Why are theconcepts of God/Gods and evolution considered so mutually exclusive?

[Hotpoint]

So, we're unsure of our axioms, not certain that our deductions are valid, and we dare not trust that if our results are true they will apply to reality. How can we claim we're making empirical science?

Because although we can never be completely sure of our data it's the best data we've got and until we've got contradictory facts we bite the bullet and go with it.

Absolutes are the province of Faith. Real life isn't that simple

If we abandon self-consistency, there's no reason to abandond a model just because observations contradict it.

Sorry but you seem to be concluding there that merely because we don't have total belief in our methods, data or the universality of our conclusion that invalidates the entire process, I think that's a leap of logic in the extreme

 

[The Last Conformist]

Because although we can never be completely sure of our data it's the best data we've got and until we've got contradictory facts we bite the bullet and go with it.

Which implies faith that taking the best data we've got and sticking with them till something contradictory turns up is most likely to get us right.

Sorry but you seem to be concluding there that merely because we don't have total belief in our methods, data or the universality of our conclusion that invalidates the entire process, I think that's a leap of logic in the extreme

I'm saying that if even total certainty about the validity of our axioms, data and methods does not allow us to unconditionally trust our results, the entire process is pointless.

 

[Hotpoint]

Which implies faith that taking the best data we've got and sticking with them till something contradictory turns up is most likely to get us right.

Not "faith" merely a rational conclusion to play the odds based on the knowledge we presently have and making sure to keep an open mind for when (or if) those facts change.

I'm saying that if even total certainty about the validity of our axioms, data and methods does not allow us to unconditionally trust our results, the entire process is pointless.

Untrue why would it? Just because we cannot be 100 percent certain does not make the process pointless... it just makes us uncertain. To draw any other conclusion is opinion not reason.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Not "faith" merely a rational conclusion to play the odds based on the knowledge we presently have and making sure to keep an open mind for when (or if) those facts change.

Which presupposes faith in the reasoning which led you to that conclusion.

Untrue why would it? Just because we cannot be 100 percent certain does not make the process pointless... it just makes us uncertain. To draw any other conclusion is opinion not reason.

For the third time, it's pointless if being 100% certain doesn't help. And that's what you get if you don't assume self-consistency.

 

[Hotpoint]

Which presupposes faith in the reasoning which led you to that conclusion.

Not Faith, Uncertain Belief the two are different as the former requires total acceptance and the latter doesn't.

For the third time, it's pointless if being 100% certain doesn't help. And that's what you get if you don't assume self-consistency.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I'm being stupid for now but it seems like your argument is based upon a leap that is not supported by your stated criteria.

Why is it "pointless"? Please detail how you arrive at that sweeping assumption because to me it seems to be based on the notion that if you don't either start from a point of utter certainty, or else arrive at one, the journey is pointless and I don't see that absolute as valid.

 

[BasketCase]

Conway's "Life" game is an example of God and evolution working in tandem.

No it's not. The mathematics of the simulation will stand whether dieties exist or not, so it is completely unrelated to "god".

The simulation itself had to be created by Conway. Without the Almighty Conway, the mathematics of the simulation would NOT stand. Hence God.

Furthermore, there is really no connection between the game of life and life in general except the aesthetic simimlies people like to make. Life exists to perpectuate itself off chemical energies given off by the sun stored in various forms. The game, well, the pieces of the game dont really make any effort to stay "alive"

The individual cells in your body don't "make an effort" to stay alive either. They obey whatever instructions are found in their DNA, without question.

What about you as a person? Do you really "make an effort" born of your will, or is your will simply an illusion propogated by stimuli to your senses, which produce programmed responses? Can you prove that you have free will? Nope. Nobody ever has, this is one of those philosophical questions that never has been answered, and probably never will be. Our belief that we have free will could simply be a stimulated response in our brains.....

The fact that a checkerboard and three extremely simple rules can spawn incredible complexity is the thing that makes Conway's Life a slice of true genius.

He copied, then modified the rules of the ancient game of "GO". The basic concepts are the same though: simple rules applied multiple times. Cardinality breeds complexity.

Three elementary particles: protons, neutrons, and electrons. Four elementary forces acting on them. Applied multiple times. At the atomic level, the universe is extremely simple, and look at the results.....

It's currently unknown whether the universe is the product of a simple subatomic system or a complex one--as we go deeper down, to quarks and beyond, things may get more complex, or they may get even simpler.

But Conway's counter game is an example of ONE system that does evolve from the simple to the complex. It is possible that our universe works the same way.