Monkey Men vs. Bible Thumpers (Evolution vs. Creationism)

[erik]

The fact that eastern religions promote different things is only a part of why I believe that merely acknowledging Jesus as your savior isn't going to get you very far. Most of it is how I interpret the Christian gospel.

As far as your first sentence goes, there's two kinds of religions: the kind that point to God, and the kind that are bullshit. Scientology is, IMO, bullshit. Christianity and Buddhism, IMO, both point to God. They're like different hands pointing at the same thing. It's not like Christ and the Buddha (or Vishnu or whatever) are equally valid Gods that are at odds with each other. I think that's completely missing the point.

I'm not missing the point, I'm disagreeing with it. Your interpretation of stuff you have read leads you to believe that all non-bullshit religions are pointing to the same God. Great. There are other equally valid logical arguments for saying that different religions don't point to the same God. I mean, take rebirth vs. only one life followed by an afterlife, for example. They can't both be true, without playing a "what if apple means orange" type of redictionarying of language. If something that your religion is telling you might be false, who's to say how much of it might be false?

[Kapitano]

The bible is not a single book, or a single story that holds together. It's a collection of folk tales (Genesis), inaccurate history (Exodus), genealogy (Numbers), displaced propaganda (Mark's Gospel and Revelations), political wrangling (Paul's Letters), and mystical gibberings (John's Gospel).

None of the books were written to be included in a canon of official doctrine. They were compiled (and edited) around the year 100, by a church that wanted to avoid further splintering by creating a unifying 'source' document.

That's why it's full of contradictions, and why you can't treat the bible as a monolithic whole.

[Dan Wrekenhaus 2]

Regarding the paradox, these are someone elses words from another forum i was browsing.

Just a basic comment on the concept of "omnipotence".

I think we have misunderstood "omnipotent" for too long. It should not be defined as "unlimited power". It should be defined as "possessing all power." There is a sharp difference. "Unlimited power" means that God could make a square circle, a simple contradiction in terms. On the other hand, "possessing all power" would say that all that can be done, God can do. That is, God possesses all power and all authority that exists. He does not possess power or authority that does not exist. He would necessarily possess power and authority that is thoroughly outside human realms, but that doesn't mean it is unlimited.

"Omni" simply means "all". It doesn't necessarily mean "unlimited".

[Kapitano]

Regarding the paradox, these are someone elses words from another forum i was browsing.

God possesses all power and all authority that exists. He does not possess power or authority that does not exist. [...]

"Omni" simply means "all". It doesn't necessarily mean "unlimited".

This doesn't solve the problem.

'All powerful', in the sense you quote, means 'possessing the ability to do anything at all, within the limits of physics, mathematics, and logic'.

But where do these limits come from? They are part of the universe, which was supposedly created, and is perhaps maintained, by god. If god created the geometrical limitation that make a square circle impossible, then he can change these limitations.

Unless you're saying that god is subject to limitations as to the kind of universe he can create. If so, where do these limitations come from? Are they inherant to god's nature?

If the answer is yes, then god is indeed omnipotent (and limited) in the sense you quote, but for unknown reasons.

[Dan Wrekenhaus 2]

I am certainly not trying to, especially in this thread, suggest I have definitively solved something. I thought the original idea discussed regarding this was that the biblical God wouldn't work due to the paradox. (I know this was already sort of shot down) I didn't think we were trying to figure out why God would be subject to limitations, or where they come from. God aside, are many people trying to find out WHY gravity exists? I thought the interest is HOW it works, WHAT affects it, etc. For that matter, why can't I pull myself up by my own bootstraps, and could the soccer playing monkeys do this?

[sparks]

The problem with the theoretical paradox that's been discussed here is, to me, the notion that the limitations of physics (and logic, by implication) are confined to this universe, and that God works outside these boundaries. I'm not sure there's sufficient cause to believe that these principles are arbitrary enough to be so limited. I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that there are no arbitrary principles in physics, and that each rule or value is made true by the values that relate to it.

Maybe that didn't come out the way I wanted it to, so maybe there's a simpler point to be made:

If God's power is not confined to the interdependent rules of logic, physics, and so forth, why on earth would you try to argue its truth or falsity in terms of these rational principles? If you're going to overstep any kind of actual boundaries with your invented principle of God being immune to natural laws, you're not arguing anything tangible anymore. All you have to work with is your faith, and you can leave your reason at the door. If that's fine with you, bully for you! But don't expect someone who operates differently to drop everything for it, and don't try to twist your faith into logical truth--in doing so, you do a disservice to the argument and to your faith.

[j$]

All you have to work with is your faith, and you can leave your reason at the door.

IMO, faith and reason have little to do with each other, nor should they. Building one on the foundations of the other belittles both. I have faith and on occasion I exhibit reason; but they come from two very different parts of my brain - my faith (note the small 'f') deals with the stuff which I can't reason, nor would I want to.

[Dan Wrekenhaus 2]

So if I were to say,

"I have faith that the chair I'm sitting on is going to remain a solid for the remainder of time I am sitting on it. This faith seems reasonable to me because in the past, it's held me up every single time, and there are many other witnesses who would say the same of their chairs."

Is this a different type of faith to you, or perhaps you'd use an entirely different noun? I am not arguing here, just making sure I understand how you mean the word faith.

[erik]

"I have faith that the chair I'm sitting on is going to remain a solid for the remainder of time I am sitting on it. This faith seems reasonable to me because in the past, it's held me up every single time, and there are many other witnesses who would say the same of their chairs."

You don't have faith, you have evidence.

[sparks]

7 entries found for faith.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.

Please use context to differentiate, thanks.

IMO, faith and reason have little to do with each other, nor should they. Building one on the foundations of the other belittles both. I have faith and on occasion I exhibit reason; but they come from two very different parts of my brain - my faith (note the small 'f') deals with the stuff which I can't reason, nor would I want to.

Exactly.

[Dan Wrekenhaus 2]

"I have faith that the chair I'm sitting on is going to remain a solid for the remainder of time I am sitting on it. This faith seems reasonable to me because in the past, it's held me up every single time, and there are many other witnesses who would say the same of their chairs."

You don't have faith, you have evidence.

Again, I wasn;t trying to argue a meaning or definition. I would say my faith in the chair to hold me up is based on evidence. Please note, the sentence started with "I."

7 entries found for faith.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.

Please use context to differentiate, thanks.

j$ wrote:
IMO, faith and reason have little to do with each other, nor should they. Building one on the foundations of the other belittles both. I have faith and on occasion I exhibit reason; but they come from two very different parts of my brain - my faith (note the small 'f') deals with the stuff which I can't reason, nor would I want to.


Exactly.

Seems like less effort to just have said, "I meant faith as 'belief that's not based on logic.'" Thanks, next time I'll just assume that my interpretation of your context is correct.

[erik]

Again, I wasn;t trying to argue a meaning or definition. I would say my faith in the chair to hold me up is based on evidence. Please note, the sentence started with "I."

I used google to find definitions for faith.

I was wondering if perhaps you were using the 7th definition, which refers to a character from Buffy the Vampire Slayer played by Eliza Dushku,

I know that this is conversation is about religion, but I thought I would ask if people were using one of the non-religious definitions.

I have started 4 sentences with "I".

[sparks]

Seems like less effort to just have said, "I meant faith as 'belief that's not based on logic.'" Thanks, next time I'll just assume that my interpretation of your context is correct.

Well, no need to get concerned over it. I just thought using a relative absolute would be the best way to approach it. Plus it's more fun to be a jerk.

[Dan Wrekenhaus 2]

Again, I wasn;t trying to argue a meaning or definition. I would say my faith in the chair to hold me up is based on evidence. Please note, the sentence started with "I."

I used google to find definitions for faith.

I was wondering if perhaps you were using the 7th definition, which refers to a character from Buffy the Vampire Slayer played by Eliza Dushku,

I know that this is conversation is about religion, but I thought I would ask if people were using one of the non-religious definitions.

I have started 4 sentences with "I".

Actually, up until Sparks' remark, I was pretty dead set on using eBay's search engine, where i found this gem http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 91400&rd=1 which I liken unto the $99.00 option from Jostens.

sparks
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 9:31 pm Post subject:
Plus it's more fun to be a jerk.

This is a universal truth in which we both agree. Plus, I assume your username is in reference to the Sealab 2021 character (based on it's context) so you earn a couple more points...

[sparks]

Gareth Logan Sparks.

[mico saudad]

Entire sections of genomes are almost identical from mice to humans, and not only the sequences but the exact order of genes. We even share amazing sequence similarity with certain bacterial genes.

What’s more is that all forms of life share the same exact genetic code. A gene from a jellyfish can be decoded and made to work equally well when put into mice.

This evidence leads to the conclusion that either all life shares a common ancestor or it was purposefully made to look like it was. If one chooses to believe the latter then I don’t see how one cannot at least accept that the creator intended nature to appear to us in a manner that the theory of evolution describes perfectly.

There is current hoo-ha about ‘intelligent design’ where the principle critique is that certain biological structures (eyes, brains, etc) cannot be evolved because they are ‘irreducibly complex’. The standard scientist answer to this question is rather unconvincing to many – “just because we cannot explain how it happened does not mean that it didn’t happen that way”.

Recently acquired experimental evidence shows that irreducibly complex systems can evolve. The problem with biological evolution of complex organs is that it takes a long-long time and no scientist has a million years to study it. However computer evolution can occur quickly. Individuals can live and mate and die in fractions of a seconds. After observing the countless generations that rose and fell in a 'genetic algorithm' they witnessed interesting things – one programmer was selecting blindly for ‘circuits’ able to calculate the square root of numbers. They started with a blank slate and after several thousand generations the computer ecosystem contained several individuals. When these individuals were used as models to create an electronic circuit they were able to take any input number and calculate the square root of a number exactly.

That’s cool enough but the cooler thing is that without any programmer interference whatsoever the program developed and it developed in such a way that it was irreducibly complex. You could remove no important part of it without destroying the function of the circuit. This is one example of the growing evidence that irreducibly complex structures can evolve without intelligent interference. Therefore the conclusion I draw is that life is pretty well described by the theory of evolution without the need for an intelligent designer.

[erik]

That’s cool enough but the cooler thing is that without any programmer interference whatsoever the program developed and it developed in such a way that it was irreducibly complex.

Didn't the programmer select the circuits, albeit blindly? It's not like they put a motherboard down on a table, came back a week later and it was a square root generator, is it?

What evidence is there that computer behavior should mimic the way that species behave?

[bz£]

Entire sections of genomes are almost identical from mice to humans, and not only the sequences but the exact order of genes. We even share amazing sequence similarity with certain bacterial genes.

What?s more is that all forms of life share the same exact genetic code. A gene from a jellyfish can be decoded and made to work equally well when put into mice.

This evidence leads to the conclusion that either all life shares a common ancestor or it was purposefully made to look like it was.

Or possibly that certain sequences code for useful proteins. It wouldn't be surprising to learn that people and mice both have the "know how to breathe" gene, for example, and any species that didn't have that gene would probably not have made it to today. Actually, most genetic research today takes advantage of this overlap: if you want to study a particular piece of mouse DNA, you splice it into a bacterium that reproduces very quickly and you heat it up for a few hours. When you're done you have a zillion bacteria all with the gene you stuck in them, so you have enough copies of what you want to study.

Genetic algorithms in computer science have been pretty well studied and they don't do anything magical. It is just another search technique. If you start with the set of "all algorithms that compute something" and a goal of "things that compute square roots" then eventually your population will converge to functions that do approximately that. Sure, some of the more famous examples of this style of program have done some neat things (like discovering new theorems in various branches of mathematics) but they don't prove anything about evolution. They do sort of suggest that evolution might be a reasonable theory, but that wouldn't convince a jury (except in California).

[mico saudad]

Didn't the programmer select the circuits, albeit blindly? It's not like they put a motherboard down on a table, came back a week later and it was a square root generator, is it?

The scientists had to first create the program, true, but the programmers did not interfer during the evolution of the circuits - they only set up the conditions in which the circuits would evolve. That would be no different from a god who set up evolution to play out knowing that it would create humans (which I can't disprove)- but that's not the point 'intelligent designer' proponents are making. They claim that it is impossible to generate irreducible complexity without intelligent interference.

So I'm not arguing that the circuit represents independent evolution, but rather proof of principle that without interference, evolution can produce irreducible complexity.

What evidence is there that computer behavior should mimic the way that species behave?

That's a great question and its one of active study among programmers. The experiment above is an example of what people are doing to test how well computers model evoluton.

Or possibly that certain sequences code for useful proteins. It wouldn't be surprising to learn that people and mice both have the "know how to breathe" gene, for example, and any species that didn't have that gene would probably not have made it to today.

That's a good point. But assuming they arose independently you would expect the organisms to devise different answers to all of the problems they see. For all of the major requirements a cell faces the sequences are way too similar to have arisen independently. We can see examples where organisms develop different ways to handle the same thing, and we call this 'convergent evolution'. When it happens it's very obvious by looking at the sequence. And even if the 'common need' could produce identical sequences in so many cases, it doesn't explain why the genes are in the same order (they do not need to be next door in order to function the same way).

The chance of this situation arising without common descent is like the chances of two cities in different parts of the country where each of the citizens in the city look exactly like their counterpart in the other city and they even have the same job as this person. Oh yeah and none of them are related. It doesn't make sense to us because intuitively we know that people inherit things from their parents, and from their parents parents. It would be inconceivable that two identical people could arise independently (let alone their amazingly coincidental geographic distribution)

Genetic algorithms in computer science have been pretty well studied and they don't do anything magical.

Well I don't think that evolution is anything magical either. I think evolution is pretty non-magical. So non-magical that even a computer can be programmed to evolution for an artificial purpose.

If you start with the set of "all <circuits> that compute something" and a goal of "things that compute square roots" then eventually your population will converge to functions that do approximately that

But that's the thing, you don't start with all algorithms that compute something, you start with a population of gobeldeygook. The initial population of circuits can't compute poop. But their virtual descendents can.

And just like they converge on the being able to calculate square roots, so too does life converge on the basis of natural selection (being able to survive and reproduce). Nothing magical I agree, but it doesn't need to be magical to work or to be true.

[erik]

But that's the thing, you don't start with all algorithms that compute something, you start with a population of gobeldeygook. The initial population of circuits can't compute poop. But their virtual descendents can.

What exactly were the humans doing in this experiment?

1. There are a bunch of circuits that cannot compute anything.
2. ???
3. There are a bunch of circuits that can compute something.

What is step 2? I thought that humans were selecting circuits that came close to approximating a square root function. That's intelligent interference. And if you assume a God that knows all things knowable, why would he bother creating all creatures exactly as they are today, if he could just set it up and let it go and get the same result? You can't paint all Intelligent Designers with the same brush.

[mico saudad]

What exactly were the humans doing in this experiment?

1. Human creates program that allows population to exist and individuals to exhibit variation and reproduce based on their fitness. Call this program 'Variation'.
2. Human writes a program that rewards 'circuit-like' behaviour and punishes non-circuit-like behaviour. Special bonuses are given to individuals that come close to being able to calculate square roots. The degree of reward or punishment corelates exactly with the amount of reproductive success the individual will have. Call this program 'Selection'.
3. Human writes a third program that will run as follows:
- run 'Variation'
- run 'Selection'
- repeat 10,000 times
- display population of the 10,000th generation
4. Human runs the program and comes back later to see what the 10,000th generation looks like.

The current difference painted by 'intelligent design' proponents that is supposed to discount evolution is that they believe that step four requires intelligent input. My only point is that these studies are beginning to show that step four requires no intelligent input in order to generate irreducible complexity.

And if you assume a God that knows all things knowable, why would he bother creating all creatures exactly as they are today, if he could just set it up and let it go and get the same result?

People who believe this should have no problem with the theory of evolution because observationally there is no difference between a godless universe with natural selection and a universe that was 'wound up' and set down the path of natural selection by a creator. And a true scientist can't argue with anyone if they suggests the latter.

You can't paint all Intelligent Designers with the same brush.

I can't, but they can: "The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of ... living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection." (taken from the intelligent design network itself).

The theory of evolution does not seek to answer why we are here (as the ID people seek to do - "Objectivity results from the use of the scientific method ... in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from?"). True science doesn't explain it only describes and predicts.

[bz£]

Wait, you've got me confusified. What is "irreducible complexity?" Why is it interesting and what does its existence prove?

What side of things is Intelligent Design on and what are they trying to prove by their little thought experiments in computer science? I can see arguments being made either way. If they want to stir up controversy around algorithms, then why aren't they all up with undecidability? That's way more popular than search for this sort of thing.