> TONY: Science, as a process, is neutral.-> 
> dhw: Yes, science is neutral. Many scientists are not neutral. Many are atheists. Some are theists. Evolution is neither theistic nor atheistic. ...Some scientists do. Some scientists don't. Perhaps you should read a book called THE ATHEIST DELUSION - Science IS Finding God. The author is one David J. Turell, M.D.-Thanks for the plug.

TONY: Now that being said, no, science and religion are not incompatible, neither are parts of evolution and religion. If taken in its entirety then yes, evolution is anti-religious. The bible actually encourages the use of science, but not with the goal of removing God.
> 
>DHW: I don't know what you mean by “in its entirety”. There are theistic and atheistic interpretations, but the basis of the whole theory is common descent, which you rightly point out contradicts the biblical version of life's development. However, not every religious person believes that every word of the bible is meant to be taken literally, and religion is not confined to creationists. So what part of the theory is anti-religious? -Since my own words have failed to express the concept, I will rely on the words of others.-“Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.” 
(“Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought” E. Mayr [evolutionist scientist], Scientific American, pg. 82-83, (July 2000), emphasis added) -“[F]or many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion ... [A]t some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things come what may.” 
("Nonliteralist Antievolution," Ruse, Michael [evolutionist philosopher of science], AAAS Symposium: "The New Antievolutionism," February, 1993, Boston, MA., emphasis added) -"[W]e have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations…that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” 
(Lewontin, Richard [evolutionist scientist], "Billions and Billions of Demons", New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28., emphasis added) -In short, theories, including evolution, are created and perpetuated by scientist, and their own words mark them as doing so in order to shut out even the possibility of God. " ..materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."-Science, as a process, is neutral. Theories are developed by scientist, are not. Evolution is a non-neutral theory. It is not a fact (as we have repeatedly discussed here), it is an opinion, an interpretation of facts and opinions, that survives even when the facts disagree with it by ignoring those facts.


> > David: Yes, I understand that. But evolution is a sequience of events, segments or stages
> 
> Tony: The difference is that in evolution, the steps are not discreet. They transition across the lines of 'according to their kind'. Now, as a challenge for you, if God created things in stages, as the Bible says he did, wouldn't that actually give the 'illusion' of evolution while simultaneously explaining the gaps in the fossil record AND the fact that we do not see any further crossing of species boundaries continuing today?-You are absolutely correct. In my view, we are looking at the same thing: how life changed from simple, although the first cells were anything but simple, to highly complex humans. But each of us is approaching it slightlty differently from our individual viewpoints. I don't mind the word evolution to describe it. Any process that takes something that is relatively simple and by fits and starts, with gaps or smoothly, and develops it to a more complex arrangement, as has happened with living forms, is by definition a form of an evolutionary process. -The huge gap at the Cambrian juncture demands the recognition that intellectual planning had to have happened. The whale series I like to refer to is another example of extreme changes with each step in the process requiring new information and new planning.-I know the word 'evolution' conjures up Darwin and chance process. My term 'theistic evolution' is simply saying that God planned it all and guided it all thoughout 3.6 or so billion years. I'm not a deist. I can't imagine God set this up and left, or sits back and simply watches. My debate with dhw is simply a way of my working out the role for epigenetic mechanisms, which are certainly present in organisms, and allow for necessary adaptation without huge unexplained gaps. God's actions explain the gaps. He has given organisms the way to work out necessary modifications on their own.-I don't think there has been enough time in the past 200 years to see new species, but as I suspect, you believe the process is over. We humans are here and I doubt we will change to any important degree.


> > Tony: I think you misunderstand my criticism there. It has nothing to do with time, or gender usage, but rather that there are clearly distinct segments of creation happening.
> 
> David: Yes, I understand that. But evolution is a sequience of events, segments or stages-The difference is that in evolution, the steps are not discreet. They transition across the lines of 'according to their kind'. Now, as a challenge for you, if God created things in stages, as the Bible says he did, wouldn't that actually give the 'illusion' of evolution while simultaneously explaining the gaps in the fossil record AND the fact that we do not see any further crossing of species boundaries continuing today?


> Tony: I think you misunderstand my criticism there. It has nothing to do with time, or gender usage, but rather that there are clearly distinct segments of creation happening.-Yes, I understand that. But evolution is a sequience of events, segments or stages


> dhw:In other words, the organism can only do what it can do. I too wish you knew what other guidelines you were talking about, since the term is so crucial to your hypothesis!-I think the guidelines would define the limits to adaptive changes. Thus the organisms adapt to the challenges of nature, but don't alter the general progression of evolution that God intends.
 
> 
> dhw" You left out the part of your post I was commenting on. You wrote: “The dilemma has simply been an indecision on my part as to whether God could program all of evolution from the very beginning, or had to step in and dabble when evolution wasn't following exactly the path he wanted.” This can only mean the programme wasn't working as he wanted, and so if the IM is “substituted for the necessity of the dabble”, clearly the IM is capable of far more than extensions or “additional programming”. -I think I have explained this above. The IM would be limited to modest alterations in response to environmetal pressures. It might grow the giraffe's neck without altering the thrust of evolution, but it cannot make the whale series, because of the massive pattern changes between each step in the development of whales.-> dhw:Or are you saying that God wanted evolution to follow the path of the myrmecophilous beetle, the rafting ant, the silk-weaving spider, but the programme failed to come up with them, and so you thought he would have had to dabble, but instead you now realize that the IM was able to steer evolution onto God's intended ant-raft-silky path after all? -I think the issues above are open to interpretation. Ant rafting is a definite adaptation that I envision the IM doing. Spider silk is part of the pattern issue; God did it, as it is complex chemistry. The myrmecophilous/ant symbiosis can probably also be an IM learned arrangement. Note I consider the IM adaptive, but I think my idea that dabbling can be limited to great degree is the concept of God having to do all the complex patterns at the beginning. Is dabbling then totally excluded? Not necessarily. I just can't answer the issue of God's total infallibility in programming evolution. I admit I still have some dilemma, which I doubt I can remove, unless I accept God as religions define Him. And so far I don't, although here with evolution I am inclined to.-My thinking is still open and progressing under your questioning.

David: The ancient text is open to a variety of interpretations. I'm sure you know that basic ancient Hebew is composed of 2-3,000 base words and with prefixes and suffixes there are about 10,000 word meanings. Much translation must be based on context surrounding a word. His explanation has to do in part with the gender of the Hebrew word 'limeenu' which is feminine and should be translated 'after her kind', not 'after his kind'. There follows a long interpretation I won't get into. My point is simple. What you think about science (evolution) and Genesis depends in part on whose interpretation you read. Landa's reading of 'yom' is eon, not 'day', and so forth. This is a small part of the reason I think theistic evolution is a probable scenario.-
I think you misunderstand my criticism there. It has nothing to do with time, or gender usage, but rather that there are clearly distinct segments of creation happening.


> Tony; There are a lot more IF's than that. Common decent from a single ancestor is actually rather anti-biblical, because it specifically says things were created according to their kind. -You are obviusly using your translation of Genesis. Translations vary and I follow a Hebrew scholar with a new translation of the Masoretic text, Judah Landa in his book, 'In the Beginning Of; A new look at old words', 2004. His translation, he feels, is completely consistent with the idea that evolution occurred. -The ancient text is open to a variety of interpretations. I'm sure you know that basic ancient Hebew is composed of 2-3,000 base words and with prefixes and suffixes there are about 10,000 word meanings. Much translation must be based on context surrounding a word. His explanation has to do in part with the gender of the Hebrew word 'limeenu' which is feminine and should be translated 'after her kind', not 'after his kind'. There follows a long interpretation I won't get into. My point is simple. What you think about science (evolution) and Genesis depends in part on whose interpretation you read. Landa's reading of 'yom' is eon, not 'day', and so forth. This is a small part of the reason I think theistic evolution is a probable scenario.

David: I agree that science an religion are not incompatable. But your comment about evolution needs modification. Evolution is the apparent process by which life descended from single cell to us. Only IF evolution is said to be a purposeless, chance process is it then being used in an anti-religion way. Theistic evolution does not do that at all, and is certainly one of the very possible ways evolution occurred. You are obviously referring to Darwin's version of theory. It ain't the only way.-There are a lot more IF's than that. Common decent from a single ancestor is actually rather anti-biblical, because it specifically says things were created according to their kind. -
>David: Science should not be subjective, but scientists are human and fallible, so their inerpretation of their findings is not a final interpretation. I take their findings and come up with different conclusions. That is why there is a field of the philosophy of science.-They are indeed entitled to their opinions and conclusions and even their mistakes, provided that they are stated as opinions and conclusions and not fact, as agreed below, and that their mistakes are acknowledged, not covered up.


> Tony: Now that being said, no, science and religion are not incompatible, neither are parts of evolution and religion. If taken in its entirety then yes, evolution is anti-religious. The bible actually encourages the use of science, but not with the goal of removing God. -I agree that science an religion are not incompatable. But your comment about evolution needs modification. Evolution is the apparent process by which life descended from single cell to us. Only IF evolution is said to be a purposeless, chance process is it then being used in an anti-religion way. Theistic evolution does not do that at all, and is certainly one of the very possible ways evolution occurred. You are obviously referring to Darwin's version of theory. It ain't the only way.-> > 
> 
> dhw: So do you blame science or the scientists for their subjective conclusions?-Science should not be subjective, but scientists are human and fallible, so their inerpretation of their findings is not a final interpretation. I take their findings and come up with different conclusions. That is why there is a field of the philosophy of science.
> 
> Tony: When they are presented as objective facts, yes, yes I do. That is kind of the rules of science, right. Facts are facts and everything else isn't. You can't present opinions as fact in the scientific sphere. "Evolution is a fact" is an opinion, not a fact. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. The lack of free will is an opinion, not a fact.-Agreed.

TONY: Some of your challenges I have answered repeatedly. 
> -Yes, there ARE people out there that do good without being Christian. (Not sure how many times I have to say this)
> 
> But that was not my point. You specifically attacked evolutionists on the grounds that their belief was a “self-delusion fuelled by a desire to defame/eliminate the knowledge of God” etc. Such generalizations do not help your case one iota. -
No, I did not 'specifically attack evolutionist. You took that entirely out of context and drew a conclusion that did not exist.-"Instead of the illusion of evolution, I prefer to consider it (the illusion) as the assumption of evolution; a self-delusion fueled by an desire to defame/eliminate the knowledge of God and bypass the influence that religion has/had on the political sphere.-(And completely ignored the next paragraph.)-And no, I am not saying that people are thinking to themselves "I'm going to go defame God and destroy religion today." .. We want to be able to explain everything without God. We want to be the head honchos of our own fate. We don't want to be answerable for the shitty things we do in this life."-Now, where is the word 'evolutionist' used in these paragraphs? Science, by definition "want(s) to be able to explain everything without God." That is, they want a 'naturalistic' explanation for everything. It is 'naturalistic' in nature. That is not me telling tales, that is their own definition. -Now that being said, no, science and religion are not incompatible, neither are parts of evolution and religion. If taken in its entirety then yes, evolution is anti-religious. The bible actually encourages the use of science, but not with the goal of removing God. --
> TonySo you are telling me, that this is not a clear cut case of people trying to use science and evolution as a means of escaping the accountability for their actions? You think this is an isolated event?
> 
> DHW: Of course it isn't. You frequently complain about cherry-picking, but that is what you are doing here. You have picked on one area of science that links up with the highly contentious issue of free will (concerning which we have had long discussions on this forum). Throughout history some people have used the bible as an excuse to rob, enslave, murder their fellow humans. Does that mean the bible is to blame? Some people use science as a means of escaping accountability. Other scientists will oppose their view. So do you blame science or the scientists for their subjective conclusions? There's no consistency here. If science and the bible are used to justify human actions, it is the humans that are responsible, not the science or the bible.
> -So do you blame science or the scientists for their subjective conclusions?-When they are presented as objective facts, yes, yes I do. That is kind of the rules of science, right. Facts are facts and everything else isn't. You can't present opinions as fact in the scientific sphere. "Evolution is a fact" is an opinion, not a fact. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. The lack of free will is an opinion, not a fact. So do I blame scientist, and more critically writers of scientific literature at all levels, for their subjective opinions? Certainly, when they are presented as fact. How can we hold scientist to such a standard? Because that is their damn job. They signed up for it, they were trained for it, they knew and agreed to the consequences.


> dhw:In the hope that this discussion may clarify both your thoughts and mine, what sort of guidelines do you have in mind, apart from those we agreed on earlier, namely the natural limitations to what any organism can do, and the constraints imposed by the environment? -I wish I know how to define the guidelines. I know God is in charge, so He defines the furthest limits an organism can go with the IM to make changes.-> dhw:In order to keep things as concrete as possible, do you believe that the complex changes in the myrmecophilous beetle's body were planned 3.7 billion years ago, were the result of a dabble, or were designed entirely by itself? If not “entirely”, what "guidelines" would God have provided?-I repeat, the beetle had to have the basic pattern of organ systems defined from 3.7 billion years ago, but modifications of body type and activities may have been altered by an IM again within limits, so as not to go too far afield.
 
> David: The IM, as a third way, allows Him to set it up from the beginning and run on its own, with the IM substituted for the necessity of the dabble. Thus God is all powerful from the beginning with the IM scenario.[/i]
> 
> dhw: I don't think so, judging by the limitations you have imposed on the IM. If all the major innovations/patterns were preprogrammed 3.7 billion years ago, a dabble would only be “necessary” if things went wrong (i.e. didn't follow the path he wanted). This means the IM has the capability to correct errors in God's programme for major changes, which hardly squares with your contention that it can only make minor adjustments. -I don't follow your reasoning at all. The IM does not have the power to correct errors. I don't know that God can design an error-filled program. 'Dabbling' is to add an extention of what evolution has invented so far. Dabbling to me is additional programming. Something the IM ca ndo to a minor degree.-> dhw: A dabble would not be “necessary” just to change one species of dog or whale to another, and that seems to be the limit of your IM's capacities.-That seems to fit my concept.


> Tony: My original statement was not, and has never been, that ALL people are bad, or that ALL people try to avoid accountability. I've repeatedly said otherwise. My point was that the materialistic reductionist evolutionary perception of reality forms the basis of the rejection of accountability for the actions of a great many people. Not everyone, but many. We talk in stereotypes, often, I just mistakenly assumed that it was understood that for every stereotype there are a large number of outliers.-You are right on.


>David: I don't buy the approach of the second link at all. I have free will. I am not a machine.-> No. Many people are like that. But many of us are not.-My original statement was not, and has never been, that ALL people are bad, or that ALL people try to avoid accountability. I've repeatedly said otherwise. My point was that the materialistic reductionist evolutionary perception of reality forms the basis of the rejection of accountability for the actions of a great many people. Not everyone, but many. We talk in stereotypes, often, I just mistakenly assumed that it was understood that for every stereotype there are a large number of outliers.


> dhw: You go on to suggest that the inventive mechanism is only capable of minor adjustments, and even these must follow guidelines laid down by God. May I ask if Nature's Wonders (like the marvellous myrmecophilous beetle's antics), which you often describe as examples of God's intricate planning, were also preprogrammed in the first cells or part of a dabble? If not, does the IM do its own planning?-Once the basic group of organs is in place and functioning to provide an efficient living organism, I can image that modified lifestyles could be developed by an IM invented by God and given God's guidelines. It is important that you understand the first step for a basically functional organism with all of its coordinating and cooperating organ systems is a giant step, when, using the Cambrian gap as the major example of super-speciation. No IM could do this on its own. It must be limited to modification without without major advances. Thus, in my favorite whale series, God works at directly making mammal whales in the ocean in eight or nine stages from land-based forms. Then an IM could make minor species modifications similar to the different types of dogs from wolves, creating a variety of whale types. 
> 
> dhw: You write: “God is in control of evolution. All outcomes are within his guidelines. Major issues to make advanced life possible are planned by Him.” And you have made it clear that the plans are geared to the ultimate arrival of the human brain, which may have been preprogrammed or may be the result of a dabble...... You have said that this scenario creates a dilemma for you. Question 1) What exactly is this dilemma? Question 2) How does the concept of a semi-autonomous inventive mechanism in the genome resolve your dilemma?-The dilemma has simply been an indecision on my part as to whether God could program it all of evolution from the very beginning, or had to step in and dabble when evolution wasn't following exactly the path He wanted. In other words, just how powerful is God and did He have to second-guess Himself because His powers are not perfect. The IM, as a third way, allows Him to set it up from the beginning and run on its own, with the IM substituted for the necessity of the dabble. Thus God is all powerful from the beginning with the IM scenario.