Well, the problem here is, neither of your "alternatives" has ever literally existed as you've characterized them, so it is difficult to argue comparatively.
If you want to leave the Void and arguments derived therefrom, let me know.
"Governance by the people" has no specific attributes or policies or direction. What the term actually means in practice, is wholly dependent on what the norms of those people are.
"Not religion" is not actually even potentially a conceptually-meaningful norm (see Reification Fallacy--"not X" is not something, it is nothing, regardless of what "X" is), and thankfully, in my country, we derive them indirectly from religion--and I think I would state quite the same were I atheist, by comparison to the history of formally-atheistic nations. And, to circle back, my argument never was that all religiously-formed countries are good, rather that not all of them are "by definition" bad.
Okay, I'll assume that an actual dictionary definition will suffice, as it seem close enough to what you've stated. Here's Mirriam-Webster's.
1: a form of government in which a country is ruled by religious leaders
Fine enough. What doesn't follow is the rest of your reasoning. It is a non-sequitur from this, and your own restatement as well.
You've broadly insinuated "something bad" that will follow from this, and claimed those results are "by definition".
If the leader of a country -happens to be- a religious leader as well, is that "theocracy" and "by definition" negative? If he were to establish a liberal system of courts and be a strong maintainer of civil rights, it's bad anyway, by definition? A system of ongoing subjectivism where any decision can be reversed at any time based on... nothing specific, is automatically better?
You seem to think there is an inclusion for "a form of government in which a country is ruled by (insert authority here)" that is preferable. What is that authority, or is this again an Argument From A Void? Are the decisions and institutions formed by that individual or individuals automatically preferable, as long as they are not religious?
Your reasoning as to the relationship between religious leaders and God seems highly dubious and not borne out by actual religious practice as it has historically been. Do you have actual "unreviewable" decisions to reference? Do you have some reason to say that a religious leader having an opinion based on a religious perspective, and then that view being supplanted or "overruled", means that "God was wrong"? In any case, you are now talking about a very specific form of religion, under extremely narrow conditions, and we are far afield from discussing "theocracy" per se or all forms of it being negative "by definition".
Much has happened since then to the world, that is, to the context of application of the axioms.
Those changes are not difficult to historically trace. Do you have something in mind you consider more core than the progression from Christianity to the middle-ages European court systems to the system existing today?
But yes, our system today resembles much more closely Leviticus than it does the framework offered by atheism, that is, nothing with any consensus, that is, nothing.
And if in any particular case, one acts completely oppositely to that cooperation, and his DNA is propagated more successfully, as far as evolution has anything to say about it, he is now right and you are now wrong--and thus your premise fails any kind of functional usefulness as an ethical axiom. In fact, the very history of evolution would state that we are what we are due to massive intertribal warfare, and this would be the -very reason you exist- to now claim otherwise.
I hesitate to use the term "right" and "wrong" here since evolution is wholly inept as a purported basis for it, and anyone who thinks they can do this simply has an incoherent philosophy of life. This incoherence they temporarily get away with due to religion's sanctions against agreeing with them, doing what they want, and therefore doing the wholly evolution-advocated course of the majority killing off the minority en masse. But I'm trying to build such discussion bridges here as I can here.
Yes, I am arguing that theocracies aren't inherently a bad idea, primarily because of the fact they aren't inherently a bad idea.
Including the context of the post I was responding to in this discussion, it is the responsibility of the person arguing against a "theocracy" to define it in a meaningful way and thereafter use it consistently.
Since he/she didn't, I'll give you the opportunity again here--what do you mean by "theocracy", specifically? Again, if we are talking about all religions, are you suggesting that a government of Taoist religious leaders, holding as their perspective there is some broad, spiritual "world force" that aligning oneself with will lead subtly to a more harmonious existence, and who do not have any particular behavioral mandates at all, would be functionally the same to you as a government of Islamic extremists?
But, really, the Argument From A Void gets a bit tiresome. You are arguing the preferability of a government founded on the basis of ethical axioms that are nonexistent. I'm sure you'll claim there are valid ones you can back, that you have to offer as a suitable alternate guiding ethical framework for government. You don't. Assuming you're even going to have enough personal consideration of the question to forward one of the historical ethical systems proposed by secular philosophy, of which I submit I am probably well-more versed in than you, a bit of discussion of the "is-ought dichotomy", as well known in formal philosophy (and particularly unanswerable to a material-reductionistic worldview) should rapidly disabuse you of the notion you have a functional system.
You have what ethics you've culturally assimilated from present Western culture--that is, you have it because of religion. If you think you got it elsewhere, and think you can back that source as meaningful objectively, feel free to do so here.
The common complaint about religion in government is like arguing how you like your apartment's 10'th floor view, you just want to get rid of the building itself. You didn't build the floors beneath you. More importantly, you -can't- build those floors beneath you. 2500 years of unsuccessful attempts to do so, and build the most fragile, broad consensus on any core axiom in ethics by secular philosophy more than adequately demonstrates this.
So, in reality, you have a choice between religion as the basis for morality that the legal system broadly fashions itself after, or having nothing as that basis. In practice, that will mean we will continue, as we have been, having religion being the unstated formative underpinning, and anti-religion people pointlessly complaining about it, while offering no alternative.
Thus giving us a "quasi-theocracy". I don't know your degree of objection to that (that is, to reality) is, but when one sees "theocracy" equivocated and vague aspersions and non-arguments being presented regarding it, it generally doesn't bode well.
If nothing else, though, be clear that your claim as to the nature of a theocracy and citizen recourse as it is "by definition", is just false because of the actual definition, and what definitions actually are.
A religious leader could certainly set up any degree of "liberality" toward the citizen he/she found appropriate (and, indeed, were we discussing specifically Christianity, this is extensively advocated in its defining documents)--precisely as would be the case for a hypothetical atheist ruler. The only difference would be, there is generally an objective reference to refer to in terms of evaluating that leader's actions, as opposed to unbacked, ultimately-unaccountable secular whims. The results of such whims we saw quite clearly last century in the USSR, as having accomplished more genocide and public misery in 20 years, as a formally-atheist nation, formally and explicitly following an atheist agenda, than religion has in all of history.
Does this clarify my stance? If not, I'll need more information as to what exactly you are talking about with "theocracy".
I'm unclear on one point here, since you're using the broad term "theocracy" (any religion's government would be the same for all practical purposes? Taoism? Zen?)...
The criminal justice system in the West is formed entirely from norms formed from its Judeo-Christian history.
The cave man has no basis by which to consider any action better or worse ethically than any other action, and neither do you, today.
Go ahead. Show me on the basis of Naturalistic evolution how anything about this, or anything else, is at all is the least objectionable, should the action happen to net out in more efficiently propagating one's own DNA, by any indirect route.
I'll use a generic term here, whether the specific implementation at hand is via OOP, a defined API to a DLL, a web service, or any of myriad other concrete forms.
The list as presented is indeed core to being able to develop an application up to a certain level of complexity, and in a learning framework where one can conceivably be able to, and can be expected to, understand or visualize the entirely of the project.
Beyond that level of complexity, though, the notion of being able to efficiently deal with software functionality as a "black box" for which the developer need not know all the particulars of implementation, allows for the allocation of mental resources to the particular requirements of the task at hand. Being able to use others' code in this manner, and write code in this manner, is to my mind a crucial ability to contribute to an actual professional development team.
Which means there would be no reason for anyone to start their searches on Google.
Sure there is. Start with what led Google to dominate search in the first place--interface minimalism. Google has become very good at returning results based on a minimal number of keywords about the desired topic; forming a question around the topic of interest is slowing one down in terms of keystrokes. And, generally, an answer to a specific question is not at all what one actually wants. What is sought is sources of information about a topic, for which a listing of highly-relevant links is superior to a single "the" answer. Is there anyone who doesn't type topic keywords over literal specific questions at, at minimum, a 20-to-1 ratio? No one I know.
... Dhar surmises, would provide a formidable combination of a machine that can remember, know, and think.
But to simplify the issue, we have this. "Surmising" that Watson, or any known technology, can do any of the above disqualifies him from any commentary on any such technological issue or endeavor.
Thanks for your thorough response to my question. My understanding of the degree of "resolution" we currently have on the proposed sequence of genetic changes was rather less than what I took your original statement as, and this clarifies your position considerably.
Just to note, I do not take a Young Earth or "ex nihilo" view on the creation of individual species; as you've noted the number of accumulated mutations that would not have an apparent purposeful functional effect is a strong argument against such a notion. Such a proposed "direct creative act" I would see more in the framework of what a genetic engineer might do today, making a modification to the pre-existing sequence for a particular desired effect.
As a non-specialist, I do try to keep track of the current state-of-the-art on this, as it goes to the discussion of the perceived plausibility of an undirected process transitioning between individual species, and knowledge of the specific proposed sequence allows for closer evaluation of this question, on the level of individual subjective evaluation (i.e. "convincing") if not rigorous analysis (i.e. "demonstrating"). And, it seems, at some level one risks evolution as a theory becoming unfalsifiable, if the notion of gradualism is discarded and -literally any- biological transition is regarded as plausible within a single "generation".
With the Neanderthal DNA data "diff" characteristics you've noted, it seems we are indeed making progress toward the point of being able to more-closely quantify probabilities, which will be a very useful thing for discussions like this thread--as each "side", if you will, tends to reach an impasse at which they either accept or reject a given transition as undirected, yet there are limitations in addressing the question quantitatively.
We can compare the human genome to the Chimpanzee genome and meticulously reconstruct all of the differences and indeed the whole history of changes between the two.
I call.
Do so. Let's start with the basic precondition to this claim being even possibly true--how many distinct mutation events happened, how were the mutations grouped for each reproductive event in which they manifested, and which generations did each change apply to?
And if I'm exploring the natural world, am I going to go with the complicated "unknowable" answer that invokes a deity...
So, as usual, "goddidit" is either ludicrously too simple, or incredibly too complex, depending on which particular argument an atheist is discussing.
Again, though, you thinking that the slightest difference in probability of the truth of a proposition is provided by how simple the model is, is simply you entirely misunderstanding Occam's Razor and what it says. The Copenhagen Interpretation of QM is much simpler than the Everett Interpretation, and it is completely false to say that Copenhagen is therefore more likely, and even more so to claim that Occam's Razor ever said or indicated that. Additionally, there is most definitely a distinction in the degree of evidence--you can refer to NDE phenomena, individual accounts of spiritual experience, historical accounts, prophecy fulfillment, etc., and -regardless- of how strong or not strong you consider these, or even if you somehow find them "anti-evidence" for theism, there is certainly a distinction in evidence per se--at which point Occam's becomes wholly inapplicable to even use, as it does to every other case in philosophy or science. Occam's preference for the simplest model is, to put it directly, for the purpose of and only supports preferring the simplest model possible, and makes no other claims. The "convenience" of doing so is, quite literally, the only thing it gives you and what it is for (though, say using Euclidean rather that Riemannian Geometry is indeed generally and usefully preferred due to simplicity, and here again neither is "more true").
I'll give him a pass
No need to. He's right, you're wrong, and the fact you were just parroting Dawkins doesn't change this..
Rather than re-explain the misapplication of Occam's Razor for the thousandth time (i.e. Occam's Razor says absolutely nothing about likelihood of anything being true, and -any difference anywhere in terms of evidence- invalidates its pertinence entirely, and its purpose is -solely- the conceptual economy of keeping models as simple as possible when -all else is equal-) I'm use meta-Occam's Razor for this one.
Given Occam is the highest possible authority on Occam's Razor, what would he say about it? Let's see. Occam was theist. Okay, that one's answered.
"Species" as mostly-arbitrarily categorized by people (with our without the Latin terminology to make it sound more authoritative that the taxonomy is "Things as they really are" rather than the "We named stuff and put our names in a chart" that is the actuality) has no necessary relationship with the notion of "kind" in the bible. There is no reason to expect a 1-1 correspondence there.
I assume, also, that you deny evolutionary processes can happen, and new "species" formed, if we are discussing after "the flood"?
That said, it is not uncommon for theists to hold a "local flood" interpretation, in-line with the prehistorical accounts of such a thing occurring in many traditions.
Anyone who adheres to the idea that religion brings peace into this world is blindly ignorant to this fact.
As opposed to before religion even existed for you to blame anything at all on, which contrary to scientific fact, wasn't an ongoing bloodbath of intertribal warfare, this being the sole reason you exist to be making this claim it's all religion's fault, right?
It is highly unlikely your armchair guesswork and arbitrary claims as to what would be "better" would in fact be a solution better than you say evolution has produced.
Evolution's solutions would be almost certainly better for the requirements (i.e. existence on Earth) than yours, and what we have is what (according to you) evolution provided--yet you claim your expectations are more accurate than evolution says, and even beyond that, your feelings about it are somehow absolute, and can be used as the yardstick against God for questions that evolution would only concur with God on.
"Compromise" is entirely your subjective characterization.
Why not go with the same answer as evolution, "It works. Case closed"?
Sheer conjecture is being made here as to the suitability of various changes over the required timeframe without the least evaluation of whether the proposed change would actually biologically work.
Of course, to enhance the unreasonableness of the criteria, there's the notion of some kind of abstract "optimalness", which you'll deny as appropriate to be expecting 15 seconds from now if asked about the criteria for evolution.
Tell me, which is the optimal animal, or what should it be?
And for the record, the notion that we are presently supposed to be "optimal" is wholly made up to fit the argument. There is no reason from theistic sources to expect this was the "design objective". And people here declaring what the design objective should have been according to them, means precisely nothing.
Lightning â"described by most religions as some guy in the sky with a big hammer that casts miraculous bolts of light and sound.
*Citation needed.
Seriously, address the point at hand. Your claim exists nowhere in Christian scriptures, nor is it accurate as a statement of religions in general. I won't get into your basic False Dichotomy that something -either- works entirely by naturalistic mechanisms -or- entirely by supernatural ones, but that isn't necessary to deal with your basic inaccuracy here.
Again, they couldn't explain the magic trick, so they asserted that a god had clearly done it.
That isn't germane to the point. As presented, the instance was a case of a miracle, and unless otherwise explained, it would be categorized as such today. There was no "scientific advancement" over time that made it clear that apparent cases of bread-multiplication are now explained via physics mechanism X.
You may be right, but is there any other possible and credible explanation that has any scientific backing?
How about, rather than just "scientific backing", we go ahead with "scientific proof"?
Fluorescent cats. You can find as much proof of this designed biology as you like by googling the term. This characteristic is not explainable by evolution, only by design. In this case, human design.
So, really, the only sense in which "evolution only" is even potentially viable is with the qualification "as far as the distant past goes". As a general statement about biology, denying design is provably false on its face.
Same with "common ancestry", by the way. Common ancestry is now provably false as a general statement about biology, by the same means. I'm perfectly happy with someone holding that premise to state their stance in terms that are even potentially scientifically accurate, e.g. "common ancestry of all organisms is true up until the 20'th century AD". Formulating it this way--that is, scientifically accurately--rather makes the unstated assumptions about history rather obvious, though, no?
Not at all, that was the exact purpose of faith in it's original form â"to explain away thing we couldn't yet explain, and to explain things to people who couldn't understand them
Absolutely false. Refer to the documents describing the faith in the "original form", and you will discover that precisely the same things as we would consider "natural" versus "supernatural" today, were the same things they would place in either category "then".
Lightning--not miraculous then, not miraculous now.
Making lots of bread out of little bread (multiplying matter)--miraculous then, miraculous now.
One need not even have any belief there is such a thing as a "miracle" to note that this revisionist history is both directly false and obviously geared to fit a particular erroneous narrative about the nature of "science" and "faith". We have more detail about the internal workings of the "natural order", but there is no ambiguity that people had a clear sense of what was properly categorized as this going far back in time.
But then, we find it rare to find even the slightest attempt to form an accurate definition of what "faith" is as we're told what we mean it to be, in direct contradiction to what any of us actually mean it to be.
Not in the sense you mean it, or in the fallacious sense that atheism advocates (as distinct from science advocates) equivocate it to mean.
Particular cases of evolutionary processes have been observed. The assertion of causal exclusivity of evolutionary processes to explaining biology, has never been observed, nor has it been tested, nor is it testable, nor will it ever be testable.
It's a non-sequitur of a fallacious generalization. "We can observe things evolving. Therefore, all things evolved in the same way, and back to my main point I really wanted to make, there is therefore no God". Rife with nonsense here both logically and scientifically.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the problem here is, neither of your "alternatives" has ever literally existed as you've characterized them, so it is difficult to argue comparatively.
If you want to leave the Void and arguments derived therefrom, let me know.
Governance of 'cuz I said so' is bad.
'Cause you said so.
"Governance by the people" has no specific attributes or policies or direction. What the term actually means in practice, is wholly dependent on what the norms of those people are.
"Not religion" is not actually even potentially a conceptually-meaningful norm (see Reification Fallacy--"not X" is not something, it is nothing, regardless of what "X" is), and thankfully, in my country, we derive them indirectly from religion--and I think I would state quite the same were I atheist, by comparison to the history of formally-atheistic nations. And, to circle back, my argument never was that all religiously-formed countries are good, rather that not all of them are "by definition" bad.
Okay, I'll assume that an actual dictionary definition will suffice, as it seem close enough to what you've stated. Here's Mirriam-Webster's.
1: a form of government in which a country is ruled by religious leaders
Fine enough. What doesn't follow is the rest of your reasoning. It is a non-sequitur from this, and your own restatement as well.
You've broadly insinuated "something bad" that will follow from this, and claimed those results are "by definition".
If the leader of a country -happens to be- a religious leader as well, is that "theocracy" and "by definition" negative? If he were to establish a liberal system of courts and be a strong maintainer of civil rights, it's bad anyway, by definition? A system of ongoing subjectivism where any decision can be reversed at any time based on... nothing specific, is automatically better?
You seem to think there is an inclusion for "a form of government in which a country is ruled by (insert authority here)" that is preferable. What is that authority, or is this again an Argument From A Void? Are the decisions and institutions formed by that individual or individuals automatically preferable, as long as they are not religious?
Your reasoning as to the relationship between religious leaders and God seems highly dubious and not borne out by actual religious practice as it has historically been. Do you have actual "unreviewable" decisions to reference? Do you have some reason to say that a religious leader having an opinion based on a religious perspective, and then that view being supplanted or "overruled", means that "God was wrong"? In any case, you are now talking about a very specific form of religion, under extremely narrow conditions, and we are far afield from discussing "theocracy" per se or all forms of it being negative "by definition".
Much has happened since then to the world, that is, to the context of application of the axioms.
Those changes are not difficult to historically trace. Do you have something in mind you consider more core than the progression from Christianity to the middle-ages European court systems to the system existing today?
But yes, our system today resembles much more closely Leviticus than it does the framework offered by atheism, that is, nothing with any consensus, that is, nothing.
And if in any particular case, one acts completely oppositely to that cooperation, and his DNA is propagated more successfully, as far as evolution has anything to say about it, he is now right and you are now wrong--and thus your premise fails any kind of functional usefulness as an ethical axiom. In fact, the very history of evolution would state that we are what we are due to massive intertribal warfare, and this would be the -very reason you exist- to now claim otherwise.
I hesitate to use the term "right" and "wrong" here since evolution is wholly inept as a purported basis for it, and anyone who thinks they can do this simply has an incoherent philosophy of life. This incoherence they temporarily get away with due to religion's sanctions against agreeing with them, doing what they want, and therefore doing the wholly evolution-advocated course of the majority killing off the minority en masse. But I'm trying to build such discussion bridges here as I can here.
Yes, I am arguing that theocracies aren't inherently a bad idea, primarily because of the fact they aren't inherently a bad idea.
Including the context of the post I was responding to in this discussion, it is the responsibility of the person arguing against a "theocracy" to define it in a meaningful way and thereafter use it consistently.
Since he/she didn't, I'll give you the opportunity again here--what do you mean by "theocracy", specifically? Again, if we are talking about all religions, are you suggesting that a government of Taoist religious leaders, holding as their perspective there is some broad, spiritual "world force" that aligning oneself with will lead subtly to a more harmonious existence, and who do not have any particular behavioral mandates at all, would be functionally the same to you as a government of Islamic extremists?
But, really, the Argument From A Void gets a bit tiresome. You are arguing the preferability of a government founded on the basis of ethical axioms that are nonexistent. I'm sure you'll claim there are valid ones you can back, that you have to offer as a suitable alternate guiding ethical framework for government. You don't. Assuming you're even going to have enough personal consideration of the question to forward one of the historical ethical systems proposed by secular philosophy, of which I submit I am probably well-more versed in than you, a bit of discussion of the "is-ought dichotomy", as well known in formal philosophy (and particularly unanswerable to a material-reductionistic worldview) should rapidly disabuse you of the notion you have a functional system.
You have what ethics you've culturally assimilated from present Western culture--that is, you have it because of religion. If you think you got it elsewhere, and think you can back that source as meaningful objectively, feel free to do so here.
The common complaint about religion in government is like arguing how you like your apartment's 10'th floor view, you just want to get rid of the building itself. You didn't build the floors beneath you. More importantly, you -can't- build those floors beneath you. 2500 years of unsuccessful attempts to do so, and build the most fragile, broad consensus on any core axiom in ethics by secular philosophy more than adequately demonstrates this.
So, in reality, you have a choice between religion as the basis for morality that the legal system broadly fashions itself after, or having nothing as that basis. In practice, that will mean we will continue, as we have been, having religion being the unstated formative underpinning, and anti-religion people pointlessly complaining about it, while offering no alternative.
Thus giving us a "quasi-theocracy". I don't know your degree of objection to that (that is, to reality) is, but when one sees "theocracy" equivocated and vague aspersions and non-arguments being presented regarding it, it generally doesn't bode well.
If nothing else, though, be clear that your claim as to the nature of a theocracy and citizen recourse as it is "by definition", is just false because of the actual definition, and what definitions actually are.
A religious leader could certainly set up any degree of "liberality" toward the citizen he/she found appropriate (and, indeed, were we discussing specifically Christianity, this is extensively advocated in its defining documents)--precisely as would be the case for a hypothetical atheist ruler. The only difference would be, there is generally an objective reference to refer to in terms of evaluating that leader's actions, as opposed to unbacked, ultimately-unaccountable secular whims. The results of such whims we saw quite clearly last century in the USSR, as having accomplished more genocide and public misery in 20 years, as a formally-atheist nation, formally and explicitly following an atheist agenda, than religion has in all of history.
Does this clarify my stance? If not, I'll need more information as to what exactly you are talking about with "theocracy".
I'm unclear on one point here, since you're using the broad term "theocracy" (any religion's government would be the same for all practical purposes? Taoism? Zen?)...
The criminal justice system in the West is formed entirely from norms formed from its Judeo-Christian history.
The cave man has no basis by which to consider any action better or worse ethically than any other action, and neither do you, today.
Go ahead. Show me on the basis of Naturalistic evolution how anything about this, or anything else, is at all is the least objectionable, should the action happen to net out in more efficiently propagating one's own DNA, by any indirect route.
For example, the processes that slime mould uses to solve a maze are largely unknown. For this reason it is not computation.
Don't we usually declare characteristics of things based on what we know about them, rather than on the basis of not knowing about them?
Seems like a strange kind of subjective solipsism--"what is, is dependent upon on what I currently know is".
Software componentization.
I'll use a generic term here, whether the specific implementation at hand is via OOP, a defined API to a DLL, a web service, or any of myriad other concrete forms.
The list as presented is indeed core to being able to develop an application up to a certain level of complexity, and in a learning framework where one can conceivably be able to, and can be expected to, understand or visualize the entirely of the project.
Beyond that level of complexity, though, the notion of being able to efficiently deal with software functionality as a "black box" for which the developer need not know all the particulars of implementation, allows for the allocation of mental resources to the particular requirements of the task at hand. Being able to use others' code in this manner, and write code in this manner, is to my mind a crucial ability to contribute to an actual professional development team.
Forcing animals to do something and forcing humans to do something are two fundamentally different things.
And I hope you can therefore reference something that you propose exists, that differentiates these two forms of biology.
Which means there would be no reason for anyone to start their searches on Google.
... Dhar surmises, would provide a formidable combination of a machine that can remember, know, and think.
Sure there is. Start with what led Google to dominate search in the first place--interface minimalism. Google has become very good at returning results based on a minimal number of keywords about the desired topic; forming a question around the topic of interest is slowing one down in terms of keystrokes. And, generally, an answer to a specific question is not at all what one actually wants. What is sought is sources of information about a topic, for which a listing of highly-relevant links is superior to a single "the" answer. Is there anyone who doesn't type topic keywords over literal specific questions at, at minimum, a 20-to-1 ratio? No one I know.
But to simplify the issue, we have this. "Surmising" that Watson, or any known technology, can do any of the above disqualifies him from any commentary on any such technological issue or endeavor.
I had a philosophy professor who had a whole set of genderless pronouns ready-to-go, of which I remember only the genderless possessive "hir".
Fortunately, his idea has yet to go mainstream.
Thanks for your thorough response to my question. My understanding of the degree of "resolution" we currently have on the proposed sequence of genetic changes was rather less than what I took your original statement as, and this clarifies your position considerably.
Just to note, I do not take a Young Earth or "ex nihilo" view on the creation of individual species; as you've noted the number of accumulated mutations that would not have an apparent purposeful functional effect is a strong argument against such a notion. Such a proposed "direct creative act" I would see more in the framework of what a genetic engineer might do today, making a modification to the pre-existing sequence for a particular desired effect.
As a non-specialist, I do try to keep track of the current state-of-the-art on this, as it goes to the discussion of the perceived plausibility of an undirected process transitioning between individual species, and knowledge of the specific proposed sequence allows for closer evaluation of this question, on the level of individual subjective evaluation (i.e. "convincing") if not rigorous analysis (i.e. "demonstrating"). And, it seems, at some level one risks evolution as a theory becoming unfalsifiable, if the notion of gradualism is discarded and -literally any- biological transition is regarded as plausible within a single "generation".
With the Neanderthal DNA data "diff" characteristics you've noted, it seems we are indeed making progress toward the point of being able to more-closely quantify probabilities, which will be a very useful thing for discussions like this thread--as each "side", if you will, tends to reach an impasse at which they either accept or reject a given transition as undirected, yet there are limitations in addressing the question quantitatively.
We can compare the human genome to the Chimpanzee genome and meticulously reconstruct all of the differences and indeed the whole history of changes between the two.
I call.
Do so. Let's start with the basic precondition to this claim being even possibly true--how many distinct mutation events happened, how were the mutations grouped for each reproductive event in which they manifested, and which generations did each change apply to?
And if I'm exploring the natural world, am I going to go with the complicated "unknowable" answer that invokes a deity...
So, as usual, "goddidit" is either ludicrously too simple, or incredibly too complex, depending on which particular argument an atheist is discussing.
Again, though, you thinking that the slightest difference in probability of the truth of a proposition is provided by how simple the model is, is simply you entirely misunderstanding Occam's Razor and what it says. The Copenhagen Interpretation of QM is much simpler than the Everett Interpretation, and it is completely false to say that Copenhagen is therefore more likely, and even more so to claim that Occam's Razor ever said or indicated that. Additionally, there is most definitely a distinction in the degree of evidence--you can refer to NDE phenomena, individual accounts of spiritual experience, historical accounts, prophecy fulfillment, etc., and -regardless- of how strong or not strong you consider these, or even if you somehow find them "anti-evidence" for theism, there is certainly a distinction in evidence per se--at which point Occam's becomes wholly inapplicable to even use, as it does to every other case in philosophy or science. Occam's preference for the simplest model is, to put it directly, for the purpose of and only supports preferring the simplest model possible, and makes no other claims. The "convenience" of doing so is, quite literally, the only thing it gives you and what it is for (though, say using Euclidean rather that Riemannian Geometry is indeed generally and usefully preferred due to simplicity, and here again neither is "more true").
I'll give him a pass
No need to. He's right, you're wrong, and the fact you were just parroting Dawkins doesn't change this..
Rather than re-explain the misapplication of Occam's Razor for the thousandth time (i.e. Occam's Razor says absolutely nothing about likelihood of anything being true, and -any difference anywhere in terms of evidence- invalidates its pertinence entirely, and its purpose is -solely- the conceptual economy of keeping models as simple as possible when -all else is equal-) I'm use meta-Occam's Razor for this one.
Given Occam is the highest possible authority on Occam's Razor, what would he say about it? Let's see. Occam was theist. Okay, that one's answered.
"Species" as mostly-arbitrarily categorized by people (with our without the Latin terminology to make it sound more authoritative that the taxonomy is "Things as they really are" rather than the "We named stuff and put our names in a chart" that is the actuality) has no necessary relationship with the notion of "kind" in the bible. There is no reason to expect a 1-1 correspondence there.
I assume, also, that you deny evolutionary processes can happen, and new "species" formed, if we are discussing after "the flood"?
That said, it is not uncommon for theists to hold a "local flood" interpretation, in-line with the prehistorical accounts of such a thing occurring in many traditions.
Anyone who adheres to the idea that religion brings peace into this world is blindly ignorant to this fact.
As opposed to before religion even existed for you to blame anything at all on, which contrary to scientific fact, wasn't an ongoing bloodbath of intertribal warfare, this being the sole reason you exist to be making this claim it's all religion's fault, right?
It is highly unlikely your armchair guesswork and arbitrary claims as to what would be "better" would in fact be a solution better than you say evolution has produced.
Evolution's solutions would be almost certainly better for the requirements (i.e. existence on Earth) than yours, and what we have is what (according to you) evolution provided--yet you claim your expectations are more accurate than evolution says, and even beyond that, your feelings about it are somehow absolute, and can be used as the yardstick against God for questions that evolution would only concur with God on.
Why?
"Compromise" is entirely your subjective characterization.
Why not go with the same answer as evolution, "It works. Case closed"?
Sheer conjecture is being made here as to the suitability of various changes over the required timeframe without the least evaluation of whether the proposed change would actually biologically work.
Of course, to enhance the unreasonableness of the criteria, there's the notion of some kind of abstract "optimalness", which you'll deny as appropriate to be expecting 15 seconds from now if asked about the criteria for evolution.
Tell me, which is the optimal animal, or what should it be?
And for the record, the notion that we are presently supposed to be "optimal" is wholly made up to fit the argument. There is no reason from theistic sources to expect this was the "design objective". And people here declaring what the design objective should have been according to them, means precisely nothing.
Lightning â"described by most religions as some guy in the sky with a big hammer that casts miraculous bolts of light and sound.
*Citation needed.
Seriously, address the point at hand. Your claim exists nowhere in Christian scriptures, nor is it accurate as a statement of religions in general. I won't get into your basic False Dichotomy that something -either- works entirely by naturalistic mechanisms -or- entirely by supernatural ones, but that isn't necessary to deal with your basic inaccuracy here.
Again, they couldn't explain the magic trick, so they asserted that a god had clearly done it.
That isn't germane to the point. As presented, the instance was a case of a miracle, and unless otherwise explained, it would be categorized as such today. There was no "scientific advancement" over time that made it clear that apparent cases of bread-multiplication are now explained via physics mechanism X.
You may be right, but is there any other possible and credible explanation that has any scientific backing?
How about, rather than just "scientific backing", we go ahead with "scientific proof"?
Fluorescent cats. You can find as much proof of this designed biology as you like by googling the term. This characteristic is not explainable by evolution, only by design. In this case, human design.
So, really, the only sense in which "evolution only" is even potentially viable is with the qualification "as far as the distant past goes". As a general statement about biology, denying design is provably false on its face.
Same with "common ancestry", by the way. Common ancestry is now provably false as a general statement about biology, by the same means. I'm perfectly happy with someone holding that premise to state their stance in terms that are even potentially scientifically accurate, e.g. "common ancestry of all organisms is true up until the 20'th century AD". Formulating it this way--that is, scientifically accurately--rather makes the unstated assumptions about history rather obvious, though, no?
Not at all, that was the exact purpose of faith in it's original form â"to explain away thing we couldn't yet explain, and to explain things to people who couldn't understand them
Absolutely false. Refer to the documents describing the faith in the "original form", and you will discover that precisely the same things as we would consider "natural" versus "supernatural" today, were the same things they would place in either category "then".
Lightning--not miraculous then, not miraculous now.
Making lots of bread out of little bread (multiplying matter)--miraculous then, miraculous now.
One need not even have any belief there is such a thing as a "miracle" to note that this revisionist history is both directly false and obviously geared to fit a particular erroneous narrative about the nature of "science" and "faith". We have more detail about the internal workings of the "natural order", but there is no ambiguity that people had a clear sense of what was properly categorized as this going far back in time.
But then, we find it rare to find even the slightest attempt to form an accurate definition of what "faith" is as we're told what we mean it to be, in direct contradiction to what any of us actually mean it to be.
Evolution is fact because it has been observed.
Not in the sense you mean it, or in the fallacious sense that atheism advocates (as distinct from science advocates) equivocate it to mean.
Particular cases of evolutionary processes have been observed. The assertion of causal exclusivity of evolutionary processes to explaining biology, has never been observed, nor has it been tested, nor is it testable, nor will it ever be testable.
It's a non-sequitur of a fallacious generalization. "We can observe things evolving. Therefore, all things evolved in the same way, and back to my main point I really wanted to make, there is therefore no God". Rife with nonsense here both logically and scientifically.
Interesting.
I had heard the Goethe quote as "I call architecture frozen music" which a quick web search also supports as valid.
Seems both forms could be seen as appropriate to TFA.