Evolution = Atheistic Belief?

[Forge]

Now, this question about whether Creationism, Evolution, or Design are true or not.

I'm wondering if evolution, by its definition, is an atheistic belief. Some hold that a scientist can't believe in a designed evolution and be scientific, while others hold that it's still science.

So, main question: Is a person who believes that God formed and guided evolutionary mechanisms--remember not to debate whether the mechanisms truely exist or not--an Evolutionist or a Designer?




By the way, is this the real definition of a ID believer? It popped up somewhere.

An IDer is one who insists that a "designer" creating the universe is a scientific concept.

[Canuckster1127]

Now, this question about whether Creationism, Evolution, or Design are true or not.

I'm wondering if evolution, by its definition, is an atheistic belief. Some hold that a scientist can't believe in a designed evolution and be scientific, while others hold that it's still science.

So, main question: Is a person who believes that God formed and guided evolutionary mechanisms--remember not to debate whether the mechanisms truely exist or not--an Evolutionist or a Designer?




By the way, is this the real definition of a ID believer? It popped up somewhere.

An IDer is one who insists that a "designer" creating the universe is a scientific concept.

Evolution and Intelligent Design and even creationism are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Evolution is ultimately a study of the mechanics of how live changes over time. It does not, nor can it determine first cause nor necessarily if metaphysical elements are involved.

Methodological Naturalism is the application of Evolutionary Science, extended out into the realm of philosophy that argues that chance, time and the evolutionary process are sufficient to explain the existance of life without the need for a First Cause, Intelligent Designer or God.

The majority of scientific evolutionists are not necessarily methodological naturalists. Many Theists are Theistic Evolutionists, meaning that they believe God used the mechanism of evolution as His means of creation.

Intelligent Design is really a concept in response to Methodogical Naturalism. The concept briefly stated is that if Methodological Naturalism as a philosophy can be promoted as a science, then the argument for Intelligent Design can equally be promoted scientifically on the basis of inference from scientific data.

It is arguable as to how effective that approach will be. It is equally arguable as to how effective scientific methodological naturalism is in terms of the conclusions drawn outside of hard science itself.

Much of the confusion arises from the differing position using the same terms but meaning something different within their system. Both sides seem more interested, in my opinion, in showing the failings of the other positions instead of providing evidence for their own. Theists have been more criticized for this because of the faith elements of their beliefs. Intelligent Design is in part a response to the criticism. It's arguable as to whether that effort is or can be scientific to the level demanded by skeptics, but it is a growing effort and focus that I believe will be good overall both for science which needs skepticism to push it forward, and for theism which needs to be framed in manner more relevant and meaningful to our increasingly technological and scientific society.

I bet that elicits some responses. If I can get both sides angry at me with this, then that might be evidence that I've struck close to the middle.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Now, this question about whether Creationism, Evolution, or Design are true or not.

I'm wondering if evolution, by its definition, is an atheistic belief. Some hold that a scientist can't believe in a designed evolution and be scientific, while others hold that it's still science.

So, main question: Is a person who believes that God formed and guided evolutionary mechanisms--remember not to debate whether the mechanisms truely exist or not--an Evolutionist or a Designer?




By the way, is this the real definition of a ID believer? It popped up somewhere.

An IDer is one who insists that a "designer" creating the universe is a scientific concept.

A scientist can beleive that trees talk to him, and still conduct science. True story.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Now, this question about whether Creationism, Evolution, or Design are true or not.

I'm wondering if evolution, by its definition, is an atheistic belief. Some hold that a scientist can't believe in a designed evolution and be scientific, while others hold that it's still science.

So, main question: Is a person who believes that God formed and guided evolutionary mechanisms--remember not to debate whether the mechanisms truely exist or not--an Evolutionist or a Designer?




By the way, is this the real definition of a ID believer? It popped up somewhere.

An IDer is one who insists that a "designer" creating the universe is a scientific concept.

A scientist can beleive that trees talk to him, and still conduct science. True story.

Too bad not all Darwinists think so.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/

If you think this book is right and evolution is a work of fiction, then
just be glad that your doctor knows better. We need more trained biologists
in this country to help keep our world healthy and I fear works like this
one will deter young people from becoming productive scientists.

In other words, you can't be a good scientist, or a good doctor, unless you believe in evolution.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Evolution and Intelligent Design and even creationism are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Evolution is ultimately a study of the mechanics of how live changes over time. It does not, nor can it determine first cause nor necessarily if metaphysical elements are involved.

Methodological Naturalism is the application of Evolutionary Science, extended out into the realm of philosophy that argues that chance, time and the evolutionary process are sufficient to explain the existance of life without the need for a First Cause, Intelligent Designer or God.

The majority of scientific evolutionists are not necessarily methodological naturalists. Many Theists are Theistic Evolutionists, meaning that they believe God used the mechanism of evolution as His means of creation.

I think the confusion arises from how the media misrepresents actual science with sensational headlines, and pop science which spins tales of how evolution lead to culture or language for example and making it seem like that this is verified by science. These are just hypothesis. In most cases they can't ever be verified.

People are ignorant, the media is ignorant and people rely on media instead of actual scientists to get their information regarding evolution and science in general. Its not a problem as long as we continue give those individuals who are truely interested in science the access to real science that they need.
=)

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Too bad not all Darwinists think so.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/

If you think this book is right and evolution is a work of fiction, then
just be glad that your doctor knows better. We need more trained biologists
in this country to help keep our world healthy and I fear works like this
one will deter young people from becoming productive scientists.

In other words, you can't be a good scientist, or a good doctor, unless you believe in evolution.

This is not true, but if you look at the data honestly, you cannot say that evolution does not occur, unless you can show that there is some limitation to what can be changed.

But if one can take a human ear and engineer a rat to grow one on it's back I think it's safe to say that there is no physical limitation to how much a gene pool can change.

However not all scientists and especially medical doctors need to know about evolution.

The reason we have medicine and the theory of evolution is that someone decided that they wanted to ask how life works. Before that it was just considered a miracle, however understanding the mechanisms does not make is less of a miracle.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

you cannot say that evolution does not occur, unless you can show that there is some limitation to what can be changed.

Really? Isn't this just begging the question on your part? I can't say evolution isn't true unless I can prove it wrong. When was it proven right?

But if one can take a human ear and engineer a rat to grow one on it's back I think it's safe to say that there is no physical limitation to how much a gene pool can change.

It's how the gene pool changes that's under dispute though, isn't it? You're saying that intellgence can cause a gene pool to change with your example-but how does this lead to the conclusion that there is no physical limitation when intelligence is removed from the equation (or even that there is no physical limitation with intelligence involved)? My Engrish not so good, if I didn't make enough sense, I'll try to clarify.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Why are we off topic?

[Jbuza]

In other words, you can't be a good scientist, or a good doctor, unless you believe in evolution.

Hey.

I know this to be true I heard on the Radio a couple days ago something about global warming, and than they said that no respectable scientist didn't accept whatever the conclusion was, can't remember; but the point is it is part of that whole political correctness within science and academia.

It seems like serious inquiry and genuine exploration of ideas has been replaced for conformation and harmony that is in line with what all the smart people think. I mean after all who would dissent or propose an alternative theory with respect to the above, after the news reported that they would have to be disreputable to do so. I just think of Soviet Russia when citizens scrambled to get the morning paper, so that they could read the news, and find out what they had to think to be in line with the party. Many people faced horrors at the hand of the soviets for not conforming. This is not dissimilar with the peer reviewed process whereby free ideas can be suppressed in order to create a harmonious atmosphere whereby all the high and mighty scientists can be comfortable in there collective brilliance.

It may be easy to dismiss the above, but when you look at many text and journals you will find them devoid of many competing ideas. That is simply a fact.

[Jbuza]

This is not true, but if you look at the data honestly, you cannot say that evolution does not occur, unless you can show that there is some limitation to what can be changed.

The stability that appears before our eyes when every species continues to produce similar offspring indicates that evolution only occours on a very limited and trivial process.

But if one can take a human ear and engineer a rat to grow one on it's back I think it's safe to say that there is no physical limitation to how much a gene pool can change.

This is very strong argument aginst evolution and in favor of intelligent design. You see no rats growing human ears on their backs in spite of the added range of hearing, whilst it demonstrates how varied kinds of life and variations that an intelligent desinger could make especially if he were more intelligent than the humans you talk about in the rat experiment.

Or Bold is mine.

But if one can take a human ear and engineer a rat to grow one on it's back I think it's safe to say that there is no physical limitation to how much a gene pool can be changed.

The reason we have medicine and the theory of evolution is that someone decided that they wanted to ask how life works. Before that it was just considered a miracle, however understanding the mechanisms does not make is less of a miracle.

MEdicine existed long before evolution, and evolution gained acceptance when a distrought agnostic or athiest tried to prove how life could happen with the arbitrary presupposition that God does not exist.

You can't claim the fact that life works, and the knowledge of its workings as evidence for evolution, sorry that is science, and evolution is a nebulous explanation.

[Forge]

People, stay on topic. Whether evolution is true or not is not the question.

The question is whether the belief that God designed the evolutionary mechanisms is still evolution or not.

[Jbuza]

Yes

[BGoodForGoodSake]

you cannot say that evolution does not occur, unless you can show that there is some limitation to what can be changed.

Really? Isn't this just begging the question on your part? I can't say evolution isn't true unless I can prove it wrong. When was it proven right?

No because it has been shown that gene pools do change over time.Now you need to show that there is some physical limitation otherwise the idea that changes will accumulate is sound.

But if one can take a human ear and engineer a rat to grow one on it's back I think it's safe to say that there is no physical limitation to how much a gene pool can change.

It's how the gene pool changes that's under dispute though, isn't it? You're saying that intellgence can cause a gene pool to change with your example-but how does this lead to the conclusion that there is no physical limitation when intelligence is removed from the equation (or even that there is no physical limitation with intelligence involved)? My Engrish not so good, if I didn't make enough sense, I'll try to clarify.

No the gene pool changes naturally, genetic manipulation only shows that limitations do not exist.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

This is not true, but if you look at the data honestly, you cannot say that evolution does not occur, unless you can show that there is some limitation to what can be changed.

The stability that appears before our eyes when every species continues to produce similar offspring indicates that evolution only occours on a very limited and trivial process.

Lets not go through this again, isolated populations have clearly shown divertion from main populations.

But if one can take a human ear and engineer a rat to grow one on it's back I think it's safe to say that there is no physical limitation to how much a gene pool can change.

This is very strong argument aginst evolution and in favor of intelligent design. You see no rats growing human ears on their backs in spite of the added range of hearing, whilst it demonstrates how varied kinds of life and variations that an intelligent desinger could make especially if he were more intelligent than the humans you talk about in the rat experiment.

First of all this ear cannot hear. Second of all evolution can only work with variation within a population. I don't need to defend a theory which you still clearly do not understand. Plus to think that added hearing is automatically an advantage is foolish.

But if one can take a human ear and engineer a rat to grow one on it's back I think it's safe to say that there is no physical limitation to how much a gene pool can be changed.

So if I devise an experiment in which I force erosion by placing a rock under running water, I have proven that intelligence is required for erosion? Give me a break. Intelligence may be behind it but I certainly haven't proven it by manipulating genetic information.

The reason we have medicine and the theory of evolution is that someone decided that they wanted to ask how life works. Before that it was just considered a miracle, however understanding the mechanisms does not make is less of a miracle.

MEdicine existed long before evolution, and evolution gained acceptance when a distrought agnostic or athiest tried to prove how life could happen with the arbitrary presupposition that God does not exist.

I think you missed the point entirely. Please re-read the statement.

You can't claim the fact that life works, and the knowledge of its workings as evidence for evolution, sorry that is science, and evolution is a nebulous explanation.

We should stay on topic I'll stop posting here.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Now, this question about whether Creationism, Evolution, or Design are true or not.

I'm wondering if evolution, by its definition, is an atheistic belief. Some hold that a scientist can't believe in a designed evolution and be scientific, while others hold that it's still science.

So, main question: Is a person who believes that God formed and guided evolutionary mechanisms--remember not to debate whether the mechanisms truely exist or not--an Evolutionist or a Designer?

To answer your question they would be an evolutionist who beleives in ID.

Someone can believe that life was designed, but still conduct science. They can even try to concoct experiments to show their beleifs. Many ID believers have no problems with evolution and common descent. However someone who thinks that ID is a scientific theory is not a scientist.

By the way, is this the real definition of a ID believer? It popped up somewhere.

An IDer is one who insists that a "designer" creating the universe is a scientific concept.