Warcraft3

Me a heretic? Well I am sorry if people feel that way, but I find any view other than the open view to have too many problems within scripture.

We are getting dangerously close to the whole "problem of evil and suffering" discussion here. I will discuss it if you wish.

Yes of course it does. Most things in life can be looked at from at least two different perspectives, so it is no surprise that your statement is correct. My point was simply that in some cases suffering may serve a purpose and is not inherently a bad thing, only unpleasant.

I am not here to defend AIG or any other organization, just my own beliefs.


Russ

Warcraft3

You came close enough. You did not directly imply that I think "the Holocaust is something God wanted the Nazis to do", but you did in imply a connection with this type of suffering and another type I was dealing with in my post.

Since I seperate the two into different categories I found the "lumping together" of the two to be approaching an argument from outrage which could easily misrepresent my position.

This, combined with the specific parts you quoted from my post, lead me to suspect there may be some subtle implications in your post. If you did not intend it that way then please clarify the purpose of the link on the Holocaust. How does it address the post you quote from? Thanks.


Russ

Warcraft3

Well that is more of a theological/philosophical question that I think is off topic. I have my own views as to the "why", but any views attempting to answer such a question are speculative at best. So I doubt any answer I give would be satisfactory.


You need not tell me of suffering, because I have witnessed much within my own family. I watched my Mother suffer and slowly die from Lupus for 20 years, so I am quite aware of the horrors of disease.

Lets keep the emotional content to a minimum, okay? We can discuss these things, but lets not get all emotional over it. I doubt the answers I would give you would be good enough anyway....so if you have already made up your mind then why even ask me for an answer?

Gee I just can not pick between choices A and B....Hmmmmmm......"vastly ignorant" or a "sick, twisted ^%^&*"
Choices....Choices...Both are so attractive I really cant choose. Could I have a third option please? You make both so appealing I think I need a third

Oh no!!! A spelling error AND an incorrect description of how one plays a musical instrument!!! Whatever shall I do? I will have to inform my employer that my status of Electrical Engineer has changed to "not very bright". I cried and cried all night long after I read your devastating critique of my intellect. What will I do now? I guess grad school is out of the question. Now I will have to be forever homeless and beg for money just to survive.

I guess I better get to work on my cardboard sign which will read.....

Cant fiind ayn wurk, so dont bee a jerrk;
I knead soom monee tonighite, cuase I am knot veary britte

Thats nice.

Russ

"Strumming the ole violen"

:boohoo:

pz

Yes, those are two ugly choices, and you do need a third. You can either discuss how you reconcile the problem of evil without ignoring it or endorsing it (in which case you might be better off in EoG or GRD), or you can concede that you don't have an alternative and instead try to address the OP subject of whether theistic evolution is logically and scientifically false.

Personally, I think the whole idea of an invisible superbeing is both illogical and unscientific, and arguing about whether this irrational delusion is loving or hateful or uncaring or demented or [insert adjective here] is premature and pointless.

Warcraft3

Well I do not concede that I do not have an alternative but I will try to address the OP subject to the best of my ability.

I do not think TE is logically false because I fail to see why an intelligent agent could not use evolution to produce the biodiversity we see on earth. I have a very hard time believing that undirected or unaided evolution is capable of producing what we see today. Some of the explanations I have read on purely natural pathways to some biological feature have been very unsatisfying to me. I see alot of "just-so stories and handwaving" in the explanations, so I fail to see why it is logically false that evolution was helped along the way by an outside, intelligent agent.

As to the scientific part....TE does have its problems. Testability is a big one. ID also suffers from the testability problem as does any form of creationism. The best we can do is try to apply forensic type methods to determine whether or not something reflects design. Of course nailing down exact criteria for doing this is difficult and in some cases impossible, but I do not think it should be ignored. It has a long was to go, but I think as time goes on it will improve and we will be able to detect design with better precision. I say this because I believe as various fields grow and merge...like microbiology and robotics...we will begin to see design more clearly. I could be wrong, but I do believe this will occur in the near future.

I do not agree with Behe and Dembski on many things, but I do not think their ideas are completely worthless either.

So logically I find nothing wrong with TE.
Scientifically I think testability is a problem that needs further attention.

Russ
"Strumming the ole violen"
:boohoo:

emotional

Like, as if, God were saying, "you humans have one way of creating things, the way of intelligent design, and you think it's the only way things get created. But I'll show you another way, a way you have never had any conception of: creation by an algorithmic process of evolution by natural selection!"

It wasn't the first time God laughed at human conceptions. The first time was when they thought the earth is flat. The second time was when they thought the earth to be at the centre of the universe and the stars to be just points of light stuck onto the dome of the sky.

His ways are not our ways, and His thoughts not our thoughts, definitely. Great is He beyond all comprehension!

GunnerJ

I'm not going to gratify these absurd accusations. I have already clarified my intent, any other meanings you derive from my post are yours and yours entirely.

pz

Very good. It's nice that you have a solution to the problem of evil, and I recommend you run over to GRD and write it up, where everyone will be impressed and appreciative.
Nope. Using logical fallacies is not a way to show that theistic evolution is logical.

Your first point is an argument from ignorance. Saying "I fail to see why Gumby and Poky couldn't have made the earth from monkey spit" is not a logical argument for my theory.

The rest of your argument is simply from personal incredulity. Saying that you have a "very hard time believing it", when you clearly have a limited education in the subject, is not very persuasive.
Again, the personal assertions of someone with limited knowledge of the subject are not very impressive tools to use in this discussion. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say testability is a problem. It isn't. I read books and papers in evolution every day, and they tend to propose hypotheses which they then test with experiments. Evolutionary biology is a discipline firmly in the grip of the scientific method.

Creationism and ID may have some problems with testability. I've noticed they have a fondness for vague ideas in which the answers will be interpreted to support their theories no matter what they are, and a marked tendency to avoid actually doing any experiments, anyway. The most I've ever seen out of the Discovery Institute, for instance, is haste to carp and whine about the results that real scientists get.
That sounds promising. I find Behe's and Dembski's work to be utterly without any redeeming quality. Perhaps you can tell us what the few worthy gems among the dross might be?
Unfortunately, you haven't given us any logical reasoning here, and your claims of scientific problems are so vague as to be useless. Your understanding of testability is just wrong.

Warcraft3

I may post in that section in the future, but for now your sarcasm is noted and not appreciated.

Oh brother. People do love to say other peoples arguments are ad this and ad that or one of several favorite "fallacies" from the extensive list. You asked my opinion and I gave it. You disagree and that is fine with me. So if you think TE is so illogical then please tell me why you think it is illogical.

Ah yes "argument from ignorance" and "personal incredulity" blah, blah, blah......more of the same definitions over and over....

As to the "argument from ignorance" I said I see no reason why it is an ILLOGICAL viewpoint. I did not say that that implied it WAS a logical viewpoint. I simply stated I do not find any arguments that it is illogical to be very convincing.

And as far as the "personal incredulity" argument goes....I do not need a doctorate in Biology to spot bull%$^& when I see it. Lets take the flagellum for example. The supposed "pathways" and "physical precursors" I have read about simply do not explain its origin. Alot of speculation and imagination, but not very convincing.

*Sigh* You obviously do not know what I was referring to when I said "testability is a problem." I was referring to the fact that whether one believes in "front loading" or in a creator who periodically "helps" evolution along, it is difficult (if not impossible) to test such intervention by an outside force. This is the "testability" problem that TE has.

And yes, my knowledge is limited in this area and many other areas as well. But I am willing to stick my neck out and discuss things and learn stuff as I go along. I have an open mind and a sense of humor as well and if I am wrong I will admit it and move on with life. I am here to discuss, not to inflate my ego.

I find some of the ID arguments to be promising.

As for Behe...I find the idea of IC to be an interesting one. The definition needs some work, but the idea does have merit. I have read some of the explanations in rebuttal to Behe and have some of them to be rather weak.

As for Dembski....His attempt to provide a mathematical framework for detecting SC was admirable and was a difficult undertaking. His latest book falls short with regard to false positives (in my opinion) but does have some good points also. I find his use of a universal probability boundary to be compelling.

I am not trying to be vague, but testing the supernatural is difficult at the very least. Thus TE, ID, and Creationism do have some weaknesses in the testability department. I am simply admitting this as a problem, I am not trying to be vague or avoid the issue.


Russ
"Strumming the ole violen"
:boohoo:

emotional

You know, long ago, when I was an evolution sceptic, it was computer-designed evolution simulations that convinced me of the validity of evolution - Dawkin's biomorphs, Karl Sim's Evolved Virtual Creatures, Tom Ray's Tierra et cetera.

They do indeed demonstrate evolution - how complexly organised entities can arise by a blind algorithmic process. But what is noteworthy about those simulations are that they demonstrate theistic evolution. In each of them, the simulation is not self-started, but requires an initial starter to kick them off. Eg Richard Dawkins is the "god" of biomorph evolution.

It isn't an argument for the necessity of theistic evolution, but it shows that theistic evolution is a valid concept. Of course, it may open the can of worms about the designer/starter ("Who created God?"), but that's another topic for another forum...