God's purpose

[PartSkeptic]

And why reject the idea that we evolved to fit our conditions?

I have not. I think that God (if he exists) planned it so that we evolved the way we did. That those amazing flukes of nature may have been interventions by God. Amazing guy, huh? Er, gal? Whatever.

 

[Pixel42]

It would appear that Darwin was advocating 'natural selection' as something that required no intelligent design.

Ya think? Hello . . .

I'm surprised by the number of theists who assure me they accept Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, and in the next sentence posit that God intervened to guide the process. The fact that these two statements are incompatible seems to be hard for them to grasp.

ETA oh look, another one just did it.

 

[PartSkeptic]

I'm surprised by the number of theists who assure me they accept Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, and in the next sentence posit that God intervened to guide the process. The fact that these two statements are incompatible seems to be hard for them to grasp.

ETA oh look, another one just did it.

And I am surprised you cannot grasp the concept of a hidden God that subtly intervenes. If the interventions were obvious, science would detect them.

If God exists, and gives us clues but not evidence as to his existence, then it would seem that he has done a good job of making some people think he does not exist. Perhaps he only gives decent "clues" to some of us?

ETA: Like the coming pandemic - such a subtle intervention that will seem totally natural. The key is the timing.

 

[Pixel42]

Of course I can grasp the concept of God intervening. I am just pointing out that if you think God intervenes to guide the process then you are rejecting Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. The fact that the process is unguided is the core of the theory. You can't claim to accept it and in the next breath deny its whole point.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

And I am surprised you cannot grasp the concept of a hidden God that subtly intervenes. If the interventions were obvious, science would detect them.

This is so true. No one else agrees that my Big Electron is what rejuventates all matter undetectably (spelling is correct; "rejuventate" is the resurrection of matter from QM squashing), but I know I am so right. Sciency facts are like a thing for me.

If God exists, and gives us clues but not evidence as to his existence, then it would seem that he has done a good job of making some people think he does not exist. Perhaps he only gives decent "clues" to some of us?

Class A thumb sucking jerk. God, not you.

ETA: Like the coming pandemic - such a subtle intervention that will seem totally natural. The key is the timing.

Uh, come again?

 

[Pup]

And I am surprised you cannot grasp the concept of a hidden God that subtly intervenes. If the interventions were obvious, science would detect them.

If God exists, and gives us clues but not evidence as to his existence, then it would seem that he has done a good job of making some people think he does not exist. Perhaps he only gives decent "clues" to some of us?

ETA: Like the coming pandemic - such a subtle intervention that will seem totally natural. The key is the timing.

God of the gaps. He used to raise the dead, flood the earth and cure lepers. Now he cowers in the corner and hides, afraid the atheists will notice him. Not like the good old days.

If there are no phenomena which need a god to explain them, then it seems the only reason a person would believe in a god is their own psychological need. If they don't have that need, there would be no logical reason at all.

This pandemic, are you putting a time frame on it? Or just leaving the prediction open till it happens, because I'm sure we'll get another one eventually, but the last few predicted ones have been a bust. If it's a real prediction with a time frame, what if there's no coming pandemic--does that mean there's no god? Or there's still a god but he wouldn't perform because you were testing him?

 

[Pixel42]

I think we should call what most theists seem to believe in The Theory of Evolution by Divine Guidance, to make it clear it is not the same as Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection but is in fact the antithesis of it. The only point of similarity is that both accept the fact that evolution happens.

 

[abaddon]

And I am surprised you cannot grasp the concept of a hidden God that subtly intervenes. If the interventions were obvious, science would detect them.

If there were any interventions at all, science would detect them. It doesn't detect any. Why?

If God exists, and gives us clues but not evidence as to his existence, then it would seem that he has done a good job of making some people think he does not exist. Perhaps he only gives decent "clues" to some of us?

Again, that makes god out to be a total dick.

ETA: Like the coming pandemic - such a subtle intervention that will seem totally natural. The key is the timing.

Your god is going to inflict a pandemic? Really? When would that be? And why does your god not care about sick and dying children? What did they do? Seems like a pretty callous god, no? Could heal them, just can't be bothered. He prefers to play foolish mind games instead.

 

[Navigator]

Sigh. No. Did you read my edited to add at the end? The wild dogs aren't doing anything intelligently. This is basic Evolution 101, available in any recent text on the topic. I don't know if you really don't understand it, or if you're deliberately waiting for me to make a mistake in wording and twisting it the worst possible way to make it look theist. FWIW I'm arguing sincerely but you could get a much clearer explanation, that's been run through a couple drafts and an editor, by reading about evolution in a book.

Forgive me but I get the solid impression that the theory itself is expanded upon and taught according to strong atheist alphas and as such it can't be trusted any more than theist writings on the subject of god can be trusted..

It's possible, and I don't know what the latest concensus is. My reaction would be, why would the humans do that? If I saw wolves hanging around, I'd chase them off. The initial benefit would be to the wolves, with maybe some benefit to the humans who wouldn't have to clean up a stinky butchering mess.

Well yes - really I am talking about wild dogs rather than wolves. But obviously some of those wild dogs were pretty gnarly breeds anyway...but latest consensus aside, it is more than likely these breeds formed a close relationship with the human ape over time and obviously humans wanted the wild ones to learn to trust them - humans had a use for the dogs in relation to hunting and recreation.

When there is a stray cat around my place I always work to earn its trust and feeding it as well as always appearing friendly and non threatening allows me to eventually get close enough to touch it and then eventually pet it and once the trust has developed I can pick it up and place it in a cage and take it to the rescue shelter.

That wouldn't work as quickly with a feral cat, but with a cat which has been domestic and still hangs around humans, it is easy enough. Point being, feed them and establish trust.

I don't think alpha and competition go together that way. It's possible for two species to avoid competition by exploiting two different niches. It's possible for one to dominate a niche and drive the other out, but I've not heard that called the alpha species.

Well lets just agree shall we that if one is able to drive the other out, that one would be the alpha.

All 'top dogs' are alpha.

Natural selection can select either for cooperation within a species, competition between individuals, or competition between species.

Eventually of course, the 'niches' get smaller and the resources for survival take the strain. The planet is finite and we as humans know this to be the case. To date, the planet has had abundance and humans have the ability to help continue that being the case, in a cooperative manner.

Not suggesting that alphas are only competitive. Am suggesting that they presently are mostly still in that competitive phase...

I'm only familiar with alpha used in the context of a group like a pack of wolves, where the alpha male (usually a male) dominates. It's merely a description of observed behavior, as far as I know, and doesn't address evolutionary pressures that developed the format of a group with a dominant male. Do you have a link to something explaining what alpha means, in the context of evolution? I tried googling, without luck.

The manner in which I am using the word springs from your 'get the girls' social structures you mentioned.

I am using the word in the context of 'that which is in the role of leadership in social community.

And the rest of the world is adapting to it. Humans didn't necessarily choose to make dogs. Dogs adapted to them, better than weasels, honey badgers or muskrats, skunks, beavers, etc. So we wound up with dogs. Rather than remaking species into what we wanted, godlike, the species had to have the right genetic mutations to make it along the whole path from wolves to dogs.

Humans have been 'making dogs' for a long time now. It is not a good idea to argue otherwise. Humans chose from what they considered was the best of the options.
Remarkable as that may sound to you, humans are quite capable of choosing based upon what is available, the evidence of that and how they might use what is available in order to make their job easier, is easy enough to witness.

Well, I tried to show that humans are unique and powerful, but not omnipotent. We wont be riding rhinoceroses or milking hippopotamuses anytime soon. The genetics just aren't there, like in horses and Holsteins, and we can't force a species to adapt in ways it doesn't have the genetic potential for.

Human apes breed cows, sheep and goats etc for milk. There is no need to be all powerful in relation to any other animal. Just unique and powerful enough will do. Domesticating dogs helped that process and the cat got the cream as well.

Definitely not, in my opinion. The human species is not trying to breed itself better, except for that eugenics phase early last century. Humans breed, but genetic improvement is rarely the leading decision. In general, statistically, the most successful humans breed the least.

Well I did not say all the human apes were working on this agenda. But certainly it was recognized that mixing things up genetically through interracial intercourse seemed to help the process of improving the breed.

Are you familiar with "punctuated equilibrium"? Let me find a link and make sure it's not been rejected. Punctuated equilibrium. Looks like it's still okay. I swear it wasn't long after 1972 that I first read about it.

Anyway, I think that's the explanation for what's happening with humans in the last, say, 100,000 years. We learn to talk and boom, next thing you know, we're on the moon. We're in the phase that punctuares the equilibrium.

Not aware of that theory. Will try and find the time to take a look soon.

Sigh. Quit looking so hard for a gotcha and realize that humans tend to anthropomorphize things, especially when they're trying to write casually and in an entertaining way. Yes, it is all unplanned and automatic, without a goal. I thought you allowed for that among non-human animals.

I do. I just don't think we know nearly enough to make claims either way. Certainly the process of evolution appears to be an intelligent one. Events over large ages of time can appear to be nothing more than random accidents but speed things up in the minds eye and intelligence can be acknowledged.

In some cases the physical changes that are necessary don't even have to require a large amount of time to happen.

You seem to be pushing hard for intelligent design. Okay, if your theist half turns out to be one of those religions that reject evolution, you'll need to argue intelligent design. But what of your atheist half, or your theist half if it accepts evolution? Don't you want to understand how it works without anti-evolutionists' contamination?

I prefer the information was uncontaminated from either competing sector. I can think about intelligent design through the process of evolution, no problem with that concept whatsoever.

Do you really not understand what advanced means? You seem to freak out at having to admit that humans aren't advanced in every single aspect, yet clearly my dog can smell things I can't. I've said that humans are more advanced in intelligence and self awareness. What more do you want me to say? That they're more advanced in swimming than dolphins, in flying than birds, in running than cheetahs? That's nonsense. Humans need help to do what those animals do naturally.

I already covered that aspect of the argument. Humans are the only critter which finds ways in which to be able to move through water, fly through the air, reach incredible speeds. The fact that we make machines because we have the smarts and the self awareness and the imagination and the audacity and the form and the means in which to do so, - that is a marvel of local evolution. I am not 'freaked out' by that knowledge. I am not willing to speak of humans as 'just an ape', when humans are obviously not 'just another ape, just because it suits the atheist argument to do so.

To repeat: I've said that humans are more advanced in intelligence and self awareness. If you don't believe me, here's the link: What are you mocking me for and demanding of me?

I am not mocking you or being demanding. If you cannot acknowledge how the advanced intelligence and self awareness of the human ape make it a very different critter from al others, without freaking about how theists might exploit that information, it is because of your bias in relation to atheism. That much is clear enough, not only in your own responses but in other responses from your mindset group.

I did not build that wall. I only stand upon it and tell you what it is I am seeing.

I agree it is possible, but as ridiculously improbable as us being specially created by a god.

So because the possible is 'ridiculously improbable' in your opinion, it might as well stay off the list of theories to do with why humans are different from all other earthly species?

Actually it isn't that improbably at all even.

Of course. Language, compensating for our shortcomings like not having wings to fly, electricity and other power, etc.

How are these things 'shortcomings'?

It could involve an ET but I think the probability it does is near zero, because an ET isn't necessary to explain anything.

Even if that were true, just because something can be 'explained' does not mean that that is the way it actually happened.

So I take it from the "See?" that your answer is no? You're sure there was a god or a godlike ET involved?

I don't know one way or the other. I do know that it is possible ET were (and perhaps still are) involved and I also know that it is possible that we exist in a simulation.

Since I don't know, I can't just pretend that I do know. No one knows.

Wait. You didn't just ask, in a roundabout way, if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes? Is this a joke? Really, species differ because speciation happens. Not everything can be the apex preditor in its environment, but bugs, rabbits and sparrows can find a niche. I'm really starting to think that a basic book on evolution would be more helpful than I can be.

There you go with your offer to 'educate' again. It isn't that I mind data on theories of things its is just that if such materials down-play the significance of the human being and help to create a seemingly typical reaction as derives from the strong atheist camp, then such is likely written with that as a counter objective to the theist alternative - from the bias of atheism and as such would likely not convince me for that.

Because the plain vanilla theory of evolution by natural selection is the standard scientific concensus.

The human ape in relation to the alphas within the layers of human social structures are apt to have specific consensus theories which are pushed (educated, taught as truth etc) on the ones that they are controlling, for the purpose of keeping the status quo intact.

That's one. I'd put crackpot ideas like ETs, religious creationism by a god, intelligent design, and all the wacky ideas as the other, so if you want to include ETs, that's where I'd put it. One starts from the basic science, then tries to disprove that, before making stuff up.

Basic science doesn't crack it though does it. It cannot even acknowledge the obvious in relation to the human ape (in the context of this discussion) and for that, is purposefully side-stepping the obvious. The reason for this? Because those who uphold the theory consider those human apes who don't to being 'crackpots'. A cracked pot isn't all that useful is it? Not useful and detrimental to the atheist alpha agenda.

But as you have already mentioned in answer to PartSkeptic - physically "tinkering with the human brain to right that wrong' is not morally acceptable. The alternative? Tinker with the mind through 'education'.

You've just declared hundreds of scientists on the cutting edge of evolutionary studies to be wrong. I believe hubris is the word.

Your appealing to authority does't cut it as argument. You have not taken into consideration the hard atheist mindset of those scientists nor have you considered that the scientists can only go by what is evident rather than what is possible or even highly unlikely.

So the alternative is therefore to down-play the importance of the fact that the human ape is far more different than standard theory of evolution give credit or acknowledgment for.

The 'consensus' tends to lean toward educating humans to understand that although they most obviously are different and special, they are 'nothing special'. That helps the argument against intelligent design, ET, simulated universe etc et al, but so what?

The 'crackpots' are still not convinced.

Do you mean it's my pet theory?

No. It's a pet theory.

I dont want to take any credit for that. Talk about standing on the shoulders of giants! I'm just poorly reporting what some of the most amazing biologists of the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries have figured out. Really, it's fascinating.

"we are not worthy' ! The alphas of atheism.

Your acknowledgement of the human intellect and self awareness is watered down through your belief that they are nothing special in relation to their particular environment. The one is remarkable and the other says 'so what?'

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I just don't think we know nearly enough to make claims either way.

Yes, we do. Evolution is a fact: earlier forms were replaced by later ones. Natural selection is the theory about how that works. Genetics came later, and made a sweeping confirmation of that approach.

Certainly the process of evolution appears to be an intelligent one. Events over large ages of time can appear to be nothing more than random accidents but speed things up in the minds eye and intelligence can be acknowledged.

Certainly it can appear that way. Appearances can be deceiving.

I prefer the information was uncontaminated from either competing sector. I can think about intelligent design through the process of evolution, no problem with that concept whatsoever.

So you have an independent process that is superior to peer review, independent confirmation, and the scientific method? Accusing an entire field of bias requires science to back up your claims. You aren't presenting any.

I already covered that aspect of the argument. Humans are the only critter which finds ways in which to be able to move through water, fly through the air, reach incredible speeds. The fact that we make machines because we have the smarts and the self awareness and the imagination and the audacity and the form and the means in which to do so, - that is a marvel of local evolution. I am not 'freaked out' by that knowledge. I am not willing to speak of humans as 'just an ape', when humans are obviously not 'just another ape, just because it suits the atheist argument to do so.

And I already covered this claim. "Not just another ape" means what, now?

If you cannot acknowledge how the advanced intelligence and self awareness of the human ape make it a very different critter from al others, without freaking about how theists might exploit that information, it is because of your bias in relation to atheism. That much is clear enough, not only in your own responses but in other responses from your mindset group.

Same thing, small change in words. "Very different critter" is meaningless. Yellow is not blue, does that mean they are not both colors?

Even if that were true, just because something can be 'explained' does not mean that that is the way it actually happened.
I don't know one way or the other. I do know that it is possible ET were (and perhaps still are) involved and I also know that it is possible that we exist in a simulation.

Since I don't know, I can't just pretend that I do know. No one knows.

Clearly how explanations relate to facts and experiment carries no weight in your thinking. There is a preference for how things should be, and a bending of all thought toward that end. Look at those last two sentences: if you don't know, no one knows. Big clue.

The human ape in relation to the alphas within the layers of human social structures are apt to have specific consensus theories which are pushed (educated, taught as truth etc) on the ones that they are controlling, for the purpose of keeping the status quo intact.

Purest fevered conspiracy theory. Tinfoil hat time.

Basic science doesn't crack it though does it.

You have to understand science first to make that statement. Again, this is simply a screaming rejection of reality in favor of personal preference.

So the alternative is therefore to down-play the importance of the fact that the human ape is far more different than standard theory of evolution give credit or acknowledgment for.

Downplay your fascination with an observation that surpasses your explanatory skills? Sure. You keep using your premise as conclusion.

 

[Pup]

Forgive me but I get the solid impression that the theory itself is expanded upon and taught according to strong atheist alphas and as such it can't be trusted any more than theist writings on the subject of god can be trusted..

There's real science behind the theory of evolution. You can study its raw data if you want. Nothing is hidden, from Charles Darwin's notebooks on down to scientific journal articles today. It's usually easier and quicker to start with a summary, but if you're afraid of trusting science teachers, it's possible to learn the whole thing from primary sources and form an opinion. Not easy, but possible.

There are theists who teach evolution too. Maybe you could find one of them and be more comfortable. It's just a shame to see someone stay deliberately ignorant of current science because they think it's atheist lies.

I study religion. It doesn't scare me. I'm writing an article on Biblical debates in the antebellum right now, preacher vs preacher, not atheist vs preacher, spending a lot of time with the KJV and preachers' words. I'm not worried I'll get sucked into believing something that isn't true. I'd consider it deliberate ignorance to live in a country dominated by Christians and avoid studying what they believe(d), because theistic writings by Christians are the only way to know anything about the Christian god.

When there is a stray cat around my place I always work to earn its trust and feeding it as well as always appearing friendly and non threatening allows me to eventually get close enough to touch it and then eventually pet it and once the trust has developed I can pick it up and place it in a cage and take it to the rescue shelter.

Would you do the same with a cougar? Remember, at that time, humans didn't know wolves could even be bred into tame dogs or that dogs could be useful.

Well lets just agree shall we that if one is able to drive the other out, that one would be the alpha.

Let's use words the way they're commonly used. I'm a little disappointed that I thought I was discussing evolution with someone who genuinely had some knowledge about it and wanted to learn more and discuss informed opinions, and now I find out you think it's just something expanded on and taught by atheists, so it can't be trusted.

Not aware of that theory. Will try and find the time to take a look soon.

Don't bother. It's all written by atheists. You couldn't trust them.

Certainly the process of evolution appears to be an intelligent one.

If one avoids learning about it, sure, one can come up with all kinds of opinions about the way it appears.

I prefer the information was uncontaminated from either competing sector. I can think about intelligent design through the process of evolution, no problem with that concept whatsoever.

Intelligent design was invented by theists. You know that, right? It was a way for them to blur science and theology, when they couldn't get raw theology accepted to be taught as science. I'd hardly call it uncontaminated. It's a theistic version of science for political purposes.

It's sad that you think intelligent design is real science, but standard evolution is something contaminated, spread by atheists. You've fallen for the theist argument completely.

Edited to add: Intelligent design history https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement

I am not mocking you or being demanding. If you cannot acknowledge how the advanced intelligence and self awareness of the human ape make it a very different critter from al others, without freaking about how theists might exploit that information, it is because of your bias in relation to atheism. That much is clear enough, not only in your own responses but in other responses from your mindset group.

My mindset group is standard accepted science. Did you see my post right afterwards to the berkeley.edu page? There's so much knowledge there, easy to read, that it's heartbreaking to see someone deliberately avoid believing it because he thinks atheists might have written it.

There you go with your offer to 'educate' again. It isn't that I mind data on theories of things its is just that if such materials down-play the significance of the human being and help to create a seemingly typical reaction as derives from the strong atheist camp, then such is likely written with that as a counter objective to the theist alternative - from the bias of atheism and as such would likely not convince me for that.

The earth orbits the sun. That used to be extremely upsetting to theists because it downplayed the earth as the center of everything. But it became standard accepted science, and now even theists are okay with it.

I'm trying to share standard accepted science. Your posts indicate you want to cower in the corner with the theists clinging to intelligent design. Not even my wife does that. You're forgetting that many (most?) theists also accept current science.

Really, if it bothers you so much to hear it from me or someone who might be an atheist, find a Christian or Jew to explain it. I just hate to see deliberate ignorance. If one disagrees with the science even after understanding it, that's okay; that's goood because it can be how new discoveries are made. Disagreeing with the science that one deliberately avoids learning, is what's sad.

Edited while I still have time: below is a link to an essay by a BYU (Mormon university) biology teacher, a hardcore theist, defending teaching evolution. His church currently takes no official stand, though was against evolution ~100 years ago. It's a theist's view from a conservative church, that varies little from the atheist's view, because science is science.

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/converging-paths-truth/evolution-and-gospel-seeking-grandeur-view-life

 

[PartSkeptic]

Of course I can grasp the concept of God intervening. I am just pointing out that if you think God intervenes to guide the process then you are rejecting Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. The fact that the process is unguided is the core of the theory. You can't claim to accept it and in the next breath deny its whole point.

All or nothing! No middle ground of a combination of the two?

An analogy. Assume you are a passenger in a self-driving car. The car was designed and made to get you from your starting point to your destination. But it seems that there is an unforeseen event (as happened with a big truck making a turn across the car's path) that input from the driver is required.

With evolution, the path is set (programmed if you want) to produce the stars, planets and galaxies. And for a planet such as Earth to evolve life, and ultimately intelligent life. This is a totally deterministic universe requiring no input from God once he starts the process. He might as well not exist, and he has no purpose since man has no free will and he knows everything that will happen. (Some people do believe this to be the case.)

But what if God is either not able to pre-program the entire universe from t=0 to t=infinity, or he does not wish to pre-program in order to give man free will?

He would then require one or maybe more strategies. Intervene now and then to guide the process, or rewind time and make an undetectable correction.

Darwin explained evolution by natural selection. This explanation does not exclude God as much as many atheists would like to think it does. Can you or anyone else provide evidence that says that subtle (or should I say non-detectable) intervention has not taken place?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Uh, come again?

Likely a reference to the possibility of a pandemic of drug-resistant bacteria.

And why does your god not care about sick and dying children?

You misunderstand. PartSkeptic's god loves sick and dying children; that's why it's brewing up this pandemic he mentioned: to make more of them, because they're awesome.

 

[PartSkeptic]

I think we should call what most theists seem to believe in The Theory of Evolution by Divine Guidance, to make it clear it is not the same as Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection but is in fact the antithesis of it. The only point of similarity is that both accept the fact that evolution happens.

Aaah. I had not read this far. How about "Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection helped undetectably by Divine Intervention".

 

[jond]

Aaah. I had not read this far. How about "Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection helped undetectably by Divine Intervention".

If it can't be detected, how can it be considered? Either something has an effect or it doesn't. If it does, that effect can be detected. If it doesn't it is exactly the same as not existing.

 

[PartSkeptic]

If there were any interventions at all, science would detect them. It doesn't detect any. Why?

Has your God of Science detected the missing mutant links to the flagellum bacteria?

Or does it infer that there is a possible process, but they no longer exist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum

Even so, even if the links were detected, why are organic molecules so pre-disposed to form such complex assemblies as a organic motor?

 

[Pixel42]

All or nothing! No middle ground of a combination of the two?

No.

Darwin explained evolution by natural selection. This explanation does not exclude God as much as many atheists would like to think it does.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection does, by definition exclude God in the process of evolution. Note it doesn't exclude the existence of God, but it certainly excludes the idea of divine intervention in this particular natural process. Natural, by definition, excludes supernatural.

Likewise the modern scientific understanding of volcanism excludes the intervention of volcano gods. If you believe there is at least one volcano which contains an angry volcano god you are rejecting the scientific explanation of volcanism.

Can you or anyone else provide evidence that says that subtle (or should I say non-detectable) intervention has not taken place?

Of course not, you've deliberately constructed your theory to make that impossible. Your Theory of Evolution by Occasional Undetectable Divine Intervention is an alternative theory to Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. They are mutually exclusive.

 

[PartSkeptic]

If it can't be detected, how can it be considered? Either something has an effect or it doesn't. If it does, that effect can be detected. If it doesn't it is exactly the same as not existing.

If I gassed you with helium to kill you, and the doctors said you died of natural causes, does that mean that no intervention took place? Helium or argon gassing leaves no detectable trace that I am aware of.

 

[turingtest]

No.


Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection does, by definition exclude God in the process of evolution. Note it doesn't exclude the existence of God, but it certainly excludes the idea of divine intervention in this particular natural process. Natural, by definition, excludes supernatural.

Likewise the modern scientific understanding of volcanism excludes the intervention of volcano gods. If you believe there is at least one volcano which contains an angry volcano god you are rejecting the scientific explanation of volcanism.


Of course not, you've deliberately constructed your theory to make that impossible. Your Theory of Evolution by Occasional Undetectable Divine Intervention is an alternative theory to Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. They are mutually exclusive.

It's actually not even a theory at all, even by loose definition. A theory requires testability; how do you test for the undetectable?

And, no, the "helium/argon gassing" analogy doesn't work. Both gases are detectable by other means than just the effect they have on someone trying to breathe them, and a detectable (i.e., testable) effect on someone who does.

 

[jond]

If I gassed you with helium to kill you, and the doctors said you died of natural causes, does that mean that no intervention took place? Helium or argon gassing leaves no detectable trace that I am aware of.

And yet we know Helium and argon gasses exist. That we haven't been able to figure out how to detect them in a post mortem doesn't mean it's undetectable.