What if creation and theory of evolution are both true what would you call som,eone who thinks that and what do you thiunk about it?

I would call that someone who doesn't want to give up their unfounded belief in a deity.

I would call that someone who doesn't want to give up their unfounded belief in a deity.

what do you mean?

That would be someone who believes in a Creator while also accepting the proven and demonstrable fact that evolution has been and is occurring. I have heard this described as the "Divine Clockmaker" theory, as in a God who gets everything going at the beginning, winds it all up, then lets it go.

There is another way to look at it though. A being that exists outside of Time, with the ability to create a universe that does exist within a constrained timeline, would necessarily create that universe with ongoing processes.

If this is the case where we live, and it was a divine being's will to create a certain endstate within our universe, then it is entirely conceivable that evolution would be employed as a tool in order to bring about the desired endstate.

what do you mean?

The real implication of the Theory is that complexity is not required to create complexity. Complexity, such as life forms, can come about merely by the application of simple rules.

Either way, one can argue that it is not working out (http://powertoxins.blogspot.com/2010/02/ecocide-evidence-of-toxins-of-power.html) very well so far. :shrug:

I would call that someone who doesn't want to give up their unfounded belief in a deity.The theory of evolution does not tell us how the first living thing came into being. The hypothesis that the first lifeform arose out of non-living matter by processes we don't yet understand is called abiogenesis. There is nothing inconsistent about accepting evolution as true beyond a reasonable doubt and still having faith in divine creation. In fact that is the position of the Pope and the leaders of most of the major Abrahamic religious sects.

Divine creation can also be used to explain away the Big Bang. It is an antiscientific hypothesis because it postulates a supernatural universe and at least one supernatural creature. But at least it speaks to phenomena that science has not yet explained. So for now it does not contradict any canonical scientific theories except the fundamental premise of science, that the natural universe is a closed system (in layman's terms) whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical evidence of its present and past behavior.

Our empirical evidence for explaining the Big Bang is not strong enough to qualify as canonical, and our empirical evidence for abiogenesis is even weaker.

The theory of evolution does not tell us how the first living thing came into being.
thefore my statement can be true and to me, it is.


That would be someone who believes in a Creator while also accepting the proven and demonstrable fact that evolution has been and is occurring. I have heard this described as the "Divine Clockmaker" theory, as in a God who gets everything going at the beginning, winds it all up, then lets it go.

There is another way to look at it though. A being that exists outside of Time, with the ability to create a universe that does exist within a constrained timeline, would necessarily create that universe with ongoing processes.

If this is the case where we live, and it was a divine being's will to create a certain endstate within our universe, then it is entirely conceivable that evolution would be employed as a tool in order to bring about the desired endstate.

with what you're saying, I basically believe in the divine clockmaker theory fused with the evolution theory.

What if creation and theory of evolution are both true

This is the only tenable position that someone who believes in God can have. Supporting evidence for evolution is so profoundly compelling that you can't ignore it, and I've never understood why so many religious people have such difficulty reconciling it. The enlightened perspective is to embrace science as a tool that teaches you more about the physical universe that your God has created. Surely your appreciation is enhanced when the object of that appreciation is an actually real reality rather than some distorted view of it?

The theory of evolution does not tell us how the first living thing came into being. The hypothesis that the first lifeform arose out of non-living matter by processes we don't yet understand is called abiogenesis. There is nothing inconsistent about accepting evolution as true beyond a reasonable doubt and still having faith in divine creation. In fact that is the position of the Pope and the leaders of most of the major Abrahamic religious sects.

Divine creation can also be used to explain away the Big Bang. It is an antiscientific hypothesis because it postulates a supernatural universe and at least one supernatural creature. But at least it speaks to phenomena that science has not yet explained. So for now it does not contradict any canonical scientific theories except the fundamental premise of science, that the natural universe is a closed system (in layman's terms) whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical evidence of its present and past behavior.

Our empirical evidence for explaining the Big Bang is not strong enough to qualify as canonical, and our empirical evidence for abiogenesis is even weaker.

I see your point, but the gaps in our knowledge are shrinking, not expanding. The premises of mainstream religion are becoming less and less believable. Instead of inventing a new premise to align with the facts, it just becomes more and more abstract and evasive, or absurdist, such as with Mormonism or Scientology. There are several perfectly plausible naturalistic scenarios for abiogenesis, and evolution has shown us the power of iterative chemical processes. The image of a personified assembler of these complex things is just as absurd as Santa Claus delivering presents down the chimney of every little boy and girl in Christendom on Christmas night.

This is the only tenable position that someone who believes in God can have. Supporting evidence for evolution is so profoundly compelling that you can't ignore it, and I've never understood why so many religious people have such difficulty reconciling it. The enlightened perspective is to embrace science as a tool that teaches you more about the physical universe that your God has created. Surely your appreciation is enhanced when the object of that appreciation is an actually real reality rather than some distorted view of it?

Agreed.

I see your point, but the gaps in our knowledge are shrinking, not expanding. The premises of mainstream religion are becoming less and less believable. Instead of inventing a new premise to align with the facts, it just becomes more and more abstract and evasive, or absurdist, such as with Mormonism or Scientology. There are several perfectly plausible naturalistic scenarios for abiogenesis, and evolution has shown us the power of iterative chemical processes. The image of a personified assembler of these complex things is just as absurd as Santa Claus delivering presents down the chimney of every little boy and girl in Christendom on Christmas night.

yes God is the best thing we can think of when it comes to how things came to be. As Fraggle Rocker pointed out, the evolution theory doesn't tell how things came to be.

The real implication of the Theory is that complexity is not required to create complexity. Complexity, such as life forms, can come about merely by the application of simple rules.

it is more complex to conceive complexity by simple rules than with complex ones.

What if creation and theory of evolution are both true what would you call som,eone who thinks that and what do you thiunk about it?

They both true.
Until you invoke the theory of evolution. :)

jan.

it is more complex to conceive complexity by simple rules than with complex ones.Far from it, in my opinion: the more complex the rule, the more restrictive the possibilities and thus the more predictable it becomes.

E.g. If the only rule of a game is that you can only kick the ball with your feet... what complexity do you think ensues? You would have any number of people doing any number of things with the only rule being that the ball can only be kicked with the feet. Injuries would ensue, as many people as would care to join in would play... in short: chaos and complexity (not rules but in player motions, actions etc).

However, if you decide to make the rules more complex... say a twenty-page booklet of all the do's and don'ts... you end up with a far more predictable game... like Football / Soccer - with only 11 people per side, only certain people allowed to handle the ball, no fouling allowed etc. It becomes a far simpler game to follow.
Yes, it might appear complex (who can explain the off-side rule properly?) but that would just be the rules: the actual game itself, the motions of the players, the focus etc, would be simpler.

writing a program in binary code.
writing the same program in matlab.

the complex outcome is one (this world);

it is more complex to conceive complexity by simple rules than with complex ones.

which is harder to get, a clean foot ball match with that single simple rule or with the twenty page booklet of complex rules?

The real implication of the Theory is that complexity is not required to create complexity. Complexity, such as life forms, can come about merely by the application of simple rules.

IOW, either complex application of simple rules or simple application of complex rules(constrictions,tools).
far/complex shot=
inexperienced/simple sniper+complex targeting computer.
or
experienced/complex sniper+simple targeting croashairs.(more complex)

great/complex painting=
complex painter+simple tools.(more complex)
or
simple painter+complex tools.

for a complex creation, complexity is required, no matter what.

writing a program in binary code.
writing the same program in matlab.How one writes the rule(s) is irrelevant - it is the rule itself that is either complex or not - and the outcome that is complex or not.

Is "Good day" more of a complex statement than "bonjour"?


which is harder to get, a clean foot ball match with that single simple rule or with the twenty page booklet of complex rules?Define "clean"?
And how does "clean" relate to complexity of the actions?
"Clean" is merely in reference to things allowed or not by those rules, not the actions themselves.

Think of complexity as the number of variables:
An action with one variable is less complex than an action with two etc.
A game with just one rule therefore has far more variables than a game with many rules that are specifically aimed at reducing those variables.
And is thus more complex.

for a complex creation, complexity is required, no matter what.There merely needs to be a medium that allows for the complex (i.e. doesn't stifle it). The medium itself need not be complex. The initiating action need not be complex. But the medium needs to allow complexity.
That is all.
And allowing complexity is different to being complex:

Imagine a vacuum in a large container in a weightless environment.
Introduce 10 snooker balls. The ensuing motions will be more complex than any single ball or any single element of the environment.
The medium allows complexity without being complex.

it is more complex to conceive complexity by simple rules than with complex ones.
You are referring to the complexity of conceiving, which is irrelevant. Sure, chaos theory is difficult for humans to comprehend, but it has an explanatory power that cannot be ignored. The Mandelbrot set, for instance, is a simple equation that produces infinite complexity when applied iteratively.


IOW, either complex application of simple rules or simple application of complex rules(constrictions,tools).
far/complex shot=
inexperienced/simple sniper+complex targeting computer.
or
experienced/complex sniper+simple targeting croashairs.(more complex)

great/complex painting=
complex painter+simple tools.(more complex)
or
simple painter+complex tools.

for a complex creation, complexity is required, no matter what.


Nope, you are simply incorrect. Iteration, which simply feeds the result of an equation back into the next equation, is not complex, but complex and unpredictable behavior can emerge. This idea is so revolutionary, that many people, evidently, have not grasped just how much of a game-changer it is.

Evolution is an example, the iteration is just successive generations, the simple rules are just the DNA expression into proteins, the complex results we call life. No God required.

You are referring to the complexity of conceiving, which is irrelevant. Sure, chaos theory is difficult for humans to comprehend, but it has an explanatory power that cannot be ignored. The Mandelbrot set, for instance, is a simple equation that produces infinite complexity when applied iteratively.


Maybe you're forgetting the most relevant and important element of Chaos theory - the measure of how dynamic systems are highly sensitive to their INITIAL CONDITIONS. For you to say the an iterative process irrespective of initial conditions can produce complex life is to deny the principals you're trying to apply. Strictly by chaos theory initial conditions had to be conducive to life forms some time in the future...the dynamic systems which lead to a state which could stand as initial conditions for life themselves had to have initial conditions ad infinitum. Which brings you to 'first cause', well...what other initial conditions would have lead inevitably to life? All of them? None of them? Both of those solutions have implications.

What if creation and theory of evolution are both true what would you call som,eone who thinks that and what do you thiunk about it?

One can have a BELIEF that there's a Deity but also have FACTUAL knowledge about how the science of evolution also works. Just because there is no FACTUAL proof that everything isn't formed from a natural way or order doesn't mean it can't happen or doesn't , it is just that humans have not found all of the facts supporting their propositions about evolution.. :)

Weather is also sensitive to initial conditions, but statistically a hurricane will occur every year without fail. So, initial conditions make the exact outcome unpredictible, but the existence/non-existence of life is predictible.

Weather is also sensitive to initial conditions, but statistically a hurricane will occur every year without fail. So, initial conditions make the exact outcome unpredictible, but the existence/non-existence of life is predictible.

Seasonal weather isn't a good application of chaos theory. There are cyclical attractors which modify the system. My point is this - why is our dynamic system conducive to life? How many sets of initial conditions would have rendered life?

I think the range of initial conditions was more broad than you imply. Yes, it probably required a unique set on conditions, but not an exact set of conditions down to the quantum level. A hurricane is a good analogy. The butterfly effect can change the exact outcome, but the outcome of a hurricane occuring every year is almost a statistical certainty.

I see your point, but the gaps in our knowledge are shrinking, not expanding. The premises of mainstream religion are becoming less and less believable.And they react by acknowledging more and more of them as metaphorical. I would expect that accepting abiogenesis as part of God's plan won't be as humiliating as it was to accept Homo sapiens as just one more species of mammal descended from primordial ooze.

If some day we finally succeed in disproving divine creation, even the Cosmic Watchmaker hypothesis, then they will have the dilemma of seeing their fundamental and most cherished premise falsified. At this point they will have the choice of reducing God to a Cosmic Spectator, or simply accepting even that premise as a metaphor.

As civilizations mature they seem to increase their comfort with metaphor. The Chinese and the Indians have considerably less actual belief in the supernatural aspects of their traditions than Christendom, and Europeans are far less fundamentalist in their Christianity than America, an infant among nations.

So perhaps this transition will occur naturally, even if we never manage to pierce the veil of mystery around the Big Bang.

What if creation and theory of evolution are both true what would you call som,eone who thinks that and what do you thiunk about it?The term Deist would cover this coupling of beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

And while I find the addition of a deity superfluous it is one of the more reasonable theistic positions.

~Raithere