How is there reality without God?

[EarthScienceguy]

Neils Bohr
"No Phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." Or another way to say this is that a tree does not fall in a forest unless it is observed.

The only way for there to be an objective reality is if God is the constant observer everywhere.

Physicist John Archibald Wheeler: "It is wrong to think of the past as 'already existing' in all detail. The 'past' is theory. The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present."

God is everywhere so He can observe everywhere and produce objective reality.

[Tcg]

In fact, about half of them actually have degrees in subjects that would qualify them to consider the evidence as an expert.

This leaves is with two very serious issues. First is that the poster who presented this as evidence against evolution misrepresented both AIG and the claims it presented. They presented what they claim is a list of 50 PHDs who disagree with evolution not 50 experts in fields related to evolution.

The second and more damning issue is AIGs statement of faith. It reads in part:

Statement of Faith

No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation.

https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

AIG clearly rejects any scientific view they think contradicts "the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation." They of course are going to present "experts" who follow this statement. If they agree with it they are going to reject any evidence that may support evolution simply because they think it contradicts their view of scripture. This is backwards. The proper approach is to examine evidence and then draw conclusions. This approach draws conclusions first and then seeks evidence to support the already reached conclusions.


Tcg

[The Barbarian]

AIG clearly rejects any scientific view they think contradicts "the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation." They of course are going to present "experts" who follow this statement. If they agree with it they are going to reject any evidence that may support evolution simply because they think it contradicts their view of scripture. This is backwards. The proper approach is to examine evidence and then draw conclusions. This approach draws conclusions first and then seeks evidence to support the already reached conclusions.


Tcg

Contrast that with St. Augustine, who remarked that where scripture is not clear, we should be willing to change our opinions when facts show that they are not consistent with observed reality.

And yes, when there is not overwhelming agreement among Christians as to the meaning of a verse, then it is not clear.

[Purple Knight]

Or they just don't trust the experts. It's fine not to trust people who have not earned that trust.

We've done this before (damn but these conversations have grown incredibly stale).

Creationists don't trust the experts because the experts reach conclusions that conflict with their beliefs.
Creationists don't trust science because science produces conclusions that conflict with their beliefs.
Creationists don't trust peer review because it produces conclusions that conflict with their beliefs.
Creationists don't trust consensus because it represents conclusions that conflict with their beliefs.

Notice the common denominator....creationists automatically reject everything that conflicts with their beliefs (as represented by the AiG Statement of Faith I just posted to ESG).

There really is nothing more to it than that. I mean, they even tell us right up front, so it's not like this is some secret or anything.

I do not dispute that the AiG Statement of Faith is damning. I think it's okay to bring up motivation when it's clear, which is why I can bring up the profit motive in science.

Though I am defending their right not to trust, carte blanche, I'm defending yours too and I certainly agree with you that you can't trust religious organisations.

[Tcg]

AIG clearly rejects any scientific view they think contradicts "the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation." They of course are going to present "experts" who follow this statement. If they agree with it they are going to reject any evidence that may support evolution simply because they think it contradicts their view of scripture. This is backwards. The proper approach is to examine evidence and then draw conclusions. This approach draws conclusions first and then seeks evidence to support the already reached conclusions.


Tcg

Contrast that with St. Augustine, who remarked that where scripture is not clear, we should be willing to change our opinions when facts show that they are not consistent with observed reality.

Did Augustine think the "scripture" was clear about the 6 days of creation?

And yes, when there is not overwhelming agreement among Christians as to the meaning of a verse, then it is not clear.

Who is talking about "overwhelming agreement among Christians as to the meaning of a verse." I pointed out the issue of misrepresenting a source and the flawed approach AIG takes. How does your comment address either?


Tcg

[Diogenes]

The idea of [evolution] progressing is a faulty one because there is no 'purpose.' It just happens. There are billions of mutations. Most of them result in no apparent or significant change. Many result in extinction.

Evolution doesn't progress in a forward line like that but it's natural to think about it progressing like that, because, from the perspective of each extant species about how it came to be, it did progress linearly. Because it is right for its environment, every adaptation it has looks like an objective improvement, and it looks like evolution went forward. The side-ways that didn't go anywhere or petered out aren't as important as how a cat came to be a cat.

But that's also where the flaw in thinking comes in because this thing that happened is apparently so amazing that even I think it's incredibly doubtable. We look at a cat in front of us and it looks perfect, mainly because it is. It's unfathomable that it got that way randomly. If we could see all those side-ways more clearly, if every possible result were alive and in front of us, the perfect thing would be as rare as our intuition would make it and we wouldn't have this intuition-breaking claim that perfection came out of randomness when the randomness is largely hidden and the perfection isn't.

It looks like existence was nicely arranged to bring about life and even us. Which is something that science has no way of determining.

Right. You can't determine that with science or even observation without more information.

This is very related to me having a problem with the atheist side of the suffering argument against god but not being able to succinctly state it. I had the exact same problem with the theist side of the argument from design.

It's because there's not enough data. We see the universe and say order, therefore probably design, but we don't know anything about what lack of order would be like, or if it's even possible. We see suffering, and say therefore probably not a loving and fair god, but we don't know what lack of suffering would be like, or if it is even possible.

viewtopic.php?t=40204

I found an article that more clearly expresses my point and introduces the term, "devolution."

... the concept of "devolution" is very misleading and makes assumptions about evolution that simply aren't true (it's not a term that I would recommend using).

The concept of "devolution" is built on the notion that evolution has a direction (thus, devolution occurs when evolution goes "backwards"), but evolution does not have a direction.

Natural selection simply adapts organisms to their current environment, and what is beneficial may change as the environment changes. Evolution is not going in a predetermined direction.

Let me use penguins to illustrate.

You could try to argue that penguins are an example of "devolution" because birds evolved the ability to fly, which penguins subsequently lost.

The problem is that describing that as "devolution" inherently assumes that flight is an endpoint that evolution is working towards, which is incorrect.

https://www.sciencealert.com/what-happe ... devolution

Another example may be human intelligence. Most are probably familiar with the movie Idiocracy. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
Just a movie, but there is evidence in several studies that show the current generation is less intelligent than earlier ones, thus reversing the Flynn effect. It may be that high intelligence does not suit the individual as well as we think. Like flight in penguins, we just assume intelligence is THE direction evolution should point to. But that's the point, evolution has no direction, no goal, no purpose. It just, by random process, allows mutations to survive if they are suited to the current environment of an organism.

One of the theories put forth for the lowering of average human intelligence is the idea that less intelligent people tend to have more children than the extremely intelligent. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1718793115 https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/13/health/f ... index.html
BTW,
My anecdotal 'evidence' suggests human intelligence in the United States peaked with those born in the 1940s.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
...
I found an article that more clearly expresses my point and introduces the term, "devolution."

... the concept of "devolution" is very misleading and makes assumptions about evolution that simply aren't true (it's not a term that I would recommend using).

The concept of "devolution" is built on the notion that evolution has a direction (thus, devolution occurs when evolution goes "backwards"), but evolution does not have a direction.

Natural selection simply adapts organisms to their current environment, and what is beneficial may change as the environment changes. Evolution is not going in a predetermined direction.

Let me use penguins to illustrate.

You could try to argue that penguins are an example of "devolution" because birds evolved the ability to fly, which penguins subsequently lost.

The problem is that describing that as "devolution" inherently assumes that flight is an endpoint that evolution is working towards, which is incorrect.

https://www.sciencealert.com/what-happe ... devolution

Penguins evolved to fly in a denser liquid.

But yeah, "devolution" only works as a concept for late 70s new wave bands.

[The Barbarian]

AIG clearly rejects any scientific view they think contradicts "the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation." They of course are going to present "experts" who follow this statement. If they agree with it they are going to reject any evidence that may support evolution simply because they think it contradicts their view of scripture. This is backwards. The proper approach is to examine evidence and then draw conclusions. This approach draws conclusions first and then seeks evidence to support the already reached conclusions.


Tcg

Contrast that with St. Augustine, who remarked that where scripture is not clear, we should be willing to change our opinions when facts show that they are not consistent with observed reality.

Did Augustine think the "scripture" was clear about the 6 days of creation?

No. He spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out how it could be confirmed as a literal history, and finally concluded that one could not do so. His opinion, which he admitted was not provable, was that the days of creation were categories of creation, not actual days.

And yes, when there is not overwhelming agreement among Christians as to the meaning of a verse, then it is not clear.

Who is talking about "overwhelming agreement among Christians as to the meaning of a verse." I pointed out the issue of misrepresenting a source and the flawed approach AIG takes. How does your comment address either?

Merely pointing out that the orthodox Christian approach is to admit that there is much in scripture that cannot be definitively understood, and that the real world can illuminate the meaning of scripture in many cases. AIG makes doctrinal assumptions and expects reality to conform to their doctrines.

It's worth noting that the Bible is not neutral on this issue:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

The Bible itself asserts that it is not the sole source of authoritative information about God. Therefore, if Sola Scriptura is true, then Sola Scriptura is wrong.

[Jose Fly]

I do not dispute that the AiG Statement of Faith is damning.

It's only damning for people who try and depict AiG as a scientific organization that employes people to do science. Absent that, I think it's actually quite transparent.

I think it's okay to bring up motivation when it's clear, which is why I can bring up the profit motive in science.

LOL...well, I'm a scientist (biologist) and I can assure you me and my colleagues are anything but wealthy. It's not like the parking lots at our conferences and symposia are packed with expensive cars and we all live in mansions. The vast, vast majority of us toil in anonymity and earn middle class wages. One of the first things we're told after we decide to go into science is "You're not going to get rich, you know".

Though I am defending their right not to trust, carte blanche, I'm defending yours too and I certainly agree with you that you can't trust religious organisations.

As we've been over before, I try and avoid such black/white thinking. Instead, I try and evaluate each entity on its own merits.

[The Barbarian]

The concept of "devolution" is built on the notion that evolution has a direction (thus, devolution occurs when evolution goes "backwards"), but evolution does not have a direction.

Natural selection simply adapts organisms to their current environment, and what is beneficial may change as the environment changes. Evolution is not going in a predetermined direction.

Yes. It's merely a change in allele frequency. It's like "acceleration." There is no "deceleration." Likewise, no "devolution."

You could try to argue that penguins are an example of "devolution" because birds evolved the ability to fly, which penguins subsequently lost.

The problem is that describing that as "devolution" inherently assumes that flight is an endpoint that evolution is working towards, which is incorrect.

Another example may be human intelligence. Most are probably familiar with the movie Idiocracy. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
Just a movie, but there is evidence in several studies that show the current generation is less intelligent than earlier ones, thus reversing the Flynn effect. It may be that high intelligence does not suit the individual as well as we think. Like flight in penguins, we just assume intelligence is THE direction evolution should point to. But that's the point, evolution has no direction, no goal, no purpose. It just, by random process, allows mutations to survive if they are suited to the current environment of an organism.

Kurt Vonnegut, in Galapagos, wrote of a future in which humans became extinct except for a tiny population on an island in the Galapagos. Because the environment did not favor intelligence, they evolved to become unintelligent semi-marine animals with flippers where hands used to be.

It appears that the Flynn Effect has continued into the new millennium:
Ulric Neisser estimated that using the IQ values of 1997, the average IQ of the United States in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80. Neisser states that "Hardly any of them would have scored 'very superior', but nearly one-quarter would have appeared to be 'deficient.'" He also wrote that "Test scores are certainly going up all over the world, but whether intelligence itself has risen remains controversial.

There is some data to show that the effect has been mostly to raise the mean scores of the lowest-scoring people, with less effect on the high end of the population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

At any rate, the changes have been far too fast to attribute to biological evolution, and are likely due to social or educational factors.

[Diogenes]

At any rate, the changes have been far too fast to attribute to biological evolution, and are likely due to social or educational factors.

I agree. I read the Norwegian study and that was my conclusion (and my bias). Another theory puts the blame on the internet and video games teaching people to frequently engage in short term results so they are only willing to concentrate for a short time... something like that. I also found this just now:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6866412/

Back to the Norway study:
The only theory I recall that could be said to be genetic is the one about the less intelligent having more children.

Of course, the Christian apologist has a completely different approach. None of that messy analytical junk. It's just God punishing people for rejecting him.