Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

The Barbarian said:

Well, let's take a look at that. The Constructal Law says that for a finite-size system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve in such a way that
it provides easier access to the imposed (global) currents that flow through it.

So it explains why an optimum movement system in an airport requires that your time on a subway in the airport should be equal to the walking time from the subway to the airline gate. It explains why river valleys, trees, root systems, vascular and respiratory systems all look alike. It even accurately predicts why certain people are better swimmers, while others are better runners. Nature tends to follow paths that minimize the work needed for flows in any system.

It's on the level of thermodynamic laws; fundamental things that just are. Nowhere in the law, do you have to make any philosophical or theological assumptions, any more than a geologist needs to make such assumptions to explain the distribution of elements in the Earth.

The question of "why is nature like this?" is where the philosophical/theological assumptions come in. But science can't answer such questions, nor does it propose to do so.

Click to expand...

The constructal lawsounds like a descriptive process, not an explanatory one. Which if it follows the ordinary scientific nomenclature as far as "law" is concerned is not surprising at all, considering laws are mathematical expressions and math is a language with nothing but adjectives.

But you slipped into an ontological language when you stated that thermodynamic laws were "fundamental things that just are." And one that is very sticky, at that, considering that thermodynamic laws are not things at all, nor do they exist properly. The notion that the laws of physics are fundamental is in itself a philosophical(and tangentially theological) statement, and one that must be taken axiomatically in order for science to proceed rather than being possible to either verify or falsify. The only thing that is fundamental, if God exists, is God.

Fervent said:

The constructal lawsounds like a descriptive process, not an explanatory one.

Click to expand...

It explains why natural structures we see are as they are.
The Constructal Law says that for a finite-size system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve in such a way that it provides easier access to the imposed (global) currents that flow through it.

That's why they look as they do.

Fervent said:

But you slipped into an ontological language when you stated that thermodynamic laws were "fundamental things that just are." And one that is very sticky, at that, considering that thermodynamic laws are not things at all, nor do they exist properly.

Click to expand...

"a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity"​

Fervent said:

And one that is very sticky, at that, considering that thermodynamic laws are not things at all, nor do they exist properly.

Click to expand...

Ideas exist. Theories exist. Laws exist.

Fervent said:

The notion that the laws of physics are fundamental is in itself a philosophical(and tangentially theological) statement, and one that must be taken axiomatically in order for science to proceed rather than being possible to either verify or falsify.

Click to expand...

Physical constant - Wikipedia​

A physical constant is a quantity that cannot be explained by a theory and must be measured experimentally. Learn about the types, characteristics, units, and values of physical constants, such as the speed of light, the Planck constant, and the fine-structure constant.

Physical constant - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Gee, this got heavy quickly...

In thermodynamics, the fundamental thermodynamic relation are four fundamental equations which demonstrate how four important thermodynamic quantities depend on variables that can be controlled and measured experimentally.

Fervent said:

The only thing that is fundamental, if God exists, is God.

Click to expand...

True. However, science, being unable to determine such a thing, must make do with the fundamental laws we have in the physical universe.

Fervent said:

In theory, sure. But the bounds of what is and isn't "science" is murky at best, and there are always assumptions in the works even when they are not explicitly stated.

Click to expand...

If one makes his living in it, maybe it's easier to do. Perfection is outside of human activity, but I've never been confused as to whether or not something was a scientific issue or not.

Fervent said:

More often than not, "science" is about beginning with a notion that everything in the universe can be explained by a set of simple irrational laws.

Click to expand...

No. That would include an assumption that there is no such thing as miracles in the universe, something science can neither confirm nor deny. A plumber can be a theist, but still not consider demons of blockage as an explanation for plumbing problems. He will seek natural causes for such things, even if he recognizes that supernatural entities exist.

Fervent said:

And while much of the methodology crosses over across faith-lines, its quite clear that many atheists and agnostics presume that the assumptions of science are necessarily atheistic, because separating the metaphysics of naturalism from the naturalistic methodology is only possible in the abstract.

Click to expand...

There may be some, but every atheistic or agnostic scientist I know says otherwise. Even guys like Dawkins admit that there might be a god that they just never noticed.

Fervent said:

So science as a discipline silently makes theological assumptions and such assumptions tend to be adopted uncritically.

Click to expand...

No. It overtly proclaims that it's unable to confirm or deny the supernatural. That's pretty basic science.

The Barbarian said:

It explains why natural structures we see are as they are.
The Constructal Law says that for a finite-size system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve in such a way that it provides easier access to the imposed (global) currents that flow through it.

Click to expand...

The Barbarian said:

That's why they look as they do.

Click to expand...

That sounds nice and all, but contains a lot of terms that need more explicit definition before it actually would truly be evaluable. But again, it sounds like you're conflating giving a description of things as they exist with an explanation which says why such an arrangement arises. So the Constructal law may be able to be applied to modeling phenomena, what it offers seems to be a description so isn't counter to my objection.

The Barbarian said:

"a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity"​

Definition of THING

an object or entity not precisely designated or capable of being designated; an inanimate object distinguished from a living being; a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Ideas exist. Theories exist. Laws exist.

Ontology: How do ideas exist?

There are several ways of looking at ideas. There is a platonic way of looking at ideas which sees the ideas as kind eternal entities. Augustine puts these ideas in the mind of God. In either cas...

philosophy.stackexchange.com

Click to expand...

Notice you posted a link from a site on philosophy? And one that mentions ontology in the title, at that? Whether or not ideas/theories/laws/universals/abstracts exist is a thorny and often debated issue with a long history in Western philosophy. And when we go from giving pure descriptions we naturally slip in ontological issues often without realizing we are doing so.

The Barbarian said:

Physical constant - Wikipedia​

A physical constant is a quantity that cannot be explained by a theory and must be measured experimentally. Learn about the types, characteristics, units, and values of physical constants, such as the speed of light, the Planck constant, and the fine-structure constant.

Physical constant - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Gee, this got heavy quickly...

In thermodynamics, the fundamental thermodynamic relation are four fundamental equations which demonstrate how four important thermodynamic quantities depend on variables that can be controlled and measured experimentally.

Fundamental thermodynamic relation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is with including this?

The Barbarian said:

True. However, science, being unable to determine such a thing, must make do with the fundamental laws we have in the physical universe.

Click to expand...

Physical universe? Ontology.

Presbyterian Continuist said:

It is quite true that God did not just speak man into being in the same way he did with all other life. The reason why He formed man the way He did was to breathe the breath of life into him, giving man an immortal soul; something He did not do for all other life. Man was the only of God's creation that He breathed the breath of life into. Jesus did basically the same for His disciples, causing them to be born again of the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Yes and the disciples still had a soul, do you know when it is manifested in the body like all people have?

Presbyterian Continuist said:

You need to check your facts about Primates have 99% identical DNA. However, regardless of that, God did not breathe the breath of life into any Primate. And, Primates were spoken into being, while, as you pointed out, man was formed from the dust of the earth and had life breathed into him by God.

Click to expand...

I didn't say exact I said around the percentage. Indeed man the primate had nostrils fully formed before the breath but wasn't just a chuck of dead flesh beforehand.

Presbyterian Continuist said:

Therefore Darwin's Ascent of Man is total fiction and contrary to how the Bible describes the creation of man.

Click to expand...

I didn't mention Darwin, though life ascent through the vast stem cell libraries.

Job 33:6 said:

The Bible doesn't have any verses about DNA. But you believe it exists?

For topics of science that aren't in the Bible, maybe it just comes down to how well people can be informed.

Click to expand...

DNA is literally knitted together into a double helix except for viruses are just a helix.

Psalm 139 13
For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.

Fervent said:

That sounds nice and all, but contains a lot of terms that need more explicit definition before it actually would truly be evaluable.

Click to expand...

It was applied to correctly predict the performance of Olympic athletes, for example. But there have been numerous engineering applications:

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer​

Volume 40, Issue 4, March 1997, Pages 799-811, 813-816

Constructal-theory network of conducting paths for cooling a heat generating volume​

This paper develops a solution to the fundamental problem of how to collect and ‘channel’ to one point the heat generated volumetrically in a low conductivity volume of given size. The amount of high conductivity material that is available for building channels (high conductivity paths) through the volume is fixed. The total heat generation rate is also fixed. The solution is obtained as a sequence of optimization and organization steps. The sequence has a definite time direction, it begins with the smallest building block (elemental system) and proceeds toward larger building blocks (assemblies). Optimized in each assembly are the shape of the assembly and the width of the newest high conductivity path. It is shown that the paths form a tree-like network, in which every single geometric detail is determined theoretically. Furthermore, the tree network cannot be determined theoretically when the time direction is reversed, from large elements toward smaller elements. It is also shown that the present theory has far reaching implications in physics, biology and mathematics.

Science China Technological Sciences
The emergence and development of constructal theory, which has been a new discipline branch to research sorts of structures in nature and engineering, are reviewed. The core of the constructal theory is that various shapes and structures of the matters in nature are generated from the tendency to obtain optimal performance. Constructal theory and its application are summarized, from disciplines such as heat, mechanism, fluid flow, electricity, magnetism and chemistry, to life and non-life systems in nature.

Fervent said:

Notice you posted a link from a site on philosophy? And one that mentions ontology in the title, at that?

Click to expand...

Yeah, even philosophers admit that ideas, theories, etc are things.

Fervent said:

Whether or not ideas/theories/laws/universals/abstracts exist is a thorny and often debated issue with a long history in Western philosophy.

Click to expand...

Apparently, the philosophers had it figured out by the time that site went up.

Fervent said:

I'm not sure what your point is with including this?

Click to expand...

Fundamentals in science.

Fervent said:

Physical universe? Ontology.

Click to expand...

No. It has often been remarked that everyone has a philosophy. Not true. A genuine ontology requires an philosophical framework, something not necessary for science, and not something intuitively possessed by humans. There is a philosophy of science, but even biologists are no longer expected to have a grounding in philosophy.

ONTOLOGY
A systematic arrangement of all of the important categories of objects or concepts which exist in some field of discourse, showing the relations between them. When complete, an ontology is a categorization of all of the concepts in some field of knowledge, including the objects and all of the properties, relations, and functions needed to define the objects and specify their actions.

BeyondET said:

DNA is literally knitted together into a double helix except for viruses are just a helix.

Click to expand...

No. There is no knitting involved. In fact, the strands don't even cross one another. I get that if they were, then it would kinda sorta fit that verse. But of course, embryology shows no "knitting" of embryos, either. It's a figure of speech. If your point is that DNA forms at some point, and embryos form at some point, and therefore, speaking of one is, in some sense, speaking of the other, I'd say that was a generalization too vague to be useful for anything.

The Barbarian said:

It was applied to correctly predict the performance of Olympic athletes, for example. But there have been numerous engineering applications:

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer​

Volume 40, Issue 4, March 1997, Pages 799-811, 813-816

Constructal-theory network of conducting paths for cooling a heat generating volume​

This paper develops a solution to the fundamental problem of how to collect and ‘channel’ to one point the heat generated volumetrically in a low conductivity volume of given size. The amount of high conductivity material that is available for building channels (high conductivity paths) through the volume is fixed. The total heat generation rate is also fixed. The solution is obtained as a sequence of optimization and organization steps. The sequence has a definite time direction, it begins with the smallest building block (elemental system) and proceeds toward larger building blocks (assemblies). Optimized in each assembly are the shape of the assembly and the width of the newest high conductivity path. It is shown that the paths form a tree-like network, in which every single geometric detail is determined theoretically. Furthermore, the tree network cannot be determined theoretically when the time direction is reversed, from large elements toward smaller elements. It is also shown that the present theory has far reaching implications in physics, biology and mathematics.

Science China Technological Sciences
The emergence and development of constructal theory, which has been a new discipline branch to research sorts of structures in nature and engineering, are reviewed. The core of the constructal theory is that various shapes and structures of the matters in nature are generated from the tendency to obtain optimal performance. Constructal theory and its application are summarized, from disciplines such as heat, mechanism, fluid flow, electricity, magnetism and chemistry, to life and non-life systems in nature.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and predictions are a part of mechanical description rather than explanation.

The Barbarian said:

Yeah, even philosophers admit that ideas, theories, etc are things.

Click to expand...

The authors of that site, maybe. But what abstracts are and how they exist is still an open question.

The Barbarian said:

Apparently, the philosophers had it figured out by the time that site went up.

Click to expand...

I didn't read the article, but given stackexchange's MO I'm guessing they just presented the various positions that have been taken up rather than settling on a single one.

The Barbarian said:

Fundamentals in science.


No. It has often been remarked that everyone has a philosophy. Not true. A genuine ontology requires an philosophical framework, something not necessary for science, and not something intuitively possessed by humans. There is a philosophy of science, but even biologists are no longer expected to have a grounding in philosophy.

ONTOLOGY
A systematic arrangement of all of the important categories of objects or concepts which exist in some field of discourse, showing the relations between them. When complete, an ontology is a categorization of all of the concepts in some field of knowledge, including the objects and all of the properties, relations, and functions needed to define the objects and specify their actions.

Click to expand...

Ontologies don't have to be formal, well developed, philosophical systems. Everyone has some ontological beliefs, whether they've critically assessed them or not. Philosophy isn't about developing systems of belief, but about critically assessing what people believe intuitively and seeing if it holds up to scrutiny. When you say there is a "physical universe" you are stating something about the underlying nature of the universe, that its existence is "physical" whatever that means to you. Unless you understand "physical" in a purely subjective, phenomenologic sense, you are presenting an ontological statement because you are saying that the objects in the universe exist physically by nature.

As for whether science could escape ontology entirely, it probably could but would be extremely difficult to do. Humans tend to categorize naturally, and it would take a great deal of caution that would have little practical benefit and make scientific statements harder to understand because of the unnatural language usage that would be required.

And I'm not saying all of this as a criticism of science, but of scientific presentations. The false claims that science doesn't involve metaphysical frameworks leads to people uncritically adopting a metaphysical framework and then seeing any criticism or demands for support of the metaphysics that are present as uncalled for. The only people who don't have any metaphysical beliefs are pure skeptics, but they have to deal with the skeptics dilemma and it's not entirely clear that anyone truly is a skeptic on that order or if such skepticism is simply a hypothetical construct for philosophers to combat.

The Barbarian said:

No. There is no knitting involved. In fact, the strands don't even cross one another. I get that if they were, then it would kinda sorta fit that verse. But of course, embryology shows no "knitting" of embryos, either. It's a figure of speech. If your point is that DNA forms at some point, and embryos form at some point, and therefore, speaking of one is, in some sense, speaking of the other, I'd say that was a generalization too vague to be useful for anything.

Click to expand...

The hydrogen bonding, indeed knitting is a figurative speech, God didn't have a needle and thread.

Fervent said:

Yeah, and predictions are a part of mechanical description rather than explanation.

Click to expand...

But notice that the phenomenon is predicted and explained. Which means that there is also Constructal theory.

Yeah, even philosophers admit that ideas, theories, etc are things.

Fervent said:

The authors of that site, maybe. But what abstracts are and how they exist is still an open question.

Click to expand...

Your statement concedes that they are things. How they are things is another issue. But things, they are.

Fervent said:

Ontologies don't have to be formal, well developed, philosophical systems.

Click to expand...

YE creationism, for example. But it seems that in philosophy, at least, "ontology" requires a bit more than merely thinking so.

Fervent said:

Everyone has some ontological beliefs, whether they've critically assessed them or not. Philosophy isn't about developing systems of belief, but about critically assessing what people believe intuitively and seeing if it holds up to scrutiny.

Click to expand...

Ontology is thus a philosophical discipline that encompasses besides the study of what there is and the study of the general features of what there is also the study of what is involved in settling questions about what there is in general, especially for the philosophically tricky cases.

Laodicean60 said:

When metabolic science evolves they will.

Click to expand...

Lukewarm

tonychanyt said:

Thanks for the reference. This is how to do referencing in a scholarly manner:

1. Display and indent the quoted text.
2. Selectively bold the relevant keywords that are important to the point that you are making. No need to bold the entire sentence. Have a laser-sharp focus.
3. Be concise and precise to the point. No need to quote the whole chapter.

This is what I do for others who read my posts. It is a standard high-school scholarship. If you practice this, I guarantee you it will improve your analytical thinking. In any case, no one is required to do it.

Click to expand...

Didn't know forums needed to be academic.
Genesis 1, the whole chapter.

BeyondET said:

DNA is literally knitted together into a double helix except for viruses are just a helix.

Click to expand...

No, that's figurative knitting. No knitting needles were employed.

Fervent said:

Yeah, and predictions are a part of mechanical description rather than explanation.

Click to expand...

This strains 'description' far beyond its normal meaning. Based on this usage, it would seem that all science does is description. Which will be confusing to scientists, since we're under the impression that we explain things in terms of other things.

Fervent said:

When we step away from the various mathematical models, pretty much. As soon as we begin to claim to know what "is" we've entered into the world of ontology, which is thoroughly informed by how we answer certain theological questions.

Click to expand...

Your claim appears to be that as soon as, say, a plumber says that there's air in your pipes, he's entered the world of ontology and what he means will be thoroughly informed by how he answers theological questions.

I find your claims in this thread unpersuasive so far.

There are a few things I look at when contemplating evolution and the scriptures.

First of all, in Genesis 1, God did not even create the Sun and Moon until the fourth day of creation. This means that the first three days were not 'days' as in the 24 hour days we know of now. These days were most likely ages and could have lasted billions of years (Genesis 1:14-19). Secondly, God created the land animals and humans both on the sixth day of creation (Genesis 1:24-31). This already places a similarity between man and cattle creatures, and if these days were aeons then this gives space for evolution.

Thirdly, I base my view on something Solomon says in Ecclesiastes. Solomon says that God tests humans to show them they are like the animals. Who is man to say that his spirit rises upwards, and the spirit of beasts goes down into the earth (Ecclesiastes 3:18-21)?

sfs said:

This strains 'description' far beyond its normal meaning. Based on this usage, it would seem that all science does is description. Which will be confusing to scientists, since we're under the impression that we explain things in terms of other things.

Click to expand...

When doing it properly, yes science only describes relationships between objects. It doesn't answer questions of "why" but "how," which while can be an explanation in some sense is more of a middle ground between a decription and an explanation.

sfs said:

Your claim appears to be that as soon as, say, a plumber says that there's air in your pipes, he's entered the world of ontology and what he means will be thoroughly informed by how he answers theological questions.

Click to expand...

In a way, he has entered the world of ontology since ontology is anything related to being. How he understands what "air" or "pipes" are will in many ways be informed indirectly by how theological questions are answered. And it's not that he will consciously be aware of these things, but that failing to become aware of such things is simply to adopt positions uncritically.

sfs said:

I find your claims in this thread unpersuasive so far.

Click to expand...

Cool

sfs said:

No, that's figurative knitting. No knitting needles were employed.

Click to expand...

I don't think the audience in those days would of grasped a hydrogen bonded double helix DNA or the development of organs etc., in a fetus.

The Barbarian said:

But notice that the phenomenon is predicted and explained. Which means that there is also Constructal theory.

Click to expand...

Nope, an explanation addresses the "why" not simply the "how." What you've given is something that is possibly more than a description, but not quite a full explanation. It's more a matter of imprecise language that muddles it up, since we often use "why" when we mean "how."

The Barbarian said:

Yeah, even philosophers admit that ideas, theories, etc are things.

Click to expand...

Not quite, at least not everyone is agreed that they are things since there are many who are nominalists.

The Barbarian said:

Your statement concedes that they are things. How they are things is another issue. But things, they are.

Click to expand...

Unless one is a nominalist, in which case they are simply names without a true referrent. Which is covered under the broader scope of ontology.

The Barbarian said:

YE creationism, for example. But it seems that in philosophy, at least, "ontology" requires a bit more than merely thinking so.

Click to expand...

This is again a bit of an issue with language, because there are "ontologies" which are more or less developed systems of thought regarding the reality or non-reality of various things and how to approach them and then there is ontology which is simply any belief regarding the state of being or what is and isn't real. Moderate skepticism, which is often touted as the ideal of science, is far from a default position and one that is rarely well maintained when it is not explicitly re-inforced through critical analysis.