Why some people reject evolution

[Danmark]

[you can skip the intro and go right to the last paragraph]

Growing up, I was seldom interested in math. At first it seemed tedious and boring. I invented my own shortcuts to make it easier. Later it required discipline when it got too difficult to do in my head. So, i loved geometry, but lost interest after trig, which I didn't even try to understand. I've been thinking of trying to teach myself calculus, just to see if, at 69 I can do it. So, I looked for a free online course of study and found this:

As Henry Ford said, " Nothing is particularly hard if you divide it into small jobs ". Too much of the world is complicated by layers of evolution. If you understand how each layer is put down then you can begin to understand the complex systems that govern our world. Charles Darwin wrote in 1859 in his On The Origin of Species,

"When we no longer look at an organic being as a savage looks at a ship, as at something wholly beyond his comprehension; when we regard every production of nature as one which had a history; when we contemplate every complex structure and instinct as the summing up of many contrivances, each useful to the possessor, nearly in the same as when we look at any great mechanical invention as the summing of the labour, the experience, the reason, and even the blunders of numerous workmen; when we thus view each organic being, how far more interesting, I speak from experience, will the study of natural history become! " http://www.understandingcalculus.com/

So here's the question, do people not believe in evolution just because the Bible tells them so? Or is there another factor; that rather than try to understand it in small steps, one tiny transition at a time, since the entirety of the process ("microbe to man") seems impossible to them, do they reject it out of hand without looking at it step by step?

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 57 by PghPanther]

A clear example of intelligent process. A clear example of consciousness involved within a complicated process.

A clear example of planing rather than random accident.

A clear example of remiss bias related to the idea of evolution without the necessity of mind.

Wrong...........in this case the planning was set up for a purpose but the process of that purpose was non conscious.........

In nature there are so many random variables and pressures over such vast periods of time they end up in a process that simply leads to something that wasn't there before and that becomes the impetus that feeds on itself through natural selection to environmental pressures....

For example.........the element carbon due to its outer electronic electron shell valence is more electromagnetically active in randomly combining with other natural elements than all those elements are in combining with each other together can be.

Think of carbon as a magnet for other combinations of elements................and much like real magnets that have two poles..........if you take a group of magnets and put them in a bag and shake them up they will end up attaching to each others poles and create a long stick.............that certainly looks designed or fashioned that way on purpose........

But carbon doesn't have two pole but in fact thousands of potential valence bonding with other elements............

So you have carbon atoms along with atoms of other elements.........and in cases where they lay in areas with a medium like water they becomes stirred up and randomly attach to each other. But the electromagnetic structure of carbon allows for them to structure into longer complex molecules from the environmental pressures of air, wind, water, etc until a complex molecule has the electromagnetic profile that replicates itself independent from those pressures..........that is the essence of the foundation for what we call life.

There is no intend, purpose or design behind that transition from the innate to replicating organism but is in fact the product of random environmental pressures on a the profile of a highly covalent bonding element like carbon.

It is not surprising that we find all living organisms on this planet carbon based and so similar in their profiles that humans for instance have 60% of their DNA identical to a tree...........yet common sense observation which serves us so well in many activities in our life fails us to see that between what a tree and human look like.

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 75 by Danmark]

You are missing the point. Just because one can understand a process without including intelligence being involved, does not mean intelligence is not involved.

You are quite right in that assumption but then if you make the claim that it is not a natural process that results in an evolutionary process then you are tasked with an even greater unknown than the initial problem in understanding this process to begin with..........and that is where and how did this intelligence you claim is responsible for evolution come about and be proven that it exists, let alone has a vested interest in humans and this particular planet?

and from a theological point of view treading in the area of theistic evolutionary claims where this intelligence is not capable of creationism outright but limited to creating only by allowing the natural selection process to evolve life into humans..........which wouldn't sit well at all with many theists...........particularly the young earth creationist of Biblical literal interpretations.........

And that puts you into another debate outside of the science and into the theistic realm............

So just how much are theist willing to tackle in an effort to claim that evolution through natural selection has an intelligent purpose behind it?

[Rufus21]

There must be a time/stage when it got going. Right, please?

Not necessarily. What if the mechanics of evolution have existed since the beginning of time? Is there any evidence of that they didn't?

If it could start off at a time/stage, then it could cease at a time/stage, rationally,please.

Why would it stop? Why would something that has happened naturally since the beginning not keep happening forever? That's like saying that gravity may suddenly stop at any time for no reason. It just doesn't make sense.

Evolution is OK, but it is not eternal. Right,please?

Why not? Why would something that happens naturally not keep happening forever?

[William]

[Replying to post 81 by PghPanther]

Wrong...........

No. What you are expressing is a particular interpretation of what is being observed and conflating that with fact.
The exact fact is, it might be either but probably is created through a conscious determination. We - naturally enough - may not be able to fully comprehend such an undertaking or such an entity mind or entity minds able to do such a thing, but that is besides the point. We understand enough to know it as probable.

in this case the planning was set up for a purpose but the process of that purpose was non conscious.........

The pertinent wording here is was set up which again implies a conscious determination.

In nature there are so many random variables and pressures over such vast periods of time they end up in a process that simply leads to something that wasn't there before and that becomes the impetus that feeds on itself through natural selection to environmental pressures....

None of which dismiss the whole idea of this process being set up to behave that way.

There is no intend, purpose or design behind that transition from the innate to replicating organism but is in fact the product of random environmental pressures on a the profile of a highly covalent bonding element like carbon.

Set up to behave that way. See? It is a matter of interpreting the data. You interpret it to being uninitiated through any conscious determination, whereas I include conscious determination as the source impetus.

It is not surprising that we find all living organisms on this planet carbon based and so similar in their profiles that humans for instance have 60% of their DNA identical to a tree...........yet common sense observation which serves us so well in many activities in our life fails us to see that between what a tree and human look like.

Specifically what we have in the evidence is that all things seem to be made of the same thing - stands to reason given that all things biological on earth came from the material of the earth.

Specific to that, there is also an incredible diversity which lends itself to the practical suspicion that something intelligent is behind this creative form-building. We not only have a great variety of trees, but also of humans, and every other life form on the planet.

These all work together in congruity. One without the others often cannot be and in cases where it can be so, these things fade out or are replaced by other things - the whole process so very obviously intelligent that to deny it is an exercise in the obstinate clinging onto generic atheism for the sake of doing so rather than for the sake of truthfulness.

To be sure, no one - that you cannot challenge - is asking you to believe in any particular idea of GOD, but to decide that no GOD actually exists and thus exclude GOD [as the mind behind the formation of the universe] from the process, and make your statements from that position, is unnecessary reductionism, as it seeks to position itself beyond the right for any to contrary challenge.

I am as necessary to the tree as the tree is to me. In that, the form and what the form consists of, is mostly irrelevant. The relationship is what counts, and consciousness acts in the same way, regardless of form - the relationship is familiar. And necessary for that.

[Rufus21]

Specific to that, there is also an incredible diversity which lends itself to the practical suspicion that something intelligent is behind this creative form-building.

How do you reach that conclusion? How does diversity suggest intelligent design? Wouldn't the opposite be true? Why would an intelligent designer create billions of inefficient beings, almost all of which have gone extinct, instead of one (or a few) highly efficient beings? Why would an intelligent designer be so terribly bad at designing things?

Incredible diversity and short lifespans is exactly what we would expect to see from random mutations, not intelligent design.

...to decide that no GOD actually exists and thus exclude GOD [as the mind behind the formation of the universe] from the process, and make your statements from that position, is unnecessary reductionism...

Unnecessary reductionism? Is that what you call it when someone removes unnecessary components? I call that being unbiased. The fact that you refuse to simplify the issue is a sign that you are not being honest with yourself. When you simplify the issue, you remove the bias. If you refuse to remove the unnecessary concepts, your perceptions will be biased.

These all work together in congruity. One without the others often cannot be and in cases where it can be so, these things fade out or are replaced by other things - the whole process so very obviously intelligent that to deny it is an exercise in the obstinate clinging onto generic atheism for the sake of doing so rather than for the sake of truthfulness.

How do you reach that conclusion? If an animal is capable of surviving in its environment, it does. If not, it dies. Nothing intelligent about that. No elements of grand design or a higher power. An intelligent designer would have gotten things right by now (after billions of years), but a process of random mutation would always be adapting to a changing environment.

None of these things require an intelligent creator. In fact they are indications that one does not exist. You are apparently hung up on the need to see the universe as the product of a magical being. All of these things are just your skewed perception, they are not realistic or rational. There is no need to invent a creator where one is not needed.

[William]

[Replying to post 85 by Rufus21]

How do you reach that conclusion?

Because it is the most logical conclusion one can reach.

How does diversity suggest intelligent design?

Why would it not?

Wouldn't the opposite be true?

Why?

Why would an intelligent designer create billions of inefficient beings, almost all of which have gone extinct, instead of one (or a few) highly efficient beings? Why would an intelligent designer be so terribly bad at designing things?

The nature of this universe determines that nothing lasts forever. Would you say that the designer of a building which only lasts 100 years is terrible at designing things?

Things do go extinct, but they are only forms in which consciousness (the designer) experiences through and are discarded as other designs are created, or as necessity demands.

Not to say that the whole process the planet has so far gone through isn't simply still moving through the initial set up stage and that eventually diversity won't be replaced with highly efficient and durable forms which can better accommodate consciousness and take the biological coding into other areas of the cosmos to be seeded in order to start that pattern of events again and again.

I state this of course, from my particular position, which is essentially Panentheism with in mind that the planet itself is a form occupied by a living conscious self aware intelligent creative entity (the Earth Entity) and this is the reason as to why the incredible variety of forms exist on the planet.

In that, I can see how exploration into the limits of ones creativity in design and function using the material available would explain quite adequately the evolution of said intelligent creative process aligned with biological evolution.

Incredible diversity and short lifespans is exactly what we would expect to see from random mutations, not intelligent design.

The problem with that assertion is that it assumes such to being the case without anything more than leaning on the interpretation of what one sees dovetailed with what one believes.
It is, of course, the same with my argument from position. However, I take into account the fact that at least we know that in order for design to take place, intelligence is required - as there are plenty of examples to go by regarding that.
Given that the evidence of biological evolution shows process of design (and purposeful design at that, given its functionality,) there is no reason to distort that with exclamations of how imperfect that process appears to be when 'a designer should have had its act together and created perfectly specific and lasting products with permanent shelf life.'

The whole process appears to be more of a learning one than anything, which is exactly what one would expect to see, given the overall nature of the universe being worked within.

Unnecessary reductionism? Is that what you call it when someone removes unnecessary components?

No. That is what I call it when those like yourself refuse to acknowledge intelligence within the process.

I call that being unbiased.

So? It is patently not. Your conclusions are based on the premise that complex derives from simplicity and the mindful derives from mindlessness. This can all be dismissed for a few reasons. One is that we might compare what we think of as being 'simple' based on far more complicated systems which have derived from those beginning processes, but even those simple beginnings of themselves are also quite complex anyway.
Related to that, the whole thing flows. It is not a set of different systems each deriving from the other. It is one complete system extending itself out into the external and its parts are not separate from its wholeness, and its wholeness is not currently evident.

The mind behind it may not be so obvious to the minds within it, but given we are in the initial stages, that is not surprising.

The fact that you refuse to simplify the issue is a sign that you are not being honest with yourself. When you simplify the issue, you remove the bias. If you refuse to remove the unnecessary concepts, your perceptions will be biased.

The fact is I acknowledge that it is not simple. I also acknowledge that it is an intelligent process. I do say that I interpret the evidence as showing this to be the case, and the same evidence shows others like yourself that it is not the case, but I reject that I am coming from a position of bias whereas you are not.

I do not agree that the concepts are unnecessary and have my own subjective experience which confirms this for me.
Over the many years involved in debate/argument/discussion with differing type of atheists I have never seen the need to change my position other than to align my self honesty with being honest with others, so changed from the position of agnostic to Panentheist as my subjective experience practically demanded of me. (Said because you brought self honesty into this argument.)

How do you reach that conclusion? If an animal is capable of surviving in its environment, it does. If not, it dies. Nothing intelligent about that.

How wrong you are to say that. Given circumstance beyond its control, sure - intelligence won't help but that does not mean there is no intelligence or that intelligence is unnecessary or somehow besides the point.
I reach the conclusion based upon observation of what is. Take a jungle even with some of its plants appearing to be more pushy and - given the opportunity - would strangle the life out of other plants - it does not get the opportunity because of the balancing factors which prevent it from doing so - the whole jungle operates intelligently as one thing. Zoom out and behold! The planet is doing the same.

No elements of grand design or a higher power. An intelligent designer would have gotten things right by now (after billions of years), but a process of random mutation would always be adapting to a changing environment.

As has been pointed out already. The seemingly random process might have been created (set up) to go that particular way and then entered into for the experience by that which set it up. Call it a challenge. Call it a necessary thing which had to be done. Whatever. It is what it is, and 'billions of years' is nothing but the initial stages of an ongoing process and 'getting it right' while within it - one would expect such a time period to show exactly what is shown.

The grand designer(s) of this universe and any higher power outside of it is one of observation rather than participation. Set it in motion and regard it as an objective thing.

Grand design and higher power within it going along with it for the experience - one would expect to see exactly what is been seen. Consciousness limited to its environment and learning of ways in which to bring into that, intelligent creativeness endurance and invention.

Keep consciousness outside of that, and one would simple have something which reacts as it was designed to react without any conscious interference going on within it. An external mechanical process devoid of and internal conscious participation going on within it.

[Rufus21]

However, I take into account the fact that at least we know that in order for design to take place, intelligence is required - as there are plenty of examples to go by regarding that.

But that simply isn't true. We have seen complexity arise from simplicity using a mindless process without any intelligent interference. We know for a fact that it happens. You can't ignore this and expect to see the truth.

Your conclusions are only true if you ignore certain facts and distort reality to fit your views. How do you not think that is biased? If you take off your filter it just doesn't match the real world. You are jumping to conclusions that are not supported by evidence and trying to blur the world to make it look the way you want it. You are adding elements to a problem that are unnecessary and refusing to remove them.

I'll admit that you have created a very interesting story that probably seems conclusive to you, but it simply doesn't fit the world we live in. The only creator of that world is you.

[2timothy316]

However, I take into account the fact that at least we know that in order for design to take place, intelligence is required - as there are plenty of examples to go by regarding that.

But that simply isn't true. We have seen complexity arise from simplicity using a mindless process without any intelligent interference. We know for a fact that it happens. You can't ignore this and expect to see the truth.

Certainly you're not speaking of living things. We have seen a complexity arise from simplicity? Please do give one example where it has been 'seen'. I have scoured the planet for such an observance and have not found one. If you have please share.

[William]

However, I take into account the fact that at least we know that in order for design to take place, intelligence is required - as there are plenty of examples to go by regarding that.

But that simply isn't true. We have seen complexity arise from simplicity using a mindless process without any intelligent interference. We know for a fact that it happens. You can't ignore this and expect to see the truth.

Certainly you're not speaking of living things. We have seen a complexity arise from simplicity? Please do give one example where it has been 'seen'. I have scoured the planet for such an observance and have not found one. If you have please share.

Yes - I am in the same boat on that one. I haven't been presented with any such evidence.

I even suggested in an earlier post that what may be regarded as 'simplicity' when compared with the more complex, is in itself not 'simple' at all.

But anyway...those examples would be interesting.

[William]

[Replying to post 87 by Rufus21]

I'll admit that you have created a very interesting story that probably seems conclusive to you, but it simply doesn't fit the world we live in. The only creator of that world is you.

On the contrary. My understanding fits exactly. I explained that re the Earth Entity. It can't be helped that you refuse to think this as a possible answer to why life evolved intelligently upon this planet.

You claim I am using some kind of bias filtered lens in order to 'see' it this particular way, and I have not denied that this is the case, but have gone to some lengths to explain not only why I think it is proper to do so, but also shown that we are BOTH doing this, which you refuse so far to acknowledge.

My bias leans that way because I see it as extremely plausible and a good answer for why this creative process exists as a mindful process. You see no mind, because your bias leans the other way. Plain and simple.