Why is the concept of theistic evolution unacceptable to you?

[Rav]

I can permanently enchant a piece of chest armour with +100 mana if any of you guys want it.

50 gold.

[Jan Ardena]

Really.

Or bring some examples.

Or, evade.

Done it already with the mouse trap reference.

jan.

[Jan Ardena]

I invoke magic.

You do anyway, don't you?

jan.

[wynn]

Easily. Does the concept contradict itself in such a way as to make it non-sensical? Yes. God disproved.

No. At best, what you've disproved is that that particular concept of God.

Whether that concept of yours really matches God - that is unclear.

[Balerion]

No. At best, what you've disproved is that that particular concept of God.

Whether that concept of yours really matches God - that is unclear.

But if that concept of God is disproved by examining the root cause of religion, then why should anyone seriously consider any concept of God?

[wynn]

But if that concept of God is disproved by examining the root cause of religion, then why should anyone seriously consider any concept of God?

Geez, if you're enlightened, what the hell are you doing here then?

[superstring01]

Why is the concept of theistic evolution unacceptable to you?

It is not unacceptable to me. In fact, it is perfectly acceptable! I would just ask for there to be a measure of evidence for the "theistic" part before I believe it. Until then, I maintain the default position on all possible things in the universe: not until proven.

For example, I'm open to:

• Pigs with wings
• Aliens from Krelak IV
• Unicorns
• Mensa Member Sarah Palin
• Superstring Theory
• Allah/God/YHWH/Zeus
• Mensa Member Sara . . . wait. Said that already.
• Mensa Member Sara . . . shit. Did it again.

The universe LITERALLY has an infinite possible number of "things" that could be. I couldn't dare list even a fraction of infinity (which ends up being an infinity anyway and I sort of have work to do), so I tend to adopt a default "doesn't exist" until empirical evidence is shown. Now, I may conjecture that something can exist and possibly exists (life on other planets), but I'd never aver that such life does definitively exist until I have some sort of evidence.

So, yeah, theistic evolution / intelligent design. Sure. Why not. But first provide me with the peer reviewed paper, scientific study demonstrating such a thing. Then we'll talk.

~String

[GeoffP]

Done it already with the mouse trap reference.

jan.

What mouse trap reference?

[GeoffP]

Well...crap.

I issue a magic fatwa against you!

I slap down with a magic phatwa.

That's the dope in my hood.

[GeoffP]

You do anyway, don't you?

jan.

Actually, Jan, the point was that one can invoke magic at any point to avoid definition in the case of God.

I.e.: "God makes no sense"

Response: "Magic!"

CHALLENGE: AVOIDED

[Jan Ardena]

It is not unacceptable to me. In fact, it is perfectly acceptable! I would just ask for there to be a measure of evidence for the "theistic" part before I believe it. Until then, I maintain the default position on all possible things in the universe: not until proven.

For example, I'm open to:

• Pigs with wings
• Aliens from Krelak IV
• Unicorns
• Mensa Member Sarah Palin
• Superstring Theory
• Allah/God/YHWH/Zeus
• Mensa Member Sara . . . wait. Said that already.
• Mensa Member Sara . . . shit. Did it again.

The universe LITERALLY has an infinite possible number of "things" that could be. I couldn't dare list even a fraction of infinity (which ends up being an infinity anyway and I sort of have work to do), so I tend to adopt a default "doesn't exist" until empirical evidence is shown. Now, I may conjecture that something can exist and possibly exists (life on other planets), but I'd never aver that such life does definitively exist until I have some sort of evidence.

So, yeah, theistic evolution / intelligent design. Sure. Why not. But first provide me with the peer reviewed paper, scientific study demonstrating such a thing. Then we'll talk.

~String

Here you go.

jan.

[GeoffP]

Going through the list - slowly, I'm busy - I note that the first paper, by Kuhn, was countered by two articles in the same issue, the first being apparently by invitation.

[GeoffP]

Dimijian's response is also very good.

[GeoffP]

Hey Jan, let's review the first paper at your link together (Kuhn JA. 2012. "Dissecting Darwinism." Baylor Health). What say? We can work through the list as I find the time.

So, to start with, Kuhn appears to deliberately misrepresent Hunter:

John Hunter proposed a gradual formation of species through mutation 70 years before Charles Darwin published his observations in On the Origin of the Species. Th erefore, history reveals that surgeons are uniquely capable of gathering information, making observations, and reaching conclusions about scientific discoveries.

Kuhn lavishes great fawning adoration over Hunter:

Hence, the purpose of this paper is to review the arguments that have been leveled against the concept of evolution as proposed by Charles Darwin and John Hunter, surgeon and biologist extraordinaire.

"Surgeon and biologist extraordinaire"! Darwin relegates mention as some sort of lumpen hanger-on. I think Kuhn's colours may be showing. Having never heard of John Hunter's no-doubt diligent investigations into natural history before now - to say nothing of his foresight of the process of mutagenic speciation I looked him up. Imagine my surprise when both Wiki and the Encyclopedia had this to say:

Hunter considered that very few fossils of those that resemble recent forms are identical with them. He conceived that the latter might be varieties, but that if' they are really different species, then " we must suppose that a new creation must have taken place." It would appear, therefore, that the origin of species in variation had not struck him as possible.[18]

Ah. In other words, not exactly the kind of philosophical precursor that Dr. Kuhn suggests. Perhaps some other Kuhn-Hunter follower has some contrary evidence. I think Kuhn is overinvolved with selling his own value in the discussion of evolution - a subject, by omission, that he seems to have little background with.

This is why surgeons ought to stay out of evolutionary biology. The vast contrast between MDs (78%) who accept evolution as the basis for speciation and those in the natural sciences who do (99%) is telling. Any comments, Jan?

[Balerion]

Geez, if you're enlightened, what the hell are you doing here then?

Is it that you can't answer the question, or is it that you won't because doing so might make you contradict yourself?

I'm just trying to figure out the purpose behind this evasion. I asked you a question, and you responded with a bullshit.

[wynn]

Is it that you can't answer the question, or is it that you won't because doing so might make you contradict yourself?

I'm just trying to figure out the purpose behind this evasion. I asked you a question, and you responded with a bullshit.

Go back and read what I said, and then check whether your criticism still applies.

[Aqueous Id]

Here you go.

jan.

Does this publication address how the creatures got to the Galapagos? Do you have an opinion on the subject?

[Balerion]

Go back and read what I said, and then check whether your criticism still applies.

I did, and it does.

[wynn]

As always, it is not possible to discuss anything with an enlightened person ...

[Jan Ardena]

Yazata,

It seems to me that natural shapes often contain more raw information than intelligently-designed artifacts.

What's ''raw information''?

It's possible to imagine information such as computer files being encoded in the kind of seemingly random irregularities that one finds on natural surfaces.

We can imagine lots of things.

What scientists are doing this? What tests?

I'm sure you could find out if you tried.

Watches are known to be purposeful artifacts created by human beings.

More important (than the fact they were made by humans), is that we can recognise, and understand that they were ''made'', period, regardless of who or what made them.

So the design-argument analogy insists that dogs must also be purposeful artifacts created by... what?

It doesn't matter.
It only matters to you because you have to discredit the science.

But obviously the implication is intended to be that it's the "God" figure of whatever religion that the "ID" proponent happens to adhere to.

Okay, let's go with this.
So what?

That's why the mid-19'th century idea of natural selection was so devastating to the traditional design argument

But it's not devastating now.
It kinda look's ill (and I don't mean that in the hip-hop sense).

jan.