I disagree.
Evolution has to provide the best account that fits the available evidence. Whether or not there is a God has no relevance to that at all.
If there is a God, then that God might be doing things behind the scenes that are part of how evolution works. But there’s no way to tell, as far as I can determine.
How much of the data have you, personally, thoughtfully reviewed, Marty?
I don’t understand why so many creationists of all stripes claim familiarity with the data.
Fine, I’m just asking about your alleged review of the data. Data are not opinions, correct?
IMO, willingness to make major shifts in closely held stances is indicative of of someone who is open to pursuing truth. I think that’s great! I also used to be YEC, so I understand how intense that transition can be.
That is an Entirely false statement.
Unless you quote or hit “reply”, nobody can really know who you’re talking to.
Having people disagree on the internet is enforcement of orthodoxy?
That doesn’t seem to have occurred until you posted, but in any case that’s not a drawback, it’s actually evidence that this forum allows anyone to state their opinions as long as they abide by the rules. What you find is that when this happens, people who disagree will state theirs in turn. This is not some sort of forum problem, it’s what forums are for.
I think one can quibble about where and how evolution began and stuff like that, but I get your point. You’re saying that if there is no God then wherever life first began, intelligent design can’t have been involved if we go back long enough, because not even alien biochemists or whatever might have existed, so there has to be a non-design explanation for everything in biology. I would agree, that makes sense.
Okay, thanks for stating your opinion. Would you like to elaborate on what data you think compels this conclusion?
It’s not that it’s hard to understand, it’s that you offer nothing in it’s place. What does your alternative explanation consist of? Is it one of those god of the gaps things?
That’s what arguments over disagrements are: people trying to convince each other to think otherwise. You’re not being forced to, but yes people state things because clearly they intend that you should think like them, or at the very least want to point out that there’s another option.
It isn’t clear what you think this is supposed to be otherwise? Can you elaborate?
No, if you actually think someone else is being dishonest and you state it, you are being honest about what you think.
The “thoughtful review of the data” part. I’ve been looking at the data for decades and come to the opposite conclusion.
Love the response on this post! I haven’t had much time to respond on an individual basis, but I will get to it, I promise! In general though, I can see that there are strong opinions on both sides of the aisle and everywhere in between. Like I had said before, I fiercely defended YEC as a younger man. What led me away from it though was instead of being preoccupied with defending a position, I rather sought to discover truth, wherever it led. I realized my God didn’t need defending, and neither did my worldview. If I was committed to discovering the truth, no amount of shift in the paradigm would rattle me, because, in my belief, God is truth, and there is no need to fear the truth. Others will have the opinion that God is a matter of opinion and not truth, and we can get into that if you would like, but I think we can all agree that there is at the very least an uncanny set of parameters that has made life in general and human life on our planet possible, which begs the question, “why?” The answer, in my belief, boils down to the opening statement of the Bible; “In the beginning, God created…”
Respectfully, I don’t see that happening here. There is a difference between religion and science; a set of beliefs is not a method of learning from observation. It’s fair to recognize that distinction. Some people (like Stephen Meyer) may try to blur that distinction, and that blurring is at the heart of much of the discussions here.
For starters, you are painting atheists with a VERY broad brush. It’s OK to criticize atheists, but I see this as misrepresentation and strawman-ing. That is meant as an observation, not a criticism. These assertions would be better offered as questions to discuss.
More, but I just got a better offer …
Yes, but the strong data are on only one side of that aisle.
It turns out that we can’t all agree on that either. You’re talking about “fine-tuning”, and there are major problems with the notion.
Nothing about atheism here. And certainly nothing which would not be agreed with by many, many theistic scientists.
You’re the one bringing gods into it. I’ve certainly said nothing about them. I have been suggesting, consistently through this thread, that when you want to answer a question in biology, you should probably use the tools of biology to answer it.
Again with the atheists. Who brought up atheism? I sure didn’t. And many of the scientists you think are guilty of this “force-fit” aren’t atheists.
The part that says that your “need” for evolution is somehow relevant. That’s pretty hard to understand, for sure. Also, the part where you keep bringing atheism into it as though it had something to do with the issue.
That is truly the strangest rule I’ve ever heard of. So when somebody like Stephen Meyer is deeply, profoundly and consistently dishonest, this point may never be mentioned because, according to your rule, anyone who points out that dishonesty automatically becomes dishonest himself? The criminal law would certainly operate interestingly under these principles:
“Officer, I have the proof here that my bookkeeper has embezzled money from the company.”
“Since you’ve accused him of embezzlement, you’re under arrest for embezzlement.”
Before we wander down the rabbit hole of religion versus science, can we all agree that neither sort of Creationism is science?
Anyone arguing there is scientific evidence for faith is going to meet with strong argument from both scientists and theologians. This suggestion defies the definition of both.
A perfect example. If religion and science are the same thing, then we should be about to tally up all the data about God and learn to reproduce God in the laboratory. YES this is total nonsense, but it is perfectly in keeping with our expectations of science. Science can’t do that, and it would be a very strange religion believe otherwise.
This is a really good observation (realization?). If your faith is strong then the truth doesn’t matter - OR if it matters then strong faith can accommodate and carry on. It strikes me that Young Earth Creationism is a very fragile sort of faith. subject to breaking if not carefully sheltered from opposing thoughts. Strident denial seems to be a defense mechanism to drown out those doubts before they can hit home.
There was a YEC gentleman I would see on FB, and we argued each other fiercely for months. Through this we gradually came to know each other a bit, to the point where we could discuss our disagreement in a more constructive manner. I asked him what he would do if shown convincing evidence of evolution, and he said that it would cause him to give up his belief in God. I tried to express to him that a person can have faith AND accept science, but he had his hill to die on and there was no budging him. We argued less fiercely after that, and I think influenced him just a little.
I am honestly interested in hearing about the problems you mean. Please explain.
I believe it’s been discussed here previously, but here are a few:
Fine-tuning and intelligent design are contradictory. If the universe is really fine-tuned for life, why would there need to be further intervention to get it started and keep it going?
Fine-tuning only makes sense if only a very narrow range of parameters would support life. This is far from clear. Several studies have found that great variation from the realized parameters would still produce the necessary conditions.
Fine-tuning only makes sense if there is a wide range of possible parameters. This too is far from clear. For all the various parameters there is no way to suggest the possible range, or even if any variation at all would have been possible. Further, what if some parameters are linked?
@Bryar_Kader there are three options to explain the fine tuning:
chance, necessity, or intelligence. Or possibly some combination.
@John_Harshman is saying “we don’t know” and he’s right. However it is a metaphysical discussion since we cannot test it. For a person who believes there is no God, the third possibility is not an option.
To all:
I hopped in here to support @Bryar_Kader in the attempt to follow the evidence. That’s commendable! But I’m not here to debate.
Regarding world views, I have another friend who in the past would post on Biologos, but has given up because, in his words, he would get “gang mugged by the atheists” when he would express any uncertainty about their materialist perspectives. Since it is impossible to engage with half a dozen people tossing questions and ridicule, most people give up. But there are plenty of people who conclude natural processes are inadequate by themselves – they are just unlikely to say so here.
That’s why I brought up God. When people have concluded that God does not exist, the only remaining explanations require purely natural explanations. Therefore fine-tuning is either chance or necessity, life started and developed to its current state entirely on its own by only natural events, etc. It has nothing to do with religion vs science. It has to do with whether one has rejected a priori the possibility of divine intervention. One may conclude that there was none but plenty of people conclude otherwise.
In addition, I find many atheists assume that anyone who disagrees with them is either ignorant (hasn’t studied enough data), stupid (couldn’t figure it out if they did study), or a scoundrel (actually knows the truth but won’t admit it - “dishonest”). Unfortunate.
As I said, I’m here to support @Bryar_Kader and point out that in posting on these boards one gets mostly the party line. It’s all way too complicated to litigate in forums like this.
However I can summarize my perspective as follows: I’ve spent my career as a software engineer, and I recognize code when I see it. DNA is code. Also I have worked closely with electrical and mechanical engineers and can recognize complex design when I see it. Many biomolecular machines are designed. Just my opinion. Atheists can believe that these arose on their own, but I don’t share their faith.
I think you mistake what I’m saying we don’t know. It isn’t that we don’t know why the universe is fine-tuned. We don’t know if the universe is fine-tuned. In fact, it seems otherwise. If the universe were fine-tuned for life, why would there be so little of it? And why would an omnipotent God need fine-tuning at all? He could easily have made as much life as he liked in any sort of universe. The most common claim is that a proper universe must be able to sustain stars that are billions of years old. But God would have no need of such things, just a source of light that could last as long as he wanted humans to be around.
Rather, there is no evidence that the third possibility exists.
I would point out (actually, I already have, but perhaps you missed it) that you can’t reasonably attack both of those positions at once. If the universe is properly fine-tuned, life should be able to develop naturally. If life is unable to develop naturally, the universe isn’t fine-tuned.
Oh dear.