Evidence for God from Science

ARWallace wrote:I would agree that ID, being a relatively new field of inquiry (20 years or less) has a lot of research ahead of it. But the ToE has been around for over 150 years, and there are volumes of research in this field.

Actually ToE has been around longer than that... Darwin was the one to popularize it... So?

ARWallace wrote:Could you be a little more specific in what areas you think evolution needs? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just curious.

It depends on what type of evolution you are talking about... If you are talking about Darwinian evolution, I think, and it seems that you too would agree that neither DE nor ID have all the answers ... For the most part I agree with Rich with his General Rebuttal to the Theory of Evolution

ARWallace wrote:On this, I would agree.

Looks like we both agree on something...

ARWallace wrote:Well, there's a couple of issues you bring up here; first, will it be taught in public schools? You say no, and I tend to disagree - we have one teacher on this forum who admitted teaching it. I know many teachers in my district teach ID. I think this will continue even if cases are brought to the Supreme Court and ID - like YEC - is ruled a religious-based philosophy. Teachers with strong personal beliefs tend to teach what they want to teach.Now, whether public schools will promote the teaching of ID is another kettle of fish. I suspect in the coming years we will have school boards that will implement policies promoting its teaching on an ad hoc basis across the country, and I suspect that court cases will inevitably follow. And I would be surprised if the outcome of these cases is any different than the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling. ID, in its current form, is deeply rooted in Christianity, and teaching it would violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. It will be rather difficult for ID to parse itself from its roots, IMHO. And I suppose this would also preclude it from receiving tax dollars to pursue its research.

Well that pretty much was what I said before.... ID has been labeled as another form of creationism, a breech between Church and State, a religious wedge. But if you know of a class on ID in some public school curricula, that would be the first time I have heard of that... Sure a teacher my allude to ID, but teach a course on it? Highly doubtful....

ARWallace wrote:Now, ID is an area of active research at place like the Discovery Institute which is privately funded. But even if it wasn't ruled a religious idea and public money could fund it, I tend to think there wouldn't be a groundswell of interest. Scientists are sort of a tough crowd, and they tend to think the ToE is a valid, robust scientific theory and that ID hasn't produced on its promises (i.e. they haven't produced a demonstrably IC structure, as yet).

So, in your opinion molecular biology or gradualism has confirmed the evolutionary mechanisms proposed by the Darwinian theory? How? This seems to go against what you said earlier... You said that you too would agree that neither DE nor ID have all the answers.

ARWallace wrote:Finally, I wouldn't really argue that the ToE has been spot-welded in place - it sort of gained the status it enjoys in science on its own merits.

Ah... No it has been spot-welded... The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that design is another form of creationism and that it violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state funds to religion.

ARWallace wrote:That is, after 150 years of active research, there has not been a single published study that has discredited a major tenet of the theory of evolution. This sort of support is enjoyed be an elite group of ideas in science which is why the Wedge will have to be pretty big to be successful.

Cheers
Al

Of course the theory of evolution hasn't been discredited. That is what the evolutionary scientists are paid to do. Promote ToE.. If you worked for the Nike corporation would you start selling shoes from the Adidas corporation? I would think not... That is, if you wanted to keep your job and the respect of your peers...

Cheers...

Gman -

>>Actually ToE has been around longer than that... Darwin was the one to popularize it... So?

Well, the notion of evolution had been around for a while before the publication of the Origins, but Darwin and Wallace were the first to codify it into a formal theory together with the mechanism that drives evolution. So my point was merely a response to your statement that both theories had a lot of research to do...having been around for 150 years, and having been scrutinized and tested over this period, I would say that it has stood the test of time rather well. While there is always research that could and should be done, it has weathered scrutiny rather well as theories go. In contrast, I would argue that ID does have a lot of research to do if for no other reason than it is a relatively new idea to science (I know, I know - Paley had the same argument in the 18th century...)

>>It depends on what type of evolution you are talking about... If you are talking about Darwinian evolution, I think, and it seems that you too would agree that neither DE nor ID have all the answers

I never claimed that evolution had all the answers. I'm not even sure what "answers" you are referring to. It has provided an explanatory system that accounts for the diversity of life seen on Earth today. I guess I am not sure where you're going with this...

>>Well that pretty much was what I said before.... ID has been labeled as another form of creationism, a breech between Church and State, a religious wedge.

Well, this is a complex issue. It may be labeled as such because of the events that came to light in the Dover trial. Or perhaps because of documents drafted by its chief architects that describe their intentions. Or perhaps it has just been fairly or unfairly labeled by its critics. Whatever the case, I am certain as more court trials develop we will see what the courts have to say about it (not that this is necessarily where such judgments should be made).

>>But if you know of a class on ID in some public school curricula, that would be the first time I have heard of that... Sure a teacher my allude to ID, but teach a course on it?

Well, we don't typically teach courses on evolution in high schools, so I'm not sure why we would want a full course on ID. My point was more along the lines of teachers teaching both the ToE and ID in their unit on evolution in biology class (much as Robyn claims to do). Presently, it is not illegal to do so and I suspect a rather large number of life science teachers may be doing just that.

>>So, in your opinion molecular biology or gradualism has confirmed the evolutionary mechanisms proposed by the Darwinian theory? How? This seems to go against what you said earlier... You said that you too would agree that neither DE nor ID have all the answers.

Again, I guess I am not certain what answers you are speaking of. I do feel that the ToE has been confirmed beyond all reasonable doubt. I further feel that ID has not produced demonstrably IC structures. And while I don't think ID is dead in the water, I do think it has an enormous task ahead of it to develop and promote its ideas. But I guess I am just not clear on what answers you speak of.

>>Ah... No it has been spot-welded... The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that design is another form of creationism and that it violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state funds to religion.

I guess I'll have to re-familiarize myself with that ruling. I would still argue that the ToE has gained its status as a viable scientific theory and not just a crackpot idea riddled with holes based on its own merits and repeated testing. But am I to assume that you disagree with this court's decision?

>>Of course the theory of evolution hasn't been discredited. That is what the evolutionary scientists are paid to do. Promote ToE.. If you worked for the Nike corporation would you start selling shoes from the Adidas corporation?

Is that really a fair comparison? Do chemists similarly get paid to preserve atomic theory? Are geologists paid to preserve plate tectonic theory? And does the process of science really run like a business? I think that's a bit disingenuous. Evolutionary biologists are not paid to promote their ideas - they are paid to study them just as any scientist is. Moreover, science is a self correcting process. It seeks to discover truths, and it would take a conspiracy of absolutely epic proportions to subvert evidence that a major scientific theory was wrong. It would be an even greater feat given the amount of scrutiny the ToE is subjected to compared to other scientific theories. So I guess I am asking if this is (a) a fair comparison and (b) really what you believe?

Cheers
Al

The theory of Evolution has been around for longer than Darwin. Darwin's contribution was validating it as a viable theory with the concept of Natural Selection.

Al, you said,
my point was merely a response to your statement that both theories had a lot of research to do...having been around for 150 years, and having been scrutinized and tested over this period, I would say that it has stood the test of time rather well. While there is always research that could and should be done, it has weathered scrutiny rather well as theories go. In contrast, I would argue that ID does have a lot of research to do if for no other reason than it is a relatively new idea to science (I know, I know - Paley had the same argument in the 18th century...)

My response,

If we are talking about theories that have been around along time and weathered scrutiny rather well, there is this book called the bible. This book supports the idea of intelligent design rather well and it has been around longer than any of them. It is not a relatively new idea to science so if you are giving credit for theories because of the longevity of their existence.....

ARWallace wrote:Well, the notion of evolution had been around for a while before the publication of the Origins, but Darwin and Wallace were the first to codify it into a formal theory together with the mechanism that drives evolution. So my point was merely a response to your statement that both theories had a lot of research to do...having been around for 150 years, and having been scrutinized and tested over this period, I would say that it has stood the test of time rather well. While there is always research that could and should be done, it has weathered scrutiny rather well as theories go. In contrast, I would argue that ID does have a lot of research to do if for no other reason than it is a relatively new idea to science (I know, I know - Paley had the same argument in the 18th century...)

ToE, was more than just a notion in the past... It was a philosophy that also involved some science... If you examine the works of the greek philosophers such as Anaximander, Plato, and Aristotle, they wrote numerous books that involved forms of organic evolution and other scientific theories.. Of course it wasn't called the ToE back then. Darwin simply fanned the passion for ToE and modernized it... So technically it's been around numerous years...

Your 150 years of testing really doesn't mean much... As far as evolution and genetics, it's only in the early 90's that we have really begun to understand genetics. It's practically a new field of study in itself, like ID, with all the new technology we bring to the table now. And like I've said before, not everyone is convinced that their research aligns with the ToE. I'll explain later...

ARWallace wrote:I never claimed that evolution had all the answers. I'm not even sure what "answers" you are referring to. It has provided an explanatory system that accounts for the diversity of life seen on Earth today. I guess I am not sure where you're going with this...

I guess I don't understand then where you are going with this either... Earlier you stated that you agreed with me that Darwinian evolution does NOT have all the answers, which can mean that there are other answers that the ToE may or may not address... If so, let's examine the questions for those answers and see what we find? Does that sound scientifically plausible to you? What harm would that bring?

ARWallace wrote:Well, this is a complex issue. It may be labeled as such because of the events that came to light in the Dover trial. Or perhaps because of documents drafted by its chief architects that describe their intentions. Or perhaps it has just been fairly or unfairly labeled by its critics. Whatever the case, I am certain as more court trials develop we will see what the courts have to say about it (not that this is necessarily where such judgments should be made).

I wouldn't sweat it too much.... ID proponents do not seek to have ID taught or mandated into the public biology classrooms. In the recent debate in Dover, Pa., many supporters of intelligent design have refused to back the local school board's push to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. Rather than confronting a federal judge to legalize the teaching of ID, they ask only that schools “teach the controversy” surrounding evolution, arguing that broadening the discussion would foster critical thought and enliven the students...

ARWallace wrote:Well, we don't typically teach courses on evolution in high schools, so I'm not sure why we would want a full course on ID. My point was more along the lines of teachers teaching both the ToE and ID in their unit on evolution in biology class (much as Robyn claims to do). Presently, it is not illegal to do so and I suspect a rather large number of life science teachers may be doing just that.

I don't know about most high schools, but Darwinian evolution was definitely taught in my biology and anthropology classes in college. Full chapters devoted to it.... Are you saying that biology and anthropology classes are not offered in high schools? Actually that is a new one on me... Again, if you know of a public course devoted to teaching ID I would love to hear this....

ARWallace wrote:Again, I guess I am not certain what answers you are speaking of. I do feel that the ToE has been confirmed beyond all reasonable doubt. I further feel that ID has not produced demonstrably IC structures. And while I don't think ID is dead in the water, I do think it has an enormous task ahead of it to develop and promote its ideas. But I guess I am just not clear on what answers you speak of.

Again, I have no clue what you are talking about either... First you say it doesn't have all the answers and now you are claiming the ToE has been confirmed beyond all reasonable doubt. Ok, if ToE has been confirmed beyond all reasonable doubt, then why are scientists still writing articles from "New Scientist Magazine" stating Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life?? In it, it states "It is clear that the Darwinian tree is no longer an adequate description of how evolution in general works." p.3.

ARWallace wrote:I guess I'll have to re-familiarize myself with that ruling. I would still argue that the ToE has gained its status as a viable scientific theory and not just a crackpot idea riddled with holes based on its own merits and repeated testing. But am I to assume that you disagree with this court's decision?

You seemed surprised by this? I don't think that courts and science go together. That is a judge making scientific judgments... Perhaps the question of origins is more philosophical in nature and should only be allowed in philosophy classes rather than our biology classes..

ARWallace wrote:Is that really a fair comparison? Do chemists similarly get paid to preserve atomic theory? Are geologists paid to preserve plate tectonic theory? And does the process of science really run like a business? I think that's a bit disingenuous. Evolutionary biologists are not paid to promote their ideas - they are paid to study them just as any scientist is. Moreover, science is a self correcting process. It seeks to discover truths, and it would take a conspiracy of absolutely epic proportions to subvert evidence that a major scientific theory was wrong. It would be an even greater feat given the amount of scrutiny the ToE is subjected to compared to other scientific theories. So I guess I am asking if this is (a) a fair comparison and (b) really what you believe?

Cheers
Al

Actually, I'm not sure what comparison you are making... Technically there is no comparison allowed in the public sectors between ID and DE. You and I have already agreed that ID has been locked out of the competition since ID has already been labeled as another form of creationism. So there is no other comparison... It's like we only have one legal shoe sale and it happens only to be Nike products... I work for the Nike corporation. There are no other products I sale. And if there are other products out there, well those are designed in communist China. They are cheap lousy products, plus we don't sell them here because they violated the trade agreement and are communists (of course not so today)... So the more I sell, the more I make...

Cheers,
G -

Robyn -

>>If we are talking about theories that have been around along time and weathered scrutiny rather well, there is this book called the bible. This book supports the idea of intelligent design rather well and it has been around longer than any of them. It is not a relatively new idea to science so if you are giving credit for theories because of the longevity of their existence.....

I am giving credit to ideas that have been around a while and have been subjected to intense testing and scrutiny. The ToE passes this test remarkably well. The notion of ID has been around for a while, but it has not been formalized into a form that could be rigorously tested until recently. And from what I can tell, it has not passed the test - seemingly IC structures have been shown to have naturalistic origins. Dembski's notion that genetic information can't increase has been shown to be wrong. So whether the Bible supports the notion of ID or not is rather inconsequential - the question is how well the ideas withstand testing.

Cheers
Al

Gman -

>>Your 150 years of testing really doesn't mean much... As far as evolution and genetics, it's only in the early 90's that we have really begun to understand genetics. It's practically a new field of study in itself, like ID, with all the new technology we bring to the table now. And like I've said before, not everyone is convinced that their research aligns with the ToE.

Respectfully, I disagree. The ToE was fully supported in the 1930's when basic inheritance patterns were understood (or at least rediscovered). It continued to be supported for the next 3 decades when the structure and function of DNA was discovered. And it continues to be supported by recent advances in molecular genetics today. The only thing that happened in the 90's that revolutionized our ability to test the theory was the development of rapid, cheap and efficient means of sequencing DNA enabling the field of molecular phylogenetics to come into its own (this is what I did for my doctoral thesis). As for everyone being convinced that their research "aligns" with the ToE - you seem to hold this theory to a different standard than other theories. A theory is, by definition, an idea that has been thoroughly tested and is true beyond reasonable doubt. At some point, science agrees that the idea is a scientific truth and begin using it for its explanatory power (another hallmark of a theory). So, like any scientific theory, the ToE is used as a lens through which to examine and understand patterns and observations in science. This is not unique to the ToE - again, all theories are treated in the same way. And if patterns or observations can't be explained by evolution - or worse still are inconsistent with it, then it is time to reexamine it.

>>I guess I don't understand then where you are going with this either... Earlier you stated that you agreed with me that Darwinian evolution does NOT have all the answers, which can mean that there are other answers that the ToE may or may not address... If so, let's examine the questions for those answers and see what we find? Does that sound scientifically plausible to you? What harm would that bring?

Well, I guess we need to define "answers". A scientific theory can provide the "what" or "how" answers, but it usually doesn't provide the "why" ones. Why does gravity behave the way it does? Why do continents float around the surface of the Earth? In a philosophical or metaphysical sense, the ToE can not explain why life evolved - it can simply provide an explanation of how it evolved. For that reason, I believe theology and religion serve a very important function...they fill in gaps not filled or fillable by science. Now, ID does purport to explain the existence of certain structures not explainable by naturalistic explanations, and as I have been careful to point out naturalistic explanations for these questions do seem to exist.

>>ID proponents do not seek to have ID taught or mandated into the public biology classrooms.

Really? This is a huge surprise to me.

>>Rather than confronting a federal judge to legalize the teaching of ID, they ask only that schools “teach the controversy” surrounding evolution, arguing that broadening the discussion would foster critical thought and enliven the students...

As a high school teacher, I agree that fostering critical thought is important. However, as a biology teacher I am left to wonder what "controversy" there is to teach? There are those who feel the ToE is insufficient in its explanatory power, but have yet to provide examples of structures it can't explain. There are those who oppose the theory based on religious grounds, but this hardly seems reason enough to teach the "controversy" in my classroom. Finally, at what point do we dignify every criticism of an idea in our classrooms? Science is not a democracy of ideas - only those that have been rigorously tested and have passed the testing are accepted. ToE has been tested and has passed on every account. ID has not. Would you advocate teaching the ideas promoted by Holocaust deniers in a history class? This may seem like hyperbole, but is actually an apt comparison.

>>I don't know about most high schools, but Darwinian evolution was definitely taught in my biology and anthropology classes in college. Full chapters devoted to it.... Are you saying that biology and anthropology classes are not offered in high schools?

You seem to be conflating what I have been saying here. I have said twice, that public school teachers may (and in fact do) teach ID together with evolution giving it equal treatment in their classrooms. In their units on evolution, both are taught and the students are left to decide which they accept. This is currently not considered a violation of the Constitution, so there is nothing besides state standards and teacher discretion preventing them from so doing.

>>In it, it states "It is clear that the Darwinian tree is no longer an adequate description of how evolution in general works."

This seems like a little selective quote mining. The article goes on to state: "Both he and Doolittle are at pains to stress that downgrading the tree of life doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is wrong - just that evolution is not as tidy as we would like to believe. Some evolutionary relationships are tree-like; many others are not." So we know that the trunk of the tree of life is messy which is unsurprising given how often genes may have been exchanged. And yet branching, tree-like relationships are the way most evolutionary relationships can be described - pick up virtually any scientific journal in the biological science and you see phylogenetic trees delineating the ancestor-descendant relationships in groups of organisms. But it seems at the very trunk of the tree, relationships get a bit messy. So really all that the article is saying is that the metaphor works in some cases and not others - not that evolution, per se, is wrong.

>>You seemed surprised by this? I don't think that courts and science go together.

No, not surprised. The courts would tend to stay out of such matters until ideas which may be rooted in religious ideology are promoted in public schools. At this point, the courts will need to assess the ideas and determine whether their promotion violates the constitution.

>>You and I have already agreed that ID has been locked out of the competition since ID has already been labeled as another form of creationism.

The question was over how it got labeled. But if it really does have teeth and can cut it in the scientific arena, it will do so.

>>It's like we only have one legal shoe sale and it happens only to be Nike products... I work for the Nike corporation. There are no other products I sale. And if there are other products out there, well those are designed in communist China. They are cheap lousy products, plus we don't sell them here because they violated the trade agreement and are communists (of course not so today)... So the more I sell, the more I make...

So this is a metaphor you're going with? That scientists are like shoe salesmen? I understand the comparison you are making between the ToE and ID, but do you really feel that scientists are paid to preserve their ideas at the exclusion of all others? Do you really believe this, or are you just using your metaphor to make a point?

Cheers
Al

Al, you said:

am giving credit to ideas that have been around a while and have been subjected to intense testing and scrutiny.

My response:

I think the bible has been subjected to more testing and scrutiny then any other. I have yet to find any legitimate source that claims they have disproved the bible. Several attempts, but none proven. I still stand by my original question, how did all these events occur together? planet allignment, gravity, water cycle, dna, cell structure,the amazing technology we have created with these "random" molecules, bible prophecy, human emotion, and all without purpose even though we seem to be programmed to reason? Here is another question I have and maybe you can help me with some scientific explanations because I haven't found any yet or maybe didn't word it as such that google could interpret. How is it that "mother nature" seems to give consequences for sinful behavior? Drugs and alchohol lead to depression and death. Why can't a person be a happy drug addict his whole life? Gluttony leads to fat. Why did "mother nature" choose to make us fat? Greed almost always leads to depression or one's demise- Off the top of my head I think of Hitler. Sex, if done to excess, leads to disease. Why didn't mother nature just allow us to "Have a good time?" just curious about your thoughts on this. Again, I feel like, in addition to everything else, my reasoning leads me to see all this coincidence as mathmatically illogical.

Al, I do also want to sincerely thank you for all your scientific expertise... you are patient in taking the time to give us all this collected information and I am grateful to now have more knowledge of science ideology.

Robyn -

Only time for a few random thoughts as I gulp down lunch...

>>I think the bible has been subjected to more testing and scrutiny then any other. I have yet to find any legitimate source that claims they have disproved the bible.

Well I am not certain science has set out to "disprove the Bible". There are statements or conclusions one could reach from certain passages of the Bible that are factually or logically inaccurate (I suspect I am about to incur the ire of many by saying that...) Four legged grasshoppers, rabbits chewing their cuds and bats as "fowl" spring to mind - and certainly there is overwhelming evidence against a young Earth, literal 7-day creation if this is how you interpret the Bible. And there are dozens if not hundreds of minor and major miracles that would need to occur to make Noah's ark plausible. But none of this should influence one's personal and spiritual beliefs - as I say, religion answers some questions and science answers others. I personally view science as a lens through which to understand creation, not disprove scripture.

>>how did all these events occur together? planet allignment, gravity, water cycle, dna, cell structure,the amazing technology we have created with these "random" molecules, bible prophecy, human emotion, and all without purpose even though we seem to be programmed to reason?

My point exactly. Some see these patterns in nature as an affirmation of their belief in god. But I stop short of saying that this is scientific evidence for the existence of god...

>>How is it that "mother nature" seems to give consequences for sinful behavior? Drugs and alchohol lead to depression and death.

I wasn't aware that drugs and alcohol consumption were sins. Certainly I know many Christians who enjoy a beer or wine with dinner. And who among us doesn't take drugs? The "illicit" aspect of drugs is totally subjective - Tylenol is a drug. So is Lipitor. I donated a kidney and was on a morphine drip for a few days following surgery - I wasn't breaking the law and I hope I was not sinning. No, it is not the substance that is the sin, it is the use and misuse - one must be accountable for one's behavior. 'Be ye not drunk with wine' and not 'do not drink wine'. It's the behavior, not the vehicle. The Bible says nothing about handguns but does say something about homicide and suicide that may result from handgun use.

>>Why did "mother nature" choose to make us fat?

There is a good biological explanation for this - it turns out that it is a really efficient storage molecule. 30 000 years ago, our ancestors may have gone days between meals, and fat turned out to be a good way to go between meals without starving. Today, in American society, we are prone to dietary indiscretion and calorie-rich foods and eating bigger portion sizes than we really need. So again, gluttony is the sin; not fat.

>>Sex, if done to excess, leads to disease. Why didn't mother nature just allow us to "Have a good time?"

Given time, it is almost certain that STDs would evolve once sex evolved, especially in organisms that have intromittent organs. That is, a penis which ejects fluid intoa female reproductive tract. You have got a whole host of pathogens that are looking for direct transfer from one host to the next - it just doesn't get any better than that. Another question you might ask, if you are a religious person, is why god invented pathogens? One might argue that STDs are the consequences one pays for their sinful behavior. But what about the nurse or doctor that are infected by their patients (say, by inadvertently pricking their fingers with infected needles). What did they do to deserve that? Just playing devil's advocate...

Cheers!
Al

Al, you said,
No, it is not the substance that is the sin, it is the use and misuse - one must be accountable for one's behavior. 'Be ye not drunk with wine' and not 'do not drink wine'. It's the behavior, not the vehicle. The Bible says nothing about handguns but does say something about homicide and suicide that may result from handgun use.

My response,
But that is my point, Why must one be accountable for one's behavior if there is no God? If there is no intelligent designer then there is no parent to whom we must be accountable for. How does science explain these "consequences" that seem to occur in the natural world for sinful behavior if there is no creator or parent?

Robyn -

>>But that is my point, Why must one be accountable for one's behavior if there is no God? If there is no intelligent designer then there is no parent to whom we must be accountable for.

Well, I suppose even in a totally athiestic society you would have rules and laws to obey based on a general sense of right and wrong. We have a Constitution that is the foundation for our laws based mainly on individual rights...and when your rights violate mine. We have also decided as a democracy what substances should and should not be regulated by our government. We have decided that homicide is wrong and punishable, and yet the laws aren't written with reference to the 6th commandment. And I presume you make a choice as to whether you wish to violate these rules and suffer the consequences. So even without reference to god(s) a society can decide on a bunch of principles that govern its members... But I would agree that the moral compass of those people making the laws is usually calibrated by reference to a set of personal, religious beliefs. This is all way outside my area of expertise, so I am mostly practicing metaphysical navel-gazing here...

Al, still doesn't explain to me, why or how "mother nature"could possibly impose consequences for sinful behavior. If we are gluttonous with candy, our teeth rot, too much food...fat, too much alchohol...death, too many drugs.... overdose or poor health, too much sex....disease or unwanted pregnancy, money....greed and lonliness. All of these consequences resulting "naturally"! How is that possible? Why, if everything is random, couldn't we live happily ever after as gluttonous pigs? How could a random universe "teach" us behaviour through "natural consequences"?

robyn hill wrote:Al, still doesn't explain to me, why or how "mother nature"could possibly impose consequences for sinful behavior. If we are gluttonous with candy, our teeth rot, too much food...fat, too much alchohol...death, too many drugs.... overdose or poor health, too much sex....disease or unwanted pregnancy, money....greed and lonliness. All of these consequences resulting "naturally"! How is that possible? Why, if everything is random, couldn't we live happily ever after as gluttonous pigs? How could a random universe "teach" us behaviour through "natural consequences"?

Well, playing devil's advocate here, from a purely selection standpoint, our ancestors would have reproduced and survived acoording to these characteristics, however, these consequences need to be in effect when we are reproducing in order to have an effect, ie cause more of one phenotype to survive or reproduce more than others.

Too much fat would potentially allow for survival in the highest reproducing years (many of the European populations have higher fat storage) while causing death in the lowest reproductive years...ie, those individuals that are obese don't see the consequences of their obesity many times until they have already passed on their genes to their offspring. (many people are not very obese when they bear children, or would not be several undred years ago)

Selection wouldn't *impose* a consequence other then the consequence that the behavior has on the reproductive fitness of the organism.

But this ultimately still causes problems for morality.

Selection with regards to morality is merely the current solution. Ultimately according to selection, in one thousand years we might have a morality that demands the killing of people of a certain age. After all, rape was the norm in our supposed ancestors. According to selection, the fact that we consider rape morally wrong is simply the current selective success. That is the problem with morality and selection. Nothing is inherently right or wrong, merely what our neurons are telling us. In which case, how can we justify calling rape and murder wrong (or rather, we can, but in reality the rapist and murderer that can get away with it is doing just fine....).

Natural selection, like war, doesn't determine who is moral or right. It determines who's left.

After we've reproduced and our offspring are independent, from a purely evolutionary point of view, nothing else really matters after that. That is simply a bonus.

One more shot and I am going to bed, conferences over and I am beat.
ok, so here is my point. all the above behaviors tend to lead to character deficits which would be considered more spiritual, not something that would be a part of natural selection as far as I know, in other words, should not logically effect one's chances of survival. for example, if one eats too much sugar, we are overindulging in pleasure which seems to demonstrate selfishness, and "coincidentally"rots our teeth and causes obesity . If we eat too many vegatables, not usually on one's most pleasurable list, we become healthier- a positive consequence. If we drink too much alchohol or drugs, avoiding our problems and lessening our character, we become sick. This doesn't occur when we overindulge in water or juice- which clearly doesn't alter one's character. If we have too much sex where we don't hold sex as a sacred act, thus doing it for selfish phisical reasons, we incur disease, unwanted pregnacy, destroyed relationships. if we love money too much, thus becoming greedy, another character flaw, we often seperate ourselves from people we love. These seem to take away from one's character and have consequences. Yes, some have phisical consequences but again "coincidentally" also affect our character as human beings. When we indulge in things that don't negatively effect our character, example, water, running, exercise, kindness-things that don't have a negative affect on our "character" nature seems to reward us. So, how does nature punish humans for things that negatively affect our "character" or spirituality. Granted, I know there are plenty of random acts that kill us, car accidents, disease, etc. But if we are fortunate enough to live a regular life span and make choices that are, I believe, universally preferred behavioral choices, we live longer and happier existences. That is, of course, if we don't get hit by a moving bus - I am just thinking out loud.