Talk:Theistic evolution

	This Creationism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Removing stuff

Did taking so much out improve the article? Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. A lot of it was poorly written and full of vague guesses at why people might believe the way they do. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to bash religion and the religious, just cause some of us aren't. We can point out their fallacies, without resorting to straw men, we can point out their inconsistince without trite lines like "with a bit of hand waving", and we can point out our arguments without resorting to "haha look at the stupid fool for believing in god". this is not an atheist site. Atheism is not the only rational position. If our arguments are so strong (and they usually are) they can stand on their own without sounding like 5 year old brats on a playground.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 22:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting book

This book written by a theistic evolutionist found here, we may be able to use as a reference for some of the arguments for theistic evolution. Forests (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Religion

Theistic evolution clearly is religious. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is in the "theistic evolution" category, which is a subcategory of the "religion" category. Also, the link you provided was to a rollback call, not a diff. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Spitefulness, incompetence, or incompetent spitefulness? We may never know. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 12:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Shadow of Oz

Some interesting reading. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Occam's Razor argument

It says "One general counter-argument is that if one accepts that natural selection can explain everything that is observed on its own". But the argument contains a huge if. Indeed, the mathematics of the claim that natural selection acting purely through a binary survived+replicated+reared vs not mechanism would produce all the genotypes we see today, is omitted in favor of "just-so" stories of how it "could" have been. Many of the features are not required for survival but are merely conveniences (such as the anorectal angle). Some are not clearly useful (such as a proto-wing) at every stage, which means long chains of decreasing fitness were followed despite natural selection, before a local peak was reached. And finally, other well-supported theories (e.g. homosexuality is innate) contradict the premise entirely, since homosexuality is a clear example of much lower genetic fitness, in humans and animals, yet it persists in the population. Occam's razor applies to falsifiable scientific explanations, and "just-so" explanations are more like explanations in terms of Marxism or Freud's theories than science.

I would recommend providing critiques of unsupported theories on both sides or linking to evidence (e.g. the mathematics of how evolution purely by natural selection works) to let the visitor understand. For example the www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ site does a great job of providing evidence for the theory of Common Descent, which is different from saying that "natural selection can explain everything that is observed on its own". My personal view is that both theistic and naturalistic audiences produce economic demand which funds certain science and publications, which is why you can see so much poor (unfalsifiable) science on both sides. Science itself is subject to natural selection based on falsifiability, which is why naturalistic theories eventually make the cut, but that doesn't mean all current naturalistic explanations are true just because "they are the best we've got". If on their own terms they are infinitesimally improbable then that's like saying they aren't true. Being entirely naturalistic isn't a get-out-of-science-free card. ^{— Unsigned, by: ‎68.196.240.102 / talk / contribs}

Please, unsigned post by a random IP address, explain how the existence of a deity necessary for theistic evolution falls on the more plausible side of Occam's razor.Petey Plane (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

(EC) "Many of the features are not required for survival but are merely conveniences" ...which is exactly what evolution predicts we would see.

"Some are not clearly useful (such as a proto-wing) at every stage" does not imply "long chains of decreasing fitness"; we might be unaware of how a feature might be useful, or how it might be repurposed, or it might become of negligible effect either way and be retained due to a lack of evolutionary pressure.

"homosexuality is a clear example of much lower genetic fitness" is flat-out incorrect. Evolution acts on populations, not individuals. That a given individual does not breed not not imply it is less fit; as a propensity to homosexuality might be preferable in a familial group with a gender imbalance or too small a supply of food for all the young.

Your objection seem to be based on a number of common creationist misconceptions about evolution. The idea that there is as much 'poor' science on the evolutionary side as there is on the theistic side is laughable. Theism is the ultimate expression of just-so stories. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You state: It says "One general counter-argument is that if one accepts that natural selection can explain everything that is observed on its own" But the argument contains a huge if.

However, I don't find any of your suggestions in respect of unexplained observations convincing.

Equally, however, there certainly are things which evolution has yet to explain. Science is, after all, a process of continuing investigation and proposal of explanations. If everything had been explained, scientists could pack up their bags and retire.

So let's say you had identified some elements which are still under investigation. What would this prove? Would be we justified in pointing to anything presently explained and immediately assume that the answer was "Therefore God must have done it"?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)