@newjaninev2 If natural selection is not guided by divine intelligence would there be order and beauty? Random chance is a state of chaos. This is what a secular society is. You like it? You do it. It's a mess called the USA.
@sree251 Neither 'divine intelligence' nor 'random chance' drives Evolution by Natural Selection.
Evolution is a process, and the mechanism that drives the process is Natural Selection.
Evolution is change in the frequency and distribution of alleles over time. Without that there would only ever have been one species on Earth. Is that the case? No.
Natural Selection is the interplay of sex and death in constantly changing environments.
'Order' is what you see, but that did not have to be there. Something else might have been there instead... in which case you'd call that 'order'.
'Beauty' is a purely arbitrary and subjective human concept.
Neither 'divine intelligence' nor 'random chance' drives Evolution by Natural Selection.
The reason is because "Evolution by natural selection" is a theory. Divine intelligence is not. "Random chance" is an indeterminate phenomenon.
Evolution is a process, and the mechanism that drives the process is Natural Selection.
You are stating a belief. It is similar to a Catholic saying Jesus was of virgin birth through immaculate conception.
Evolution is change in the frequency and distribution of alleles over time. Without that there would only ever have been one species on Earth. Is that the case? No.
This is not even a theory. It is a wild claim.
'Order' is what you see, but that did not have to be there. Something else might have been there instead... in which case you'd call that 'order'.
Alternation of day and night is order. So is the regular change of seasons. You can imagine something else for the fun of it.
'Beauty' is a purely arbitrary and subjective human concept.
I think not. Beauty is order. A lack of order is chaos. It's like getting shot in the face when you step into a store. And chaos is a horrible ugly matter called human life.
Science starts with observation. We look at the world, and we notice things. Many of these things seem to be related, and so we try to come up with an explanation as to how they’re related. This explanation is called a Theory… we can think of these as ‘Big T’ Theories, because they are based on demonstrable evidence and they have wide explanatory power. Scientists then test the Theory in order to prove that it is wrong. This is an important point, and it seems to constantly confuse non-scientists. Science doesn’t try to prove that a Theory is correct. Science tries to prove that the Theory is wrong, and the Theory is accepted only so long as we are unable to show that it is wrong.
Contrast this with our everyday ‘theories’ (my neighbour is probably cheating on her taxes… my friend is having an affair), which are simply vague hunches or convenient fictions - we can think of those as small-t theories. Usually we go looking for evidence to support these ‘theories’, and it is common for us to ignore evidence that contradicts them. It seems to me that it's these vague hunches or convenient fictions that people have in mind when they say that evolution is ‘just a theory’.
There is demonstrable evidence for my statements... no belief required.
Would you like to see some of that evidence? I have shown you evidence before, but you stepped away from it. Perhaps this time you will respond in a germane and reasoned manner.
Of course it isn't a Theory... it's a demonstrable fact.
If alleles did not change in frequency and distribution there would have been a single species on Earth for the last 3.5 billion years. One species, with the same alleles replicating over and over again, never changing, yet somehow surviving in a world, which would require that the planet's environment remained completely static during 3.5 billion years.
No change, none... an entire planet in complete stasis.
is that the case? Is there but a single species on a static planet?
Today the planet supports around ten billion species, so something must have changed after all. The only way for the original species to have changed is for the alleles to have changed, forming new combinations that led, in turn, to yet more alleles, which led, in their turn, to new combinations. Those new combinations allowed the resultant new species to exploit previously uninhabitable niches.
Those new combinations and new niches affect the reproduction rates of other species... it's all an immense 3-dimensional ball of interconnected threads and interactions within a constantly changing environment that itself exerts yet another influence.
(I can't believe I'm having to explain these basics, but, well, so be it...)
We observe this process in real time today, and we observe its history and effects by tracing the genetic histories of extant species.
@GodSpeed63 Yes, I'm sure everyone you know follows the same religion you do. I'm talking about the entire country.
The largest denomination in the US is Roman Catholic. Should the US be a Catholic country? Mormons are a majority in Utah. I've run into people like you who never realized what it felt like to have someone else's religion shoved down their throat until they spent some time in Utah.
People like you assume that if the US has an official religion, conveniently it will be your religion. Good luck with that. You people are at most 20% of the population, and your numbers are falling rapidly as young people abandon extremist denominations.
Yes, I'm sure everyone you know follows the same religion you do.
What religion would that be?
The largest denomination in the US is Roman Catholic.
I used to be Catholic but no more since I met Jesus Christ and invited Him to be my Savior and Lord. You got man made religion on the brain, get rid of it. It's warping your thinking.
People like you assume that if the US has an official religion, conveniently it will be your religion.
People like me want to see people saved, where's the religion in that.
@GodSpeed63 Since you're not a Catholic, I assume you wouldn't want to live in a Catholic theocracy. But if you don't even follow a religion, how is that supposed to be incorporated into government? Have the government require every media outlet to continually broadcast worship services or something?
@GodSpeed63 Yes. Even the president is a devout Christian. But the government isn’t allowed to push overt Christian policy. There are also many Muslims, Jews, atheists, and others in the White House, you don’t want them pushing their agenda, do you?
And no, you don’t need religion to know God, but religion provides a framework. Do you think it’s possible for someone to have a relationship with God while denouncing Jesus and the Bible as “religion?”
Do you think it’s possible for someone to have a relationship with God while denouncing Jesus and the Bible as “religion?”
In case you hadn't noticed, Jesus is not a religious figure but is the Son of God. It's through Him that we have a close relationship with God in heaven.
