked]

See here for a short essay on interpretation/understanding of Scripture:

http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr19...1-article2.htm

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by inked

I am not alone, however. I think there is a whole school of thought called intelligent design along these lines.

I was glad to see this described as a "school of thought." rather than a "science".

However, since this is the theology thread, I will observe that many people are not locked into a materialistic definition of words such that the passage of time in Genesis requires a 24 hour day. Some are. But what is clearly a description of origins has as its primary purpose the identity of the Divine Maker from whom all things arise - even matter itself - by His word. It is not a scientific treatise on the matter in the sense of modern (postEnlightenment) words. One has to make a literary determination about the source material type or genre before one can begin to grasp it.

Okay. We won't gloss quickly over "some are", here, particularly during an election year. Lots of people believe the Bible is science, and should be taught as such. In public schools. Your sense of "the primary purpose" of the material is your sense.

Why are you so hipped on the Old Testament? How about "In the begining was the Word"?

"In the beginning God created"... the essential point. Since I was not there in person (although I am old, just not that old) -nor was the immediate human author of Genesis, by the way - I fail to see how what is obviously a poetic statement about origins has to be interpreted or understood in modern materialist terms ONLY. Seems perfectly rational to me that Creation from the Big Bang forward has followed the physical laws of this universe which were also created at the same moment - ex nihilo.

Such a liberal thinker.

I find it fascinating that there is this sudden insistence upon either/or. What is really at issue are fundamental religious assertions of opposing religious concepts - a materialist religion (this is all there is and contains all that can be known) versus a sacramental religion (God made all and all reveals Him). Billions of persons live without that dichotomy being insisted upon.

Darn straight.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by inked

Of course says me, katya!

I am not alone, however. I think there is a whole school of thought called intelligent design along these lines.

However, since this is the theology thread, I will observe that many people are not locked into a materialistic definition of words such that the passage of time in Genesis requires a 24 hour day. Some are. But what is clearly a description of origins has as its primary purpose the identity of the Divine Maker from whom all things arise - even matter itself - by His word. It is not a scientific treatise on the matter in the sense of modern (postEnlightenment) words. One has to make a literary determination about the source material type or genre before one can begin to grasp it.

"In the beginning God created"... the essential point. Since I was not there in person (although I am old, just not that old) -nor was the immediate human author of Genesis, by the way - I fail to see how what is obviously a poetic statement about origins has to be interpreted or understood in modern materialist terms ONLY. Seems perfectly rational to me that Creation from the Big Bang forward has followed the physical laws of this universe which were also created at the same moment - ex nihilo.

I find it fascinating that there is this sudden insistence upon either/or. What is really at issue are fundamental religious assertions of opposing religious concepts - a materialist religion (this is all there is and contains all that can be known) versus a sacramental religion (God made all and all reveals Him). Billions of persons live without that dichotomy being insisted upon.

It's convenient. Instead of sticking to the guns of the what is actually described in the Bible, with no hint to it to not being taken literally.
It's this ridiculous way of evading responsibility for what is written in thy holiest book that gives me pause.
For all purposes, the Bible is as dead-wrong on the origin of time as Norse mythology is or African creation-myths are.
The Bible consists of, along with the rest of those creation-myths, past, highly imperfect knowledge of the world, jotted down on paper, bricks and stone plates in light of personal religious beliefs and contemporary inadequate scientific understanding. That's what these books are. On many, important issues, imperfect and out-dated

I just don't think you can sit there and pick what you like to take in a 'materialistic' sense and what not to. I know great swathes of humanity do so. But it doesn't make it any more right. Sometimes it seems perfectly okay to take it all literally, and sometimes its 'merely poetic'. It's a case of La-la-land. Nothing is concrete. All becomes VERY fluid when it's convenient. It makes no sense whatsoever when one at the same time claims that the Bible is the word of God. Surely, God, would have pointed out that really we human beings are younglings in this Universe. We evolved from apes. Jesus Christ is a descendant of Apes. He and the rest of his contemporaries had DNA 95% similar to some of our cousins. We are not some type of perfect end product. We are EVOLVING. We may lose our HAIR one day. NO long hair for Jesus. No hair. Bald.
We didn't come in the beginning. We've come in the very end! We've come in the last few seconds! We did NOT come first. Neither did a snake talk to two of our brothers and sisters because SNAKES can't SPEAK can they!?

Thankfully, and mostly thanx to a chap called Darwin, we now know more of how the animal kingdom works. Things are not as black and white, nor are they as straightforward as we used to think. Nature is a complex, albeit beautiful piece of machinery. Varied and intricate like we truly can never understand.
There aren't monsters on the edges of the world, waiting to eat fishermen and lost Catholic sailors. There aren't half-men/half-bulls walking in the interior of Africa. There aren't beaked-men walking through the forests of South America.
We now know there was not a sudden, catastrophic flood which Noah and his wooden Ark escaped from. The Bible has not been truthful on that point. It's been lying to us (unsurprisingly!). There was NO FLOOD. There is not a shred of reliable, scientifically acquired sedimentary data that supports this, which by the way shows how inherently sadistic the Biblical God is, letting all those people die and choosing some lunatic to build a very big boat.

The Theory of Evolution is a remarkably solid piece of scientific thought, which shows how deep we must dwell into the workings of life and the Earth itself to understand what really has been going on in the past.

[GrayMouser]

Just want to point out that theistic evolution and Intelligent Design are two different things.

Theistic evolution accepts the principles of Darwinian evolution, but believes the whole thing was started by God with a purpose in mind.

ID denies Darwinian Evolution, or limits it to a minor role, and believes that natural methods are not sufficient to produce life as it has evolved.

I don't think many theistic evolutionists would appreciate being labelled IDers.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Ah, but I disagree so wholeheartedly with that notion IR, though I'm glad you share the view of blind evolution.

I don’t see the problem with the concept that evolution could be used as a tool by a god for a specific goal just as I don’t see a problem with the concept that gravity could be used by a god either. It says nothing about the nature of evolution. It only speaks of the nature of the god. If we assume there exists a creative force then we can certainly assume said force could be directly responsible for the natural process we call evolution. No? Note this says absolutely nothing about the literal nature of the bible or even about Christianity at all.

[inked]

Coffehouse,
"Jesus Christ is a descendant of Apes. He and the rest of his contemporaries had DNA 95% similar to some of our cousins."

Check your evolutionary theory. I am certain that it claims a common ancestor for apes and humans but not what you said.

I think, too, that you are unaware of other than strict creationist constructions of understanding the biblical accounts of creation. Perhaps you need to read a bit more?

As to biblical interpretation, I certainly shall not be pushed into arguing that only a materialist understanding is possible. Please take the time to read the article on interpretative options exercised in the Church through time. There is a tad more going on than you seem to be aware of. After all, Scripture's been around lots longer than Charles' theory or reactions to his work. You might be surprised to find that out!

And it's not just a way to weasel out of some problem you pose. It predates the problem you pose. With Origen, this mode of thinking goes back to the early 200s. Charles I believe was an 1800s sort, was he not?

And if you are truthful, I think you must admit that even science, and particularly evolutionary theory, has a "past, highly imperfect knowledge of the world, jotted down on paper" too. Which is of course the reason for controversy in the matter. I seem to recall Ptolemaic astronomy accounted for the motions of the known planets, just not very easily, and that there was considerable huff over what we know as Copernican system. So, if those old Ptolemaicists hadn't been collecting the data and studying it, there would not have been further development. In analogous fashion, understandings of scriptural statements can be developed. Just like evolutionary theory adapts to findings.

Speaking of which, where are all those linking organisms Charles posited? and exactly how many theories of evolution are you aware of?

As to the sadistic nature of God you posit on the grounds of the flood narrative, I must suggest to you that for creatures such as ourselves and the oters on the planet, there has to be an environment which acts like one and which changes and contains dangers to allow physical and moral development. This is not only the best of all possible worlds in that sense, it may be the ONLY possible type of worlds.

But I think there is a evolution versus creation thread somewhere for that discussion.

[inked]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Just want to point out that theistic evolution and Intelligent Design are two different things.

Theistic evolution accepts the principles of Darwinian evolution, but believes the whole thing was started by God with a purpose in mind.

ID denies Darwinian Evolution, or limits it to a minor role, and believes that natural methods are not sufficient to produce life as it has evolved.

I don't think many theistic evolutionists would appreciate being labelled IDers.

Perhaps you could enlighten us further or point to some links?

Thanks!

[BeardofPants]

Yep, Inked has it correct. Homo sapiens sapiens shares a common ancestor with the ape, and is NOT descended from them.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by inked

Perhaps you could enlighten us further or point to some links?

Well, the problem is that they're missing ...