some other dude
New member
And that's how engineers design things!
toldailytopic: Theistic evolution: best arguments for, or against.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
They are called "genetic algorithms."
A genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural evolution. This heuristic is routinely used to generate useful solutions to optimization and search problems. Genetic algorithms belong to the larger class of evolutionary algorithms (EA), which generate solutions to optimization problems using techniques inspired by natural evolution, such as inheritance, mutation, selection, and crossover.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm
People were just starting to apply them in the late 70s, when I got my degree in systems. It was mostly an intriguing idea then, but when computational power increased, and programs became more effective in modeling the real world, it took off.
ABSTRACT
This work shows how a preliminary aircraft design can be achieved by means of genetic algorithms (GA). The aircraft major parameters are mapped into a chromosome like string. These include the wing, tail and fuselage geometry, thrust requirements and operating parameters. GA operators are performed on a population
of such strings and natural selection is expected to occur. The design performance is obtained by using the aircraft range as the fitness function. Different GA parameters and selection methods – fitness and ranking – are tested and their impact on the algorithm efficiency is analyzed. The constraints implementation is also studied.
http://www.genetic-programming.org/sp2003/Marta.pdf
Selaphiel
Well-known member
Rusha said:
I cannot agree with that. That would be saying that the authors of Genesis was so monumentally stupid that they did not realize that there was a secondary and different story on the second page. If they were meant to be read literally, why would they include two different stories that contradict each other if read literally?
Creationism and its literal reading of Genesis as something that is to be taken seriously scientfically speaking is mostly a modern view. Christians and Jews read it non-literally nearly two millenia before Darwin and modern science came long (Philo of Alexandria, Augustine of Hippo and Origen of Alexandria being a few prime examples of that).
We are so thoroughly locked in modern readings of text today that we think any form of non-literal reading of texts is somehow invalid. That simply was not the case for ancients. The first Christian theologians (I cannot speak for Jewish theology) read texts in 3 layers basically: Somatic, moral and mystical. The two latter ones being most important, the first is the literal sense.
So Genesis was not considered important because it conveyed a scientific analysis. In fact Augustine warned Christians on using the Bible as a source for such knowledge because it made them look like fools. The important message in Genesis 1 was theological, the ideas of complete order in the universe and the idea that God was supreme creator of all things. Genesis 2 was important due to its theological message of the fall. Perhaps the two most important teachings for Christians was the idea of the imago dei and the entrance of spiritual mortality.
In fact, biblical research supports such a view. Genesis 1 is actually a very polemic text. Its primary message seems to be refusing to attribute divinity to the sun, moon, stars and other created entities, which was common in the surrounding areas at the time. Genesis 1 is a very radical text in that sense. The prime message of the original author was probably a very strict form of monotheism, a refusal to attribute divinity to created things, not some crude recipe like description on how the creation occurred.
When people today say it is a cop out from Christians to read Genesis allegorically and support science, they are very much wrong. It has been done LONG before any modern science came along. In fact, the literal reading of the creationists is what is heterodox.
So of course a Christian can accept the theory of evolution. I personally do not like the term theistic evolution though, it sounds too much like the intelligent design movement with their idea that God conveniently intervenes every now and then. A classical theist view would be that God acts through natural causes, they are not separate from him. So evolution is fine, but most Christian will view place that theory in a metaphysics of teleology. Which is not necessarily scientifically wrong either, there are theories of convergent evolution which can support or at least not contradict the idea of a certain amount of teleology in the process.
Last edited:
Im not seeing that they contradict - and neither is many other people, i would have to read into it to make it contradict.
Selaphiel
Well-known member
The order of creation is completely reversed. In Genesis 1 God creates animals and vegetation before man, in Genesis 2 he creates man before animals and vegetation. In Genesis 1 he creates man and woman simultaneously, in Genesis 2 woman is created from the rib of the man after God sees that the man is lonely.
They are obviously two different stories. Not only due to these differences, but there are differences that are not apparent in the English text. Once we reach what is considered the second story, the word used for God suddenly changes and the style changes completely. Explanation? They come from two traditions, usually labeled the Elohist and the Jahvist traditions within academia.
Thiestic Evolution--Mixing dumb with the truth- and God isn't the dumb part. Many Christian decry putting God in a box. Trying to mix evolution with the Bible does just that. For a Christian to embrace the atheistic model of evolution is being double minded. Either you believe the Biblical account or you don't. Theistic Evolution is a example of lukewarmness, trying to have a foot in secularism and in the church too--not taking the Bible seriously. Embrace it too much and God might spit you out.
You're partially right. Genesis makes no stand at all on evolution. Those who say that it endorses evolution, or that it denies evolution, are changing the text to suit their own desires.
However, there is no such problem for Christians who accept the scientific theory of evolution.
If you claim that the Bible endorses or rejects evolution, you don't believe the Biblical account. Which is O.K. as far as that goes. Whether you accept or deny the way He creates things is not a salvation issue.
Whether or not you claim that holding one view or another determines your salvation, that might be a salvation issue. You might do some thinking about that.
wow if i relayed something to 2 different people or wrote about one incident at 2 different times, while describing the same event i might also mention the order different, which has no bearing on what was done. Sorry, i think you are reading into it.
ThermalCry
New member
Evolution is pretty obvious given the evidence and scientific advancements based on evolutionary theory. Theistic evolution comes from reasonable people incorporating reality into their religious faiths. The only reason to shun evolution is based on ancient scriptures written by people who couldnt have possibly known about certain scientific principles anyway. Islam/Christianity typically shun evolution only in more fundamental denominations that demand that their holy book be infallible and inerrant.
Might slip your mind, but I doubt if it would slip God's mind. I do agree that how God created living things or the time period involved has no bearing on the message.
God used a man to pen it down, order didn't matter in gen 2 - because that wasn't the point - the only thing i can get out of someone being hung up on something like that, would be what Christ said about straining at gnats while swallowing camels.
organiccornflake
New member
Its statements like this that make secular atheists not take Christianity seriously. Its statements like this that make me lose hope in the future of Christianity. You cannot deny visible, observable, tangible facts. The "big bang" is a fact. The fact that everything in the universe is moving outward from a central point proves that all matter originated from a single point in space. And, after the math is done, (judging from the rate of expansion) the material universe is about 14 billion years old.
This is, of course, a simplistic summary of the theory.
So; you have three options here,
1. Ignore facts and live in your own lala land
2. Abandon Christianity, because Genesis contradicts facts
3. Change your ideology. Perhaps Christianity and science don't have to wage for, as our god is a god of science. Magic doesn't exist, as i'm sure you know. God is an all powerful being who, through very complex scientific processes, can manipulate the universe to his will.
Genesis was a second hand account about a miraculous and awe-inspiring event that I doubt we would fully understand today if we saw it, written probably through a vision, by Moses who had no idea what he was seeing.
I don't deny facts. I also don't deny god. I am a theistic evolutionist and proud of it.
noguru
Well-known member
The same could be said for your view as well. Of course most people with your mind set would never admit the weakness of your own view. It's all about trying to remove a spec from the eye of another, while that log in your eye gets bigger and bigger.
It's only a problem if you want to take it as a literal history.
organiccornflake
New member
Also; I think that god using billions of years to make things is much more miraculous than it simply being spoken into existence. Evolution detracts no glory from god.
I believe god spoke things into existence, his voice sounded like a big "BANG!"
I believe god spoke things into existence, his voice sounded like a big "BANG!"
Context is weak. ok.
organiccornflake
New member
Exactly. Much of it was meant to be taken literally; the creation story was not.
noguru
Well-known member
Evolution is simply the best natural explanation we have for biodiversity. It might have been multiple common ancestry within the past 10,000, or it might have been single common ancestry over 3.5 billion years. The evidence and clear logic leads one in the direction of the later conclusion. However, science does not propose 100% certainty. And God will not fault us for being honest about what we see in the world around us.
noguru
Well-known member
Como?