Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

[TheTrisagion]

I don't think Darwin even tried to determine where "the first cell" came from. Bit ridiculous to try to prove his claims didn't work, based on something he didn't even say.

Can Darwinism be true if abiogenesis is impossible?

Yes. The theory of evolution can be thought of as the theory of gravity. Gravitational theory stands alone, it does not require the Big Bang, although it is commonly accepted that gravity originated out of that singularity. Someone can still believe that gravity exists even if they do not believe in the Big Bang. Likewise, someone can still believe that evolution is an accurate theory even if they believe that abiogenesis is flawed impossible.

You answered different question. I did not ask whether Darwinism can be true if theory of abiogenesis is flawed. I will repeat question: Can Darwinism be true if abiogenesis is impossible? Where abiogenesis being impossible means that it is impossible for a cell to come into existence by natural factors alone without intelligent creation of it.

There. Does that answer your question?

[TheTrisagion]

NicholasMyra
You mean i should be politically correct?

I mean that mice should be wary when cursing lions. Fr. Hopko is out of your league.

Yes, i might be out of the league of fr Hopko. In turn Fr Hopko was out of the league of Saint Nektarios and Saint Paisios i'm sure.

Saint Nektaros on Darwinistic Evolution and human soul

Proponents of the theory that man evolved from apes are ignorant of man and his sublime destiny ...

Elder Paisios on Darwinistic and Theistic evolution

I have simple task: decide which league is orthodox league.

minasoliman
Thanks mina.

I stopped reading both articles when they started protesting the concept that humans descended from apes. If they don't even understand what evolution is, then they are really just fighting straw men.

[minasoliman]

Something that always worries me is that we use these contemporary saints' words as if they knew the science, and they had good intentions to reject it.  But if they misrepresent the science, we only do a disservice by not covering our fathers' nakedness.

They were great holy men.  That does not mean their discussions on science were accurate.  But sometimes, when someone becomes sainted, it seems that it automatically means every single word is inerrant from their writings.

[TheTrisagion]

Something that always worries me is that we use these contemporary saints' words as if they knew the science, and they had good intentions to reject it.  But if they misrepresent the science, we only do a disservice by not covering our fathers' nakedness.

They were great holy men.  That does not mean their discussions on science were accurate.  But sometimes, when someone becomes sainted, it seems that it automatically means every single word is inerrant from their writings.

+100000

[NicholasMyra]

That sort of teleology would be understood through philosophy of science, metaphysics, aesthetics, though. What I'm referring to is teleology that is necessarily considered by the methods of empirical science, under names like Laws of Nature, Laws of Physics, the Four Forces, etc.

I was wondering if you can go through a bit more detail.

Ok, I'll try.

Aristotle thought that there were four sorts of explanations for things and events: Commonly called Material, Formal, Efficient, and Final. You are most familiar with the Efficient causal explanation, which is a prominent explanation in why, for example, a pool ball moved on the pool table; it was struck by a cue ball. A Final explanation, by contrast, is an end that something is "pulled" by or "guided" into. Aristotle thought that we grew into adults because we were "pulled" or guided toward that end, rather than just being pushed by efficient causes in our genetic code and environment as we think today. Often forms themselves were seen as Final explanations, exerting force that drew beings to better exemplify them. I should note that a Final explanation's realization may depend on an Efficient cause as well (as when a craftsmen exerts efficient force to make a marble become a statue).

It's commonly thought that post-Galilean empirical science banished the Final explanation (i.e. teleology) in favor of purely efficient, material and formal. Thus, any talk of things being for something, toward something, about something, etc. is seen as belonging to the realms of metaphysics, mental states, and faulty folk ways of talking about things in the world.

There are many things wrong with this picture, I think, and one of them is the notion that being-toward-some-end, which is teleological, does not have a place in the empirical sciences. I don't mean that the empirical science assumes implicit teleologies; of course it does. But what I'm talking about is rather explicit teleology that is within the scientific method instead of merely under-girding it from beneath the waters.

For example, gravity is a teleological force because certain sorts of objects placed in certain configurations with respect to other objects naturally seek to be in certain states due to the Laws of Nature. Someday we will discover, or we already have discovered, what gravity supervenes on (what it is that's more fundamental behind gravity), but I doubt we could ever describe it properly in a non-telelogical fashion. Something will be brute and teleological at the base of it.

[minasoliman]

Okay, I think I understand what you're getting at.

So using the science of evolution for instance.  So using conventional science without "explicit teleology", there is indeed this idea that change happens, and because of natural selection, the change that fits the environment the best is what survives.  But scientists never discusses, never even cares to discuss, what the end goal in all of this is (unless you are inducing an environmental pressure for a small specific goal, like bacterial/virological/oncological resistance).  It just teaches that it happens to be at the right environment at the right time for the change to occur, but the change is not teleological in and of itself.

What you might be alluding to is that there is an explicit teleology in the change in and of itself, that there is in essence a goal that is "pulling" the change towards itself, rather than merely a genetic "push" with a random process within natural selection.  I think the only one who really spent a lot of time discussing this was de Chardin, talking about how evolution necessarily implies an "Omega point", and he posits theologically that this Omega point is Christ.  I have not read de Chardin directly, only descriptions of his thought.

[NicholasMyra]

I don't know if I'd make that claim, or if I'd make it yet. All I would say is that the physical states upon which the evolutionary process supervenes are subject to/include teleological forces. I'll wait for Nothing to rejoin the discussion.

[ativan]

NicholasMyra
You mean i should be politically correct?

I mean that mice should be wary when cursing lions. Fr. Hopko is out of your league.

Yes, i might be out of the league of fr Hopko. In turn Fr Hopko was out of the league of Saint Nektarios and Saint Paisios i'm sure.

Saint Nektaros on Darwinistic Evolution and human soul

Proponents of the theory that man evolved from apes are ignorant of man and his sublime destiny ...

Elder Paisios on Darwinistic and Theistic evolution

I have simple task: decide which league is orthodox league.

minasoliman
Thanks mina.

I stopped reading both articles when they started protesting the concept that humans descended from apes. If they don't even understand what evolution is, then they are really just fighting straw men.

Miraculously, i knew your (i mean yours, all of evolutionists) answer before you even responded. You don't get the point. Humans per beloved theory of darwinism descended from animals that were much less complex then apes. Does that change anything for you? Nah.

[ativan]

Something that always worries me is that we use these contemporary saints' words as if they knew the science, and they had good intentions to reject it.  But if they misrepresent the science, we only do a disservice by not covering our fathers' nakedness.

They were great holy men.  That does not mean their discussions on science were accurate.  But sometimes, when someone becomes sainted, it seems that it automatically means every single word is inerrant from their writings.

Mina, They have had reveled knowledge of Creation: "Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts, and in the hidden part You will make me to know wisdom." (Psalm 50) They did not know Bible from the books like you and anybody else do. That's what the fruit of Sainthood is. Saints did not labor so that somebody would call them just holy man. Through their labor they reached Godhood. When Saint Paul says Christ was leaving in him he meant it - Christ was talking through him, Christ was leaving in him (As Christ leaves in every saint not in some symbolic way but in reality). Now you want to tell us that God (Who speaks through saints) does not know what He has created and we should believe millions of ignorant "scientists".

[NicholasMyra]

Humans per beloved theory of darwinism descended from animals that were much less complex then apes.

What about dirt?

[Opus118]

Nothing
Let's put philosophical questions about science aside and get to Darwinism per se.

1) How and what does Darwinism predict? Give me particular examples if you could, please.

2) How did sub-cellular structures evolved (like mitochondria, nucleus, Golgi complex, endoplasmic reticulum, pili, flagelum  and so on)? You can choose any one structure and tell us how it evolved.

3) How did multi-cellular organisms evolved from single cells?

4) How did different systems evolved (like immune system, nervous system, musculoskeletal system, cardiovascular system, gastrointestinal system and so on)? Again, you can choose any one of these systems and show us how it was evolved.

5) Is there anything in life at all so that Darwinism has coherent explanation of how that thing evolved? If there's anything like it, please, give us examples and explain how it evolved. Just name one thing that you thing evolution of which we can say happened so and so.

I do not like the term Darwinism Ativan. It is undefined and irrelevant. How about the mechanism of evolution as we currently (2015) understand it? I kind of understand your gripe, but if your definition of pure Darwinists and NeoDarwinists includes the belief in random mutations and/or no genetic transfer between diverse species. Every student during the past 30  years is taught that mutations are not random. There are preferences and the reason for those preferences are fully described and validated. Students are also taught about virus that transfer genes from one species to another. We went through this three years ago.

 In your list, I can answer (1) once you difine what you mean by Darwinism (I do not follow this topic).

(2) I already gave an example in 2012.

(3) I gave an example with myxobacteria (and keep in mind with no Abiogenesis we start with prokaryotes) in 2012. I could have used Cyanobacteria for this purpose.

(4) I can, but I do not have the time for it. There are roots in bacteria and archaea that I could start with.

(5) I described this as well in 2012. It is much more prevalent now. Many companies and laboratories are now using rapid evolution to select proteins for medical and industrial manufacturing purposes. The first Ebola vaccine was generated by rapid evolution.

[ativan]

Humans per beloved theory of darwinism descended from animals that were much less complex then apes.

What about dirt?

Why don't you find and ask a Saint of God what the nature of that dirt in paradise was before the fall of man?

[NicholasMyra]

Humans per beloved theory of darwinism descended from animals that were much less complex then apes.

What about dirt?

Why don't you find and ask a Saint of God what the nature of that dirt in paradise was before the fall of man?

You think it was dirt of better repute?

[ativan]

Nothing
Let's put philosophical questions about science aside and get to Darwinism per se.

1) How and what does Darwinism predict? Give me particular examples if you could, please.

2) How did sub-cellular structures evolved (like mitochondria, nucleus, Golgi complex, endoplasmic reticulum, pili, flagelum  and so on)? You can choose any one structure and tell us how it evolved.

3) How did multi-cellular organisms evolved from single cells?

4) How did different systems evolved (like immune system, nervous system, musculoskeletal system, cardiovascular system, gastrointestinal system and so on)? Again, you can choose any one of these systems and show us how it was evolved.

5) Is there anything in life at all so that Darwinism has coherent explanation of how that thing evolved? If there's anything like it, please, give us examples and explain how it evolved. Just name one thing that you thing evolution of which we can say happened so and so.

I do not like the term Darwinism Ativan. It is undefined and irrelevant. How about the mechanism of evolution as we currently (2015) understand it? I kind of understand your gripe, but if your definition of pure Darwinists and NeoDarwinists includes the belief in random mutations and/or no genetic transfer between diverse species. Every student during the past 30  years is taught that mutations are not random. There are preferences and the reason for those preferences are fully described and validated. Students are also taught about virus that transfer genes from one species to another. We went through this three years ago.

 In your list, I can answer (1) once you difine what you mean by Darwinism (I do not follow this topic).

(2) I already gave an example in 2012.

(3) I gave an example with myxobacteria (and keep in mind with no Abiogenesis we start with prokaryotes) in 2012. I could have used Cyanobacteria for this purpose.

(4) I can, but I do not have the time for it. There are roots in bacteria and archaea that I could start with.

(5) I described this as well in 2012. It is much more prevalent now. Many companies and laboratories are now using rapid evolution to select proteins for medical and industrial manufacturing purposes. The first Ebola vaccine was generated by rapid evolution.

Neo-Darwinism (for short Darwinism) a hypothesis that claims all form of life arouse from a common unicellular ancestor by the process of random genetic mutations and natural selection. Now you have my definition of it. If you do not like it change it the way you want it and let's discuss each point one by one. Let's start with question # 1: what does darwinism predict and how does it do it?

Let me tell you one thing beforehand. We should not mix Darwinism with other hypothesis of evolution like the ones that offer other explanation of evolution once they see the lameness of Darwinian hypothesis (i don't call it theory at all). These would include a little better hypothesis like the one by James Shapiro introducing more repertoires of evolutionary blocks than just point mutations (like, different types of gene transfers) and magic "natural genetic engineering". Hypothesis like these are not as nonsensical as Darwinism but they are still hypothesis and don't answer important questions. We can talk about these type of "tuned up" theories later. If you agree that Darwinism per se is non-sense and through Darwinism alone there's no way of explaining diversity of life forms, then we can start discussing other theories and don't delve into Darwinism.

NicholasMyra
I'm not in the mood to talk to somebody whose only tactic is cynicism and has no clue in science. When your arguments become a little mature then maybe we can talk. Bye bye.

[biro]

Ativan keeps repeating the word Darwinism.

There are more evolutionary biologists than just Darwin. If scientists use the word Darwinism, which they usually don't, it normally refers to the life of that person himself. However, there have been far more evolutionists since then.

Evolution is not "Darwinism."

[TheTrisagion]

Humans per beloved theory of darwinism descended from animals that were much less complex then apes.

What about dirt?

Why don't you find and ask a Saint of God what the nature of that dirt in paradise was before the fall of man?

You think it was dirt of better repute?

[Opus118]

Nothing
Let's put philosophical questions about science aside and get to Darwinism per se.

1) How and what does Darwinism predict? Give me particular examples if you could, please.

2) How did sub-cellular structures evolved (like mitochondria, nucleus, Golgi complex, endoplasmic reticulum, pili, flagelum  and so on)? You can choose any one structure and tell us how it evolved.

3) How did multi-cellular organisms evolved from single cells?

4) How did different systems evolved (like immune system, nervous system, musculoskeletal system, cardiovascular system, gastrointestinal system and so on)? Again, you can choose any one of these systems and show us how it was evolved.

5) Is there anything in life at all so that Darwinism has coherent explanation of how that thing evolved? If there's anything like it, please, give us examples and explain how it evolved. Just name one thing that you thing evolution of which we can say happened so and so.

I do not like the term Darwinism Ativan. It is undefined and irrelevant. How about the mechanism of evolution as we currently (2015) understand it? I kind of understand your gripe, but if your definition of pure Darwinists and NeoDarwinists includes the belief in random mutations and/or no genetic transfer between diverse species. Every student during the past 30  years is taught that mutations are not random. There are preferences and the reason for those preferences are fully described and validated. Students are also taught about virus that transfer genes from one species to another. We went through this three years ago.

 In your list, I can answer (1) once you difine what you mean by Darwinism (I do not follow this topic).

(2) I already gave an example in 2012.

(3) I gave an example with myxobacteria (and keep in mind with no Abiogenesis we start with prokaryotes) in 2012. I could have used Cyanobacteria for this purpose.

(4) I can, but I do not have the time for it. There are roots in bacteria and archaea that I could start with.

(5) I described this as well in 2012. It is much more prevalent now. Many companies and laboratories are now using rapid evolution to select proteins for medical and industrial manufacturing purposes. The first Ebola vaccine was generated by rapid evolution.

Neo-Darwinism (for short Darwinism) a hypothesis that claims all form of life arouse from a common unicellular ancestor by the process of random genetic mutations and natural selection. Now you have my definition of it. If you do not like it change it the way you want it and let's discuss each point one by one. Let's start with question # 1: what does darwinism predict and how does it do it?

Let me tell you one thing beforehand. We should not mix Darwinism with other hypothesis of evolution like the ones that offer other explanation of evolution once they see the lameness of Darwinian hypothesis (i don't call it theory at all). These would include a little better hypothesis like the one by James Shapiro introducing more repertoires of evolutionary blocks than just point mutations (like, different types of gene transfers) and magic "natural genetic engineering". Hypothesis like these are not as nonsensical as Darwinism but they are still hypothesis and don't answer important questions. We can talk about these type of "tuned up" theories later. If you agree that Darwinism per se is non-sense and through Darwinism alone there's no way of explaining diversity of life forms, then we can start discussing other theories and don't delve into Darwinism.

I do not have the time to enter in to this discussion fully. To start out by answering one of your questions without using the term Darwinism. If you limit the mechanism of evolution to random point mutations, you will not get the diversity of life forms we currently see within the time frame allotted . If mice were placed on earth initially, which aren't that different, from human beings, we would probably not see species that go beyond rodents in the time frame allotted.

However, if you allow the full panoply of mutations and abilities that we see in bacteria and archaea then it will work and match the mechanism of evolution that we see in genomic DNA sequences: deletions and insertion mutations during DNA replication (in addition to point mutations), mutations caused by recombination (both homologous and non-homologous) that create hybrids genes or place genes within a different regulatory system, genetic exchange with other prokaryotes via sex, genetic exchange by the inherent ability to take up foreign DNA that are floating around in solution (transformation), etc. In general, you need gene duplication, but everything else helps.

I think I wrote a long time ago that if I were God, I would start life on earth with a bacteria and and archaea, but I would kick start the system with a transducing bacteriophage (I am impatient, even though a bacteriophage would be generated sooner or later).

[TheTrisagion]

Let me tell you one thing beforehand. We should not mix Darwinism with other hypothesis of evolution like the ones that offer other explanation of evolution once they see the lameness of Darwinian hypothesis (i don't call it theory at all). These would include a little better hypothesis like the one by James Shapiro introducing more repertoires of evolutionary blocks than just point mutations (like, different types of gene transfers) and magic "natural genetic engineering". Hypothesis like these are not as nonsensical as Darwinism but they are still hypothesis and don't answer important questions. We can talk about these type of "tuned up" theories later. If you agree that Darwinism per se is non-sense and through Darwinism alone there's no way of explaining diversity of life forms, then we can start discussing other theories and don't delve into Darwinism.

Have you read Origin of Species by Darwin?

[minasoliman]

Something that always worries me is that we use these contemporary saints' words as if they knew the science, and they had good intentions to reject it.  But if they misrepresent the science, we only do a disservice by not covering our fathers' nakedness.

They were great holy men.  That does not mean their discussions on science were accurate.  But sometimes, when someone becomes sainted, it seems that it automatically means every single word is inerrant from their writings.

Mina, They have had reveled knowledge of Creation: "Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts, and in the hidden part You will make me to know wisdom." (Psalm 50) They did not know Bible from the books like you and anybody else do. That's what the fruit of Sainthood is. Saints did not labor so that somebody would call them just holy man. Through their labor they reached Godhood. When Saint Paul says Christ was leaving in him he meant it - Christ was talking through him, Christ was leaving in him (As Christ leaves in every saint not in some symbolic way but in reality). Now you want to tell us that God (Who speaks through saints) does not know what He has created and we should believe millions of ignorant "scientists".

My dear friend,

It is one thing to be the utmost spiritual leader.  But rarely do any of these saints have revealed knowledge of medicine or surgery.  Therefore, if they make a mistake in science, it does not lessen their holiness.  They are still a million times more holy than you or I.  But using them as an authority for science only hurts their holiness, not venerates them, in my humble opinion.

[NicholasMyra]

All of the Fathers who commented on eels agree that they come about via abiogenesis, afaik.

[RobS]

What laws do you consider teleological?

Let's take a higher-order example. Diffusion.

Why would you consider diffusion teleological? What's the purpose of this physical process, or to put it another way intended it?

[NicholasMyra]

What laws do you consider teleological?

Let's take a higher-order example. Diffusion.

Why would you consider diffusion teleological? What's the purpose of this physical process, or to put it another way intended it?

You seem to be thinking of intention and purpose as those things are had by linguistic beings like us when we articulate them. But all that's required for something to be teleological is for it to be guided toward some end, to seek some end, to be drawn to the realization of some end. In diffusion, due to the laws of nature, matter under the right conditions seeks to move from high to low concentration.

[ativan]

Have you read Origin of Species by Darwin?

Yes, and I loved those chapters where he talks about difficulties of the theory, where he says that if there anything be found that is to complex to explain by process of slight modifications. Darwin had no idea how complex cell is.

[William T]

What laws do you consider teleological?

Let's take a higher-order example. Diffusion.

Why would you consider diffusion teleological? What's the purpose of this physical process, or to put it another way intended it?

You seem to be thinking of intention and purpose as those things are had by linguistic beings like us when we articulate them. But all that's required for something to be teleological is for it to be guided toward some end, to seek some end, to be drawn to the realization of some end. In diffusion, due to the laws of nature, matter under the right conditions seeks to move from high to low concentration.

some quick thoughts:
1) isn't it necessary to have rationality to have intention?  There is no way we can look at the "intent" of planets.  Maybe I'm wrong and/or being needlessly semantic, but perhaps biological things may have an "entelechy" principle.  I guess I never equated that with teleology, maybe they're the same thing.
2)  In order to pragmatically make sense of and utilize science, applied science is necessarily teleological.  While I do think some teleology is necessary for certain explanations, emergent order is also going to be necessary.
3) Any complex biological system has to take into consideration benefits that arise from unintended consequences.
4) An "ultra teleological" approach to medical practice would be an "ultra engineered" approach, this would probably end very badly in terms of the body adapting to future or unforseen problems.  I can't say (out of my range of speculation), but can you carry that principle to an inorganic cosmic level?
5) I'm not too sure if I see teleological functioning on a cosmic level as that desirable a thing to begin with.

[ativan]

I do not have the time to enter in to this discussion fully. To start out by answering one of your questions without using the term Darwinism. If you limit the mechanism of evolution to random point mutations, you will not get the diversity of life forms we currently see within the time frame allotted . If mice were placed on earth initially, which aren't that different, from human beings, we would probably not see species that go beyond rodents in the time frame allotted.

However, if you allow the full panoply of mutations and abilities that we see in bacteria and archaea then it will work and match the mechanism of evolution that we see in genomic DNA sequences: deletions and insertion mutations during DNA replication (in addition to point mutations), mutations caused by recombination (both homologous and non-homologous) that create hybrids genes or place genes within a different regulatory system, genetic exchange with other prokaryotes via sex, genetic exchange by the inherent ability to take up foreign DNA that are floating around in solution (transformation), etc. In general, you need gene duplication, but everything else helps.

I think I wrote a long time ago that if I were God, I would start life on earth with a bacteria and and archaea, but I would kick start the system with a transducing bacteriophage (I am impatient, even though a bacteriophage would be generated sooner or later).

You will not need much time. The more concrete and short you explanations and answers are the better it is. If you think certain topics can't be explained briefly you can always direct me to appropriate links to a more detailed explanations.

I don't see much difference in principle between Darwinism or neo-Darwinism or modern evolutionary synthesis. Call it any name you want. I don't care much. I will give you the liberty of naming it as you like. Before we have the name you like let's call it theory X.

Now let's go back to my question # 1: what does darwinism predict and how does it do it? I don't want to expect an answer in general terms which makes no explanation. I'll give you very good example how scientific theory works in this regard and how and what does it predict. Let's take for example Newton's theory of gravity. Before Newton Kepler and other scientist made some observation how planets move. Newton proposed that this movement was dependent on some force he called gravity which is dirrectly proportional to moving bodies and inversely proportional to the square of distance between two celestial bodies. After this he went ahead and proved 2 things: A) If his theory was true then we would observe that celestial bodies moving around another body will have elliptic orbit; B) If celestial bodies move in elliptic orbit around another body then they must obey Newton's law of gravity. Thus, his theory of gravity formulated in a mathematical model is "how" of his theory. Now, after this based on his theory he could predict position of planets (or any moving bodies) and say "object O will be at this and that point at this and that time". He set experiments and he found his predictions to be right. This is "what" part of his theory.

That's how we expect from scientists to explain how and what theory X predicts. Can you do that? if you can't then theory X is just empty words. It's fine to say that we have certain repertoires of mutations that would generate diversity of life. This is one of the necessary conditions but not sufficient one. I'm going to bring here (what I'm going to call "factory remodeling analogy or FRA") an analogy. We have a factory F1 that specializes in the productions of certain lines of product P1. We have an engineering task to remodel factory into factory F2 so that we can start producing new lines of products P2. We have certain set of materials, tools and workers that are absolutely necessary to remodel the factory. But it ain't going to happen by itself. We need to design our factory in details. Plus workers can't just do any work they want. They have to do certain type of work that is necessary to achieve the result. Now, if somebody asks the team of designers and engineers how would you expect to they would go from F1 to F2 to produce P2 designers and engineers can explain us everything in detail and we can actually see if there theory of "converting F1 to F2" is right or wrong. This is exactly what i expect from you. Don't just tell me that by only naming the tools and materials or even processes (that are actually observed in the cell) it is possible to convert genome G1 into Genome G2. G1 and G2 has much more complex organization than any factory out there. And as the team of engineers and designers can't reach the purpose of converting F1 into F2 without clear and detailed plan so is it impossible for repertoires of genetic mutations to convert G1 into G2 without clear and detailed plan. I'm not a stupid man. Show me how we can get from G1 to G2 in details.

And i will appreciate if you also explain me what you mean under "non-random mutations". I'd like to see what distinction you make between random and non-random mutations.

Again: considering what i've just said: what does darwinism predict and how does it do it?

[ativan]

My dear friend,

It is one thing to be the utmost spiritual leader.  But rarely do any of these saints have revealed knowledge of medicine or surgery.  Therefore, if they make a mistake in science, it does not lessen their holiness.  They are still a million times more holy than you or I.  But using them as an authority for science only hurts their holiness, not venerates them, in my humble opinion.

Mina, we come from two totally different understanding of sainthood. Your understanding of Sainthood is different from mine. Orthodox Saints teach that once a man reaches theosis through God's Grace he poses the total knowledge from the beginning to the end. He now knows through the revelation all that God knows about the universe, about, its creation about every single human beings mind, heart and body (including our theories about the world) and much more including the vision of unseen and hidden. This is where our understanding goes to separate ways. If you can accept what i've just told you then there's is necessarily only one conclusion. I'm not coming from my theories about Saints. I'm coming from what Saints say about sainthood, about theosis. What you do is you having your own theories about sainthood make conclusions which is not going to be any different than any other believers conclusion. If you want to approach this issue rationally then anybodies rational approach is as valid as yours. I don't want to say anything more.

God bless you

[TheTrisagion]

I'm curious, when St. Augustine spoke of animals that arose out of inanimate matter, do you accept that? How about when St. Clement of Rome spoke of the phoenix that rises from the ashes of a fire, do you accept that? How can you accept the science of St. Paisios, but reject the science of those two blessed saints?

[NicholasMyra]

1) isn't it necessary to have rationality to have intention?

It really depends on what you mean by rational, but I'm inclined to say no.

4) An "ultra teleological" approach to medical practice would be an "ultra engineered" approach, this would probably end very badly in terms of the body adapting to future or unforseen problems.  I can't say (out of my range of speculation), but can you carry that principle to an inorganic cosmic level?
5) I'm not too sure if I see teleological functioning on a cosmic level as that desirable a thing to begin with.

4. Unfortunately I'm not clear what you're saying.
5. I find it beautiful.

[NicholasMyra]

once a man reaches theosis through God's Grace he poses the total knowledge from the beginning to the end. He now knows through the revelation all that God knows about the universe, about, its creation about every single human beings mind, heart and body (including our theories about the world) and much more including the vision of unseen and hidden.

You think the saints, while on earth, were omniscient via the union with God?

[RobS]

What laws do you consider teleological?

Let's take a higher-order example. Diffusion.

Why would you consider diffusion teleological? What's the purpose of this physical process, or to put it another way intended it?

You seem to be thinking of intention and purpose as those things are had by linguistic beings like us when we articulate them. But all that's required for something to be teleological is for it to be guided toward some end, to seek some end, to be drawn to the realization of some end. In diffusion, due to the laws of nature, matter under the right conditions seeks to move from high to low concentration.

Well, like I say, I think we disagree on the meaning of teleology. In any case, I don't think you need to worry about ends to describe diffusion and make predictions about it. I think such discourse is so vague that it adds nothing to scientific inquiry, and would in fact take away from it

[NicholasMyra]

I don't think you need to worry about ends to describe diffusion and make predictions about it.

What are you doing when you describe it if not talking about movement towards an end?

[William T]

What laws do you consider teleological?

Let's take a higher-order example. Diffusion.

Why would you consider diffusion teleological? What's the purpose of this physical process, or to put it another way intended it?

You seem to be thinking of intention and purpose as those things are had by linguistic beings like us when we articulate them. But all that's required for something to be teleological is for it to be guided toward some end, to seek some end, to be drawn to the realization of some end. In diffusion, due to the laws of nature, matter under the right conditions seeks to move from high to low concentration.

Well, like I say, I think we disagree on the meaning of teleology. In any case, I don't think you need to worry about ends to describe diffusion and make predictions about it. I think such discourse is so vague that it adds nothing to scientific inquiry, and would in fact take away from it

I'm saying things along this line on one hand.  When I talk about "engineering", I think a good example would be language.  Language is something that can't be constructed or guided by a single guided consciousness.  Language is "rational" but it isn't deliberately designed.

I do think "ends" play a major role in human subjects, and may have some role in human sciences, but that's beyond anything I want to talk about.

Question:

Is a rock falling to earth and a seed turning to a plant catagorically the same thing to you when you talk about teleology?

[William T]

Also:

Are you using anything by Teilhard de Chardin? If so, can you direct me to any quick area in his book where  I can brush up on him?

[Opus118]

I do not have the time to enter in to this discussion fully. To start out by answering one of your questions without using the term Darwinism. If you limit the mechanism of evolution to random point mutations, you will not get the diversity of life forms we currently see within the time frame allotted . If mice were placed on earth initially, which aren't that different, from human beings, we would probably not see species that go beyond rodents in the time frame allotted.

However, if you allow the full panoply of mutations and abilities that we see in bacteria and archaea then it will work and match the mechanism of evolution that we see in genomic DNA sequences: deletions and insertion mutations during DNA replication (in addition to point mutations), mutations caused by recombination (both homologous and non-homologous) that create hybrids genes or place genes within a different regulatory system, genetic exchange with other prokaryotes via sex, genetic exchange by the inherent ability to take up foreign DNA that are floating around in solution (transformation), etc. In general, you need gene duplication, but everything else helps.

I think I wrote a long time ago that if I were God, I would start life on earth with a bacteria and and archaea, but I would kick start the system with a transducing bacteriophage (I am impatient, even though a bacteriophage would be generated sooner or later).

You will not need much time. The more concrete and short you explanations and answers are the better it is. If you think certain topics can't be explained briefly you can always direct me to appropriate links to a more detailed explanations.

I don't see much difference in principle between Darwinism or neo-Darwinism or modern evolutionary synthesis. Call it any name you want. I don't care much. I will give you the liberty of naming it as you like. Before we have the name you like let's call it theory X.

Now let's go back to my question # 1: what does darwinism predict and how does it do it? I don't want to expect an answer in general terms which makes no explanation. I'll give you very good example how scientific theory works in this regard and how and what does it predict. Let's take for example Newton's theory of gravity. Before Newton Kepler and other scientist made some observation how planets move. Newton proposed that this movement was dependent on some force he called gravity which is dirrectly proportional to moving bodies and inversely proportional to the square of distance between two celestial bodies. After this he went ahead and proved 2 things: A) If his theory was true then we would observe that celestial bodies moving around another body will have elliptic orbit; B) If celestial bodies move in elliptic orbit around another body then they must obey Newton's law of gravity. Thus, his theory of gravity formulated in a mathematical model is "how" of his theory. Now, after this based on his theory he could predict position of planets (or any moving bodies) and say "object O will be at this and that point at this and that time". He set experiments and he found his predictions to be right. This is "what" part of his theory.

That's how we expect from scientists to explain how and what theory X predicts. Can you do that? if you can't then theory X is just empty words. It's fine to say that we have certain repertoires of mutations that would generate diversity of life. This is one of the necessary conditions but not sufficient one. I'm going to bring here (what I'm going to call "factory remodeling analogy or FRA") an analogy. We have a factory F1 that specializes in the productions of certain lines of product P1. We have an engineering task to remodel factory into factory F2 so that we can start producing new lines of products P2. We have certain set of materials, tools and workers that are absolutely necessary to remodel the factory. But it ain't going to happen by itself. We need to design our factory in details. Plus workers can't just do any work they want. They have to do certain type of work that is necessary to achieve the result. Now, if somebody asks the team of designers and engineers how would you expect to they would go from F1 to F2 to produce P2 designers and engineers can explain us everything in detail and we can actually see if there theory of "converting F1 to F2" is right or wrong. This is exactly what i expect from you. Don't just tell me that by only naming the tools and materials or even processes (that are actually observed in the cell) it is possible to convert genome G1 into Genome G2. G1 and G2 has much more complex organization than any factory out there. And as the team of engineers and designers can't reach the purpose of converting F1 into F2 without clear and detailed plan so is it impossible for repertoires of genetic mutations to convert G1 into G2 without clear and detailed plan. I'm not a stupid man. Show me how we can get from G1 to G2 in details.

And i will appreciate if you also explain me what you mean under "non-random mutations". I'd like to see what distinction you make between random and non-random mutations.

Again: considering what i've just said: what does darwinism predict and how does it do it?

When I said that I do not have time, it meant that I have too much on my plate right now. In the near future I can explain based on what I posted. You went back to Darwinianism in your post so it is not clear whether you are limiting me to point mutations rather than what actually happened in the past.

Please clarify on this issue.

[NicholasMyra]

When I talk about "engineering", I think a good example would be language.  Language is something that can't be constructed or guided by a single guided consciousness.  Language is "rational" but it isn't deliberately designed.

I follow you so far.

I do think "ends" play a major role in human subjects, and may have some role in human sciences, but that's beyond anything I want to talk about.

You lost me.

Is a rock falling to earth and a seed turning to a plant catagorically the same thing to you when you talk about teleology?

For Aristotle, yes. For me, in part. I think Efficient causation takes care of a lot of what Aristotle attributed to the Final explanation (e.g. plants don't become trees because they are being drawn to exemplify a form, but because of the execution of their genetic code), but not entirely.

[William T]

When I talk about "engineering", I think a good example would be language.  Language is something that can't be constructed or guided by a single guided consciousness.  Language is "rational" but it isn't deliberately designed.

I follow you so far.

I do think "ends" play a major role in human subjects, and may have some role in human sciences, but that's beyond anything I want to talk about.

You lost me.

Is a rock falling to earth and a seed turning to a plant catagorically the same thing to you when you talk about teleology?

For Aristotle, yes. For me, in part. I think Efficient causation takes care of a lot of what Aristotle attributed to the Final explanation (e.g. plants don't become trees because they are being drawn to exemplify a form, but because of the execution of their genetic code), but not entirely.

Sorry, I shouldn't have brought up 'ends' in human sciences.  I was rambling.  All I meant was things like psychology, sociology, economics not to mention things like ethics, or whatever may have very different methodologies due to the subject being people, and in human sciences it's a lot more intuitive and obvious to have final causes.  That's all I meant.  It would probably be a lot easier to have all four causes in use in these subjects.

[NicholasMyra]

Sorry, I shouldn't have brought up 'ends' in human sciences.  I was rambling.  All I meant was things like psychology, sociology, economics not to mention things like ethics, or whatever may have very different methodologies due to the subject being people, and in human sciences it's a lot more intuitive and obvious to have final causes.  That's all I meant.  It would probably be a lot easier to have all four causes in use in these subjects.

Are you saying that biology doesn't study human subjects?

[William T]

Sorry, I shouldn't have brought up 'ends' in human sciences.  I was rambling.  All I meant was things like psychology, sociology, economics not to mention things like ethics, or whatever may have very different methodologies due to the subject being people, and in human sciences it's a lot more intuitive and obvious to have final causes.  That's all I meant.  It would probably be a lot easier to have all four causes in use in these subjects.

Are you saying that biology doesn't study human subjects?

I am saying that psychology, sociology, etc may be more required to take human decision making, emotions, values, goals, and the like into consideration and are more equipped to do so than a "hard science" such as biology (which studies humans). 

If this is still nonsensical to you, sorry...I'll try to clear it up tomorrow, I've been out tonight.

[William T]

FYI:  I'm making the distinction between natural science (biology, physics, chemistry) and human science (psychology, economics, sociology).  That's all I was doing, that's a common distinction in universities.

[ativan]

When I said that I do not have time, it meant that I have too much on my plate right now. In the near future I can explain based on what I posted. You went back to Darwinianism in your post so it is not clear whether you are limiting me to point mutations rather than what actually happened in the past.

Please clarify on this issue.

Enjoy whatever you have on your plate I did not go back to Darwinism. I want two things: 1) Your opinion on whether whatever they teach in the schools, colleges and universities about theory of evolution and whether whatever people like Richard Dawkins teach about evolution and whether whatever whatever evolutionists in this thread subscribe in regards to origin of diversity in life makes any sense at all or not; 2) Yes, I want to know what really happened in the past, but if you claim you know it then show me with enough evidence and valid logic that it is true (or at least has enough causal explanation to the process you will describe).

Now, can we go back to the first question: what does your theory predict and how does it do it?

[TheTrisagion]

Now, can we go back to the first question: what does your theory predict and how does it do it?

It predicts that diversity in inheritable traits will increase over time.

As to the second part of your question, through a variety of means. Reproduction, mutations, gene exchange, etc.

[ativan]

It predicts that diversity in inheritable traits will increase over time.

As to the second part of your question, through a variety of means. Reproduction, mutations, gene exchange, etc.

You can't really answer that question since i don't think opus' theory is about Darwinism (the hypothesis that you share). My question to him is about his theory and not yours. If it turns out that you both have same theory then we all can talk about your common theory. I'm glad though to listen to your own theories.

What you have just answered is way separated from science. You saying that it is enough to have materials and tools to convert F1 into F2. Think again and answer my first question seriously. I can claim same way that ID predicts every single finding we find. Details please.

[ativan]

once a man reaches theosis through God's Grace he poses the total knowledge from the beginning to the end. He now knows through the revelation all that God knows about the universe, about, its creation about every single human beings mind, heart and body (including our theories about the world) and much more including the vision of unseen and hidden.

You think the saints, while on earth, were omniscient via the union with God?

Not all of them but only those who through the Grace of Almighty God came to theosis. Sainst differ as Saints teach in their holiness. The more "they go up on the ladder" the more revelation they receive. I don't really have any understanding of these things that is outside realm of matter and logic and is in The Hands of God but make certain interpretations of what they say.

[TheTrisagion]

It predicts that diversity in inheritable traits will increase over time.

As to the second part of your question, through a variety of means. Reproduction, mutations, gene exchange, etc.

You can't really answer that question since i don't think opus' theory is about Darwinism (the hypothesis that you share). My question to him is about his theory and not yours. If it turns out that you both have same theory then we all can talk about your common theory. I'm glad though to listen to your own theories.

What you have just answered is way separated from science. You saying that it is enough to have materials and tools to convert F1 into F2. Think again and answer my first question seriously. I can claim same way that ID predicts every single finding we find. Details please.

Oh good grief. 

[biro]

It predicts that diversity in inheritable traits will increase over time.

As to the second part of your question, through a variety of means. Reproduction, mutations, gene exchange, etc.

You can't really answer that question since i don't think opus' theory is about Darwinism (the hypothesis that you share). My question to him is about his theory and not yours. If it turns out that you both have same theory then we all can talk about your common theory. I'm glad though to listen to your own theories.

What you have just answered is way separated from science. You saying that it is enough to have materials and tools to convert F1 into F2. Think again and answer my first question seriously. I can claim same way that ID predicts every single finding we find. Details please.

Oh good grief. 

Hear, hear.