[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[Chronon]

I'm getting the feeling that what we are arguing about is not really evolution. No one seems to be arguing for a set creation date and no change thereafter (as was argued in the Medieval period). It seems we'd all agree that species have changed over time. I think what we're really arguing about is natural selection (by random variation) versus guided selection (by God or some other Designer - alien or god-like).

The whole evolution versus creationism debate, in my view, is cultural. As Andres has pointed out, the issue that gets most people fired up about this is what to teach in school. Since the Scopes trial, it has been portrayed as a stark dichotomy between religion and science. As we have noted here in this forum, this is a false distiction. I think what we are arguing about is which epistemology should be primary in our cultures: scientific or religious. In other words, when trying to answer the ultimate question of life the universe and everything, do we use the scientific method (of course we know the answer is 42 ) or do we consult the Bible, Koran, Sutras, Zen masters or other spiritual/religious sources?

I, personally, think the two sources can be complementary - especially in one's own personal, individual journey through life. But what is being contested in our culture is which has the authority to define truth, science or Christianity (in the USA anyway - I doubt this is much of an issue in Japan). So, there is a lot at stake, and it's no wonder that sometimes the relative merits of a theory that we know is incomplete have been exaggerated to the point where it has become a secular religion.

For our purposes, then, I would propose that we stop emphasizing the evolution versus creation argument, and start defining our positions along the lines of natural selection versus intelligent design (or whichever theory applies).

[Fyron]

Don't acknowledge creation is unproveable with one breath and demand proof for it in the next.

I didn't do that.

[QuarianRex]

Originally posted by raynor:
The major problem with evolution is that the fossil record doesn't support it. At best, you can support micro-evolution--changes within one species. But there just isn't satisfactory fossil evidence to support the supposed transitional species. Without any evidence for macro evolution, you are left with waiting a million years. With a whole this large in evolution, creationism is equally valid.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to make a fossil? A creature has to die in mud and then be covered in mud before the scavengers move in (simplified, I know, but you get the point). There are millions of species that will never have a fossil record due to their environment. For example, a million years from now there will not be any fossil record of the buffalo (or just about any mammal currently living in australia). That doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Overall, we should cosider ourselves lucky that we have the fossils that we do. It is ludicrous to expect a member of every species to kindly travel to a mudpatch and drown itself so we can fill out our historical record. We work with what we have.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Fyron]

Another way to get fossils is for the animal to get trapped in a tar pit. But, that is even less likely to happen than mud.

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by Chronon:
I'm getting the feeling that what we are arguing about is not really evolution. No one seems to be arguing for a set creation date and no change thereafter (as was argued in the Medieval period). It seems we'd all agree that species have changed over time. I think what we're really arguing about is natural selection (by random variation) versus guided selection (by God or some other Designer - alien or god-like).

The difficulty of this debate is that how you view the evidence is based upon your world view. Either you believe that a supernatural power exists or not. As I have stated before, it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God (or any other concept of a supernatural power) by natural means. That leaves us at an impass.

Since my world view includes God, I cannot accept an account of how things came to be as they are that doesn't include His involvement. This could mean instantaneous creation, guided evolution or something of both, but cannot in my view be entirely a result of random chance.

For the person whose world view does not allow for the supernatural, the only possible explanation is some variant of random chance. There may be a variety of possibilities there, as well, but in the end, it had to be random chance.

Thus both sides of the debate are locked by their world view. Neither can be convinced unless they are convinced to change their position on the unprovable fundamental assumption -- the existence or non-existence of a supernatural power.

[Chronon]

Well said, Alpha Kodiak, that does seem to sum it all up.

Personally, I cannot accept a Christian god, but I recognize that there is more to the universe than we perceive. I think that perhaps there is some room in the middle if one's spiritual leanings are more Eastern. I think it is possible to conceive of a universe that is directed by the Tao (or some such path, way, energy, or universal harmony) that does not necessarily involve the Supernatural with a capital S. Perhaps nature itself is directing the process?

But I digress. In our American culture, dominated by Christianity and secular science, the debate is just as you've described it.

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by Chronon:
Well said, Alpha Kodiak, that does seem to sum it all up.

Personally, I cannot accept a Christian god, but I recognize that there is more to the universe than we perceive. I think that perhaps there is some room in the middle if one's spiritual leanings are more Eastern. I think it is possible to conceive of a universe that is directed by the Tao (or some such path, way, energy, or universal harmony) that does not necessarily involve the Supernatural with a capital S. Perhaps nature itself is directing the process?

But I digress. In our American culture, dominated by Christianity and secular science, the debate is just as you've described it.

Thanks. I would say that other cultures/ideas may introduce other possible interpretations, but in all cases a persons view of spirituality leads them toward a particular set of conclusions.