Moderator:Forum Administrators
That sounds like the definition of ID to me, but maybe ID downplays the evolution part and plays up the Goddidit part.Lazar Taxon wrote:Theistic evolution is the idea that evolution has happened, and the geological record is true, but that God was guiding or directing it - this is pretty much the position of the Catholic Church. Intelligent design, as best I can tell, is creationism framed as a secular scientific theory.
mōdgethanc wrote:That sounds like the definition of ID to me, but maybe ID downplays the evolution part and plays up the Goddidit part.Lazar Taxon wrote:Theistic evolution is the idea that evolution has happened, and the geological record is true, but that God was guiding or directing it - this is pretty much the position of the Catholic Church. Intelligent design, as best I can tell, is creationism framed as a secular scientific theory.
acryllic wrote:So ... Evolution is Darwin's theory: survival of the fittest.
What is Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolutionism?
Evolution is the paradigm that all biologists accept. "Survival of the fittest" is not a phrase Darwin ever used and it was coined after his death to refer to eugenics.acryllic wrote:So ... Evolution is Darwin's theory: survival of the fittest.
The most important, but it's often ignored that there were others, including some of his contemporaries. Science doesn't happen in leaps and bounds but through slow, painstaking work and experimentation. No discovery is possible unless scientists share their findings with each other and the scientific community.Saim wrote:Darwin is not a prophet of evolution. He was just one of the more important thinkers that helped develop the idea.
Yeah really. Anyone who knows anything about evolution knows that "fit" in an evolutionary sense just means more adapted to the environment an organism finds itself in."Survival of the fittest" was originally not used by Darwin, but it was indeed adapted by him later. The problem here is that the word "fittest" is ambiguous. Normally people think of stronger or bigger animals when they think of "fitter"; in reality, this quotation is only accurate if you define "fit" as "best adapted to a given niche".
Lur wrote:I've had just those thoughts myself.
I stopped bothering refuting creationists in my teens. I became bored with the non issue. So what I like to do now is having a dialogue with sane people who are interested so they understand better how evolution seems to work and so on. I like teaching things somehow. It's more rewarding
Varislintu wrote:What I'm wondering is that if an IDist were to read this discussion, would they read it as the IDists making the more sense? Would they read the same thing I do, but find the IDists holding the rational end of argumentation here? Because in my eyes, the IDists do so unbelievably...
ling wrote:You misspelled IDiots.
linguoboy wrote:ling wrote:You misspelled IDiots.
Because nothing quite says "rational and scientific" like schoolyard taunts...
Ahzoh wrote:I thought "survival of the fittest" meant any organism that was reproductively sucessful, not necessarily the strongest/best.
yeah. pretty much. unless an organism can reproduce fast enough to outrun natural selection (not likely)IpseDixit wrote:I think those are just the two sides of the same coin in most cases.Ahzoh wrote:I thought "survival of the fittest" meant any organism that was reproductively sucessful, not necessarily the strongest/best.
IpseDixit wrote:Ahzoh wrote:I thought "survival of the fittest" meant any organism that was reproductively sucessful, not necessarily the strongest/best.
I think those are just the two sides of the same coin in most cases.
JuxtapositionQMan wrote:Since quantum mechanics governs evolution
It governs all probabiltity, my friend (I'll explain how if you want). However, even if it's only at the atomic level, evolution is driven by mutations, which occur from changes in DNA, which occur from the molecules being slightly changed, which occurs from atoms moving around or transmutating, which occur from subatomic particles moving about, which is governed by quantum mechanics.Yserenhart wrote:JuxtapositionQMan wrote:Since quantum mechanics governs evolution,...
Quantum mechanics doesn't really work that way. It deals solely with effects on the scales of sub-atomic particles and smaller. On macroscopic scales, particularly when you get to the point of complete biological systems and evolution, quantum effects are irrelevant. At those scales, even atomic interactions become (mostly) irrelevant.
JuxtapositionQMan wrote:It governs all probabiltity, my friend (I'll explain how if you want).
However, even if it's only at the atomic level, evolution is driven by mutations,
which occur from changes in DNA, which occur from the molecules being slightly changed, which occurs from atoms moving around or transmutating, which occur from subatomic particles moving about, which is governed by quantum mechanics.
See?
I don't, but here's how I understand it: subatomic particles control the properties & motion of atoms. Atoms determine the properties of molecules, and atoms' movement determines the movement of molecules. Molecules' properties & movement determine the properties & movement of materials (movement to a lesser extent, but if all the molecules in something move upwards, it moves upwards). Probability is the number of successes vs. outcomes, so, for example, the probability of a floor mat moving 3ft. off the ground is the same as the probability of all its molecules moving 3ft. upward, which is the same as all the molecules' atoms moving upward, which is the same as all the subatomic paricles moving upward, which is governed by quantum mechanics.Yserenhart wrote:If you have completed a tertiary level qualification in physics, go ahead and explain if you so want.JuxtapositionQMan wrote:It governs all *probabiltity, my friend (I'll explain how if you want).
Sometimes that way as well. Still governed by QM, though. *see above*Yserenhart wrote:Most mutation happens as a result of transcription/replication errors (i.e inserting an incorrect molecule rather than changing the molecule), or by insertion/deletion of DNA fragments, which again has nothing to do with changing the molecules.JuxtapositionQMan wrote:However, even if it's only at the atomic level, evolution is driven by mutations,
Exactly! (also, thanks for answering my initial question)Yserenhart wrote:JuxtapositionQMan wrote:which occur from changes in DNA, which occur from the molecules being slightly changed, which occurs from atoms moving around or transmutating, which occur from subatomic particles moving about, which is governed by quantum mechanics.
See?
Might as well just go a bit further then, and say that quantum mechanics is governed by mathematics. And, given that mathematics is unconstrained by physical reality, I'd say an nth dimensional being presiding over mathematics is a bit of a better god (and incidentally, a potential explanation for the god of Abrahamic religions, and other deities).
Chekhov wrote:I don't know about naive worldviews, but Jurgen Wullenwhatever pisses me off to no end because of his extreme pessimism and cynicism. You'd think the world was going to end imminently when talking to that guy.
Jurgen Wullenwever wrote:For my part, I do not understand this dimensional stuff, but how does it translate into gods and goddesses, archangels and angels, and demigods that are begot between gods and humans? Do all of them have 9 dimensions?
Return to “Politics and Religion”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests