The Genius of Charles Darwin

[scy12]

I'm not certain science necessarily contradict an interventionist God (though I certainly do not believe in one). Admitedly it contradict most of the common interpretation of the interventionist God.

Depending of course on how you define interventionist God.

One who we can witness to intervene ?

 

[Zebra 9]

@scy12 I'll try to get that, I read it in a book, and I can't find it on the internet right now.
@nihilistic please explain to me why science is the enemy of an "interventionist god?"
@Mise ok, thank you, now I know.

I hope you don't think I was saying Mise was incorrect. I only meant to say that he had "a few technical" problems.

 

[Evie]

Well, of course, Scy. Science certainly contradict an *observably* interventionist God.

But one could postulate an interventionist God that intervene in such way as to be non-noticeable. Manipulating the lottery numbers, so to speak.

Would we be able to observe an entity that made sure the right numbers came up at various points?

 

[Mise]

It's difficult to distinguish between the actions of an interventionist God, and an as yet unexplained natural phenomenon. Lightning, for example, was once considered the action of an interventionist God.

 

[Zebra 9]

And it very well could be, if he chose to manipulate those odds. I believe in an interventionist God who only operates inside of the laws of the universe (he created them so he knows them all), such as relativity, gravity, and any others you wish to list, although I think you could exclude biological evolution in the sense of macro evolution.

 

[Evie]

Mise: Yes, but the underlying idea behind science (not the principle of the scientific method, but the concept underlying the whole idea of science) is that observable phenomenon can and should be explained via natural processes, which the action of an interventionist God are not.

 

[Mise]

And it very well could be, if he chose to manipulate those odds. I believe in an interventionist God who only operates inside of the laws of the universe (he created them so he knows them all), such as relativity, gravity, and any others you wish to list, although I think you could exclude biological evolution in the sense of macro evolution.

So God is just some being with very very advanced technology?

Sounds like Clark's third law.

@Oda: We can easily define whatever action God makes as a natural process. Afterall, such a being would be observable, if his actions could be detected, which places him in the realm of science and nature.

 

[Zebra 9]

Well if He works using the natural laws then anything He does is explainable.

 

[scy12]

Well, of course, Scy. Science certainly contradict an *observably* interventionist God.

But one could postulate an interventionist God that intervene in such way as to be non-noticeable. Manipulating the lottery numbers, so to speak.

Would we be able to observe an entity that made sure the right numbers came up at various points?

I think the arguement goes like this : If we can't observe him then there is no reason to deny whether he exists or not. It may be possible that a pink flamingo is manipulating our mind by using a device on our brain and everything is an illusion but there is no reason to deny something that can not be observed. We shall attempt to reach any conclusion by observing and have faith that what we don't observe to exist does not exist because there is no evidence to suggest it does. Logical faith ? Contradiction ? Maybe .

 

[Shekwan]

Its about as likely that my ass created the Universe as "God", I have as much empirical evidence to prove it as the religious types have to prove God did.

 

[scy12]

Arthur C. Clarke formulated the following three "laws" of prediction:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

I say Clarke is correct but there is no reason to waste our time with those claiming that something is correct because is possible.

Nothing is impossible but i say we claim that something without evidence is , so we allocate our resources and time more successful by researching things where evidence are more likely to be found .

Its about as likely that my ass created the Universe as "God", I have as much empirical evidence to prove it as the religious types have to prove God did.

Its about as likely that my ass created the Universe as "God", I have as much empirical evidence to prove it as the religious types have to prove God did.

Exactly.

 

[Evie]

Hey, respect your classics, man. It's either an *Invisible Pink Unicorn* or a *Flying Spaghetti Monster*. Leave stupid flamingos out of this. (What? Of course I know the classic tools, I even use them frequently. I'm an agnostic, not a theist)

What I'm saying is that it's not correct to say science *contradicts* the notion of an interventionist God. It does not. What it does is, it does NOT call for the existence of such a God.

While this means that we should not invoke such a God in our scientifical explanations, it's not quite *contradicting* such an existence.

 

[Zebra 9]

Well you should never assume something doesn't exist and you should never assume that something does exist.

 

[scy12]

Hey, respect your classics, man. It's either an *Invisible Pink Unicorn* or a *Flying Spaghetti Monster*. Leave stupid flamingos out of this. (What? Of course I know the classic tools, I even use them frequently. I'm an agnostic, not a theist)

With respect but it is a crime to ignore Shekwan's ass as a likely candidate as the Creator of the universe.

 

[EnglishEdward]

As far as I know (I'm not a biologist), a good deal of Dawkins's theories are quite mainstream now in biology. For example, one of Dawkins's book "The Selfish Gene", is now considered a classic and his theory that the gene rather than the individual is the fundamental unit that natural selection works on, is now almost as obvious as natural selection itself.

His theory??? I am not sure why you are crediting him with that

It is quite clear from reading Darwin that natural selection works on natural inherited characteristics. Once the gene as the physical expression of inherited charisteristics was identified 50 years, all the smart biologists very quickly understood that.

 

[Evie]

With respect but it is a crime to ignore Shekwan's ass as a likely candidate as the Creator of the universe.

That theory is far too new to be branded as a classic yet! Give it time!

 

[nihilistic]

Hey, respect your classics, man. It's either an *Invisible Pink Unicorn* or a *Flying Spaghetti Monster*. Leave stupid flamingos out of this. (What? Of course I know the classic tools, I even use them frequently. I'm an agnostic, not a theist)

What I'm saying is that it's not correct to say science *contradicts* the notion of an interventionist God. It does not. What it does is, it does NOT call for the existence of such a God.

While this means that we should not invoke such a God in our scientifical explanations, it's not quite *contradicting* such an existence.

Point taken. However, couldn't the efficacy of science could be taken an empirical refutation (thus a scientific refutation) of the hypothesis of an interventionist supernatural agent?

But one could postulate an interventionist God that intervene in such way as to be non-noticeable. Manipulating the lottery numbers, so to speak.

There are 3 cases:

1. Fundamentally deterministic universe. This is possible even with Quantum Mechanics as there may well be a level of material below the resolution of QM that interacts in a deterministic way that generates the apparent "non-deterministic with parameters" nature of QM. If this is so, then you are basically lamenting that our technology has not advanced to the point where we can trace each and every fundamental particle along. Your deity would not be in principle noticeable.

2. Fundamentally non-deterministic universe. A world in which, even given a complete picture of the position and velocity of every fundamental particle, it is still impossible to predict the positions and velocities of the particles in the very next moment even given unlimited computational capabilities. I'm guessing your argument occurs in this theory of the universe. But even in such a universe, a non-noticeable deity must either have or not have an effect. If it has an effect, then you are basically accusing humans as being not observant enough. If it does not have an effect, then it might as well not exist.

3. Turtles all the way down. Non-existence of fundamental unit. Matter is infinitely divisible into increasingly smaller 'units' of arbitrarily high resolution. The resolution of this would be similar to case 2.

Would we be able to observe an entity that made sure the right numbers came up at various points?

What is a 'right' number?

 

[bathsheba666]

@bathsheba666, so would you consider the Big Bag a scientific principle or an assertion?

Depends if this 'Big Bag' is the one the Arkleseizure keeps its handkerchief in.

 

[Evie]

What is a 'right' number?

That's the question,isn't it?

The answer, of course, is "we don't know", which mean that we can not make any verifiable prediction that would allow us to support such a theory. Hence why God has no place in science.

Regarding thesis 1/2/3, I would say "not observant enough" is not necessarily the proper way to characterize it: "unable to distinguish given our present means of observation" is closer.

 

[nihilistic]

His theory??? I am not sure why you are crediting him with that

It is quite clear from reading Darwin that natural selection works on natural inherited characteristics. Once the gene as the physical expression of inherited charisteristics was identified 50 years, all the smart biologists very quickly understood that.

Darwin doesn't know all that much about genetics. Even when Darwin (and his contemporaries) speak of characteristics, it is usually understood as "characteristics of an individual". Even well after Darwin and Mendel, it was still thought that everything natural selection selects for must have absolute survival value for the organism that carries it. That is simply not true. Many many mechanisms that have been identified to be genetic have positively disasterous effects on the survival of the organism that carries it. Dawkins's thesis was that genes do not have to better the survival of the individual organism it inhabits in order for it to spread by natural selection. It only needs to be proficient in spreading itself at the cost of other genes in its environment for it to spread. Hence the title "The Selfish Gene". It refers not to a gene for selfish behavior but rather to the gene itself being essentially a selfish entity.