No Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory??

[Flannel Jesus]

Not entirely.

OK, well you can assume in my posts above, that when I say "evolution doesn't but some fans of evolution do", that I'm making that distinction.

[Gary Childress]

Not entirely.

OK, well you can assume in my posts above, that when I say "evolution doesn't but some fans of evolution do", that I'm making that distinction.

OK. I think your statement that my statement "could not be further from the truth" is at least a little overzealous, though.

[Flannel Jesus]

Not entirely.

OK, well you can assume in my posts above, that when I say "evolution doesn't but some fans of evolution do", that I'm making that distinction.

OK. I think your statement that my statement "could not be further from the truth" is at least a little overzealous, though.

Evolution itself doesn't make any claims at all about theism. There's a reason the pope believes in evolution...

I'm not even sure it's meaningful to say evolution "draws meaning", at all, from anything.

[Gary Childress]

OK, well you can assume in my posts above, that when I say "evolution doesn't but some fans of evolution do", that I'm making that distinction.

OK. I think your statement that my statement "could not be further from the truth" is at least a little overzealous, though.

Evolution itself doesn't make any claims at all about theism. There's a reason the pope believes in evolution...

I'm not even sure it's meaningful to say evolution "draws meaning", at all, from anything.

Humans posited the theory of evolution. It was posited within a milieu driven by theology. When I say evolution draws meaning from that, I think it's a fair statement. At the very least, I think there are statements that could be "further from the truth" than mine.

[Flannel Jesus]

. At the very least, I think there are statements that could be "further from the truth" than mine.

Yeah you're probably right about that. It's still notably untrue though

[Gary Childress]

. At the very least, I think there are statements that could be "further from the truth" than mine.

Yeah you're probably right about that. It's still notably untrue though

Fair enough.

[LuckyR]

The importance of the creation story as pertains to religiosity and theism has too prominent of a status in Philosophical debate when compared to it's importance in the lives of the religious (and nonreligious).

In other words in my experience almost none of the religious and nonreligious people I know hinged their belief (or nonbelief) on how well or poorly religion explained the creation story.

I think most people tacitly agree that evolution is the more likely scenario (at least since the point of a beginning), up until we start talking about removing intelligent design completely from the picture, then things start to get murky.

Let's be honest. "Most people" are completely unfamiliar with evolutionary theory and especially the data that underpins it's principles.

[Iwannaplato]

What have we got to lose if we were to deny the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory?

That wouId depend on the context.

To rely on the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory [which are speculative and theoretical]

There are empiricaI aspects to the concIusions in both theories.

One contribution with Big Bang and Evolution [abiogenesis] are as basis to counter against the existence of God argument. But there are other arguments to argue against God's existence.

One problem is the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory are still subject to the problem of infinite regression, i.e. what happened before them?

You are aware that some physicists consider time to have started aIong with space at a certain specific time in the past, or? Further you can believe in the Big Bang theory and not assume that there was nothing before or no greater context for that particuIar event. Were you aware of that?

Evolutionary theory however does not suffer from an infinite regression probIem. It specificaIIy assumes a finite time for the process of naturaI seIection. It has yet to demonstrate how organic matter arose out of inorganic matter. But that's not an infinite regress probIem, that means that there are things yet to be Iearned.

I believe there is no loss nor handicap to humanity if we were to deny or ignore the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory for certain arguments.

Well, sure. Most people have no need for either theory.

Most people can manage without understanding or beIieving anything about neuroscience, programming, the history of China, fungi, antireaIism, saiIing, the author of the CPR or the CPR itseIf.....etc.

[Flannel Jesus]

What have we got to lose if we were to deny the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory?

That wouId depend on the context.

When people ask him that question about anti-realism, he somehow thinks it's appropriate to say "THE TRUTH!" but he doesn't accept that answer from anybody else.

Awkward.

[Gary Childress]

The importance of the creation story as pertains to religiosity and theism has too prominent of a status in Philosophical debate when compared to it's importance in the lives of the religious (and nonreligious).

In other words in my experience almost none of the religious and nonreligious people I know hinged their belief (or nonbelief) on how well or poorly religion explained the creation story.

I think most people tacitly agree that evolution is the more likely scenario (at least since the point of a beginning), up until we start talking about removing intelligent design completely from the picture, then things start to get murky.

Let's be honest. "Most people" are completely unfamiliar with evolutionary theory and especially the data that underpins it's principles.

If most people are unfamiliar with evolutionary theory then the schools they attended are failing them.

[LuckyR]

I think most people tacitly agree that evolution is the more likely scenario (at least since the point of a beginning), up until we start talking about removing intelligent design completely from the picture, then things start to get murky.

Let's be honest. "Most people" are completely unfamiliar with evolutionary theory and especially the data that underpins it's principles.

If most people are unfamiliar with evolutionary theory then the schools they attended are failing them.

Oh everyone has "heard of it", though many folks' understanding of it is that they're a monkey's uncle.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What have we got to lose if we were to deny the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory?

To rely on the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory [which are speculative and theoretical] is the Bottom-up approach, i.e. one start with a basic belief at the bottom to explain why things and reality as it is at the present.

One contribution with Big Bang and Evolution [abiogenesis] are as basis to counter against the existence of God argument. But there are other arguments to argue against God's existence.

One problem is the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory are still subject to the problem of infinite regression, i.e. what happened before them?

I believe there is no loss nor handicap to humanity if we were to deny or ignore the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory for certain arguments.

This is where I argue for the Emergence and Realization of Reality [within a FSERC] from the TOP-DOWN approach.
Instead of starting from the bottom to explain the present, we strive to understand reality from what is justified and existing at present to as far down as our empirical evidences and critical thinking can support it without any concern for any ultimate grounds.

With Emergence, what is critical is we can rely on FSERC scientific truths to make useful predictions that can be justified with testing and repeatability thus enable confidence in their ability to predict and therefrom make positive contributions [in all aspects] to humanity in terms of scientific based technology.

What is Emergence & a priori Realization of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40721

There might be some loss if we deny the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory [Bottom-Up] (which is reasonable up to a point), but the tradeoff for Emergence [Top-Down] is a lose-win [net-win] situation.

Discuss??
Views??

From what I can make out of what you are saying, this seems like a sensible approach. I think you are right, that evolution draws a lot of its meaning out of its opposition to certain theological theories. And the big bang does beg the question, what happened before it. I mean, if I'm understanding correctly, then I think there's good sense in beginning with what we see here and now and not necessarily postulating a big bang or an evolution.

On the other hand, what if the big bang and evolution are correct accounts of the history of the universe and living beings? Am I correct that your approach does not deny that possibility?

I agree with the Big Bang and Evolutionary Theory as qualified to the limitations of science-cosmology and science-biology respectively.

The main point with my OP is with reference to the hightlighted:
1. TOP-DOWN approach versus
2. The BOTTOM- UP approach.

If I am cornered to choose the above, I will opt for
1. TOP-DOWN approach versus
which mean I have to give up the BOTTOM- UP theory of Big Bang and Evolutionary Theory [abiogenesis]

Currently to support my argument there are objective moral facts and thus morality is objective, I am relying on the concept of Emergence and Realization of Reality which require the TOP-DOWN approach.

With the TOP-DOWN, we start with empirical evidences as experience, observed and be justified by the scientific method.

With the The BOTTOM- UP approach, we have to start with speculations and be vulnerable to the regress problem, e.g. what was before the Big Bang, and how did abiogenesis happened?

So, it depend on context, from the moral perspective, I am ready to give up the speculated theory of the Big Bang and theory of evolution that start with abiogenesis.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What have we got to lose if we were to deny the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory?

That wouId depend on the context.

OK.

To rely on the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory [which are speculative and theoretical]

There are empiricaI aspects to the concIusions in both theories.

But both conclusions are speculations face the regress problem;
1. -what caused the Big Bang and so on ..
2. -how did abiogenesis happen to enable life from the non-life materials from 1.

[night912]

But both conclusions are speculations face the regress problem;
1. -what caused the Big Bang and so on ..
2. -how did abiogenesis happen to enable life from the non-life materials from 1.

No, they don't. And from what you've said, it's clear that you don't understand the theories, science, nor logic. Your two problems don't affect the theories because they're not the problems/questions that the theories are explaining.

Here's a scenario to clarify what I said.

We found a dead body and we want to know what the cause of death was. After examining the body, we found there to be no infection of any kind ie, bacteria, poison, toxins, venom, or viruses. There was also no wound anywhere on the body except for one hole on the forehead. After examining the wound, we found a projectile of a 22 caliber bullet. We come to the conclusion that the cause of death was due to a gunshot wound to the head. As of now, we don't know if the gunshot wound was self inflicted or by someone else.

Answer these questions. Is our conclusion that the cause of death was due to a gunshot wound wrong because we currently don't know if the gunshot was self inflicted or by someone else? If so, why?

[Veritas Aequitas]

But both conclusions are speculations face the regress problem;
1. -what caused the Big Bang and so on ..
2. -how did abiogenesis happen to enable life from the non-life materials from 1.

No, they don't. And from what you've said, it's clear that you don't understand the theories, science, nor logic. Your two problems don't affect the theories because they're not the problems/questions that the theories are explaining.

Here's a scenario to clarify what I said.

We found a dead body and we want to know what the cause of death was. After examining the body, we found there to be no infection of any kind ie, bacteria, poison, toxins, venom, or viruses. There was also no wound anywhere on the body except for one hole on the forehead. After examining the wound, we found a projectile of a 22 caliber bullet. We come to the conclusion that the cause of death was due to a gunshot wound to the head. As of now, we don't know if the gunshot wound was self inflicted or by someone else.

Answer these questions. Is our conclusion that the cause of death was due to a gunshot wound wrong because we currently don't know if the gunshot was self inflicted or by someone else? If so, why?

Your scenario above is not applicable to the points I raised and with the OP.

The issue re the OP is the BOTTOM-UP versus TOP-DOWN approach.

Within the Physics-Cosmology Framework and System [FS] the theory is everything physical at present is reduced to the Big Bang.
This is the "bottom" ground [tentatively fixed] for all scientific theories.
As such all scientific observations and therefrom theories are traceable to that "bottom" ground.
This is what I mean by the BOTTOM-UP approach.

From the scientific perspective, whatever the scientific theory, it is true as conditioned upon the scientific framework.
But in contrast to the philosophical framework, the scientific framework is limited, nevertheless very useful.

From the philosophical framework, [not scientific framework] one can ask critically 'what caused the Big Bang'.
Thus is why the regress problem arises.

To avoid the regress problem, I opt for the TOP-DOWN approach, i.e.
"This is where I argue for the Emergence and Realization of Reality [within a FSERC] from the TOP-DOWN approach.
Instead of starting from the bottom to explain the present, we strive to understand reality from what is justified and existing at present to as far down as our empirical evidences and critical thinking can support it without any concern for any ultimate grounds."

As such, from the TOP-DOWN approach, we do not assume all physical things begin from the Big Bang, but rather, whatever-is is whatever is justified with empirical evidence contingent within a framework and system [FS] also FSERC of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.