Conference on Evolution

[Namesake]

That’s pure nonsense and you know it. Why does Richard Dawkins spend so much time denying God and His work based on science? And if it’s not based on science, then what is it based on? Why did he write a book telling parents how to raise their children without God?

The laboratory is not some “philosophy free zone.” Anyone who walks in and does ‘science’ is affected by what they find. Look at Mr. Dawkins. He’s certainly been affected, along with all those who follow him. The rationalists, the reductionists, the anarchists and free thinkers. They all need to fill their minds and free time with something. So what do we have? A lot of web sites that denounce religion based on science and what they call reason. There is such a thing as Behavioral Science, but, according to journals like Evolutionary Psychology, you’re just a biological robot programmed by your genes whose primary purpose is reproduction, performing adaptive behaviors and dying. The connection between science, as described here, and atheism-materialism-nihilism is direct and explicit.

And you can ask The Barbarian about his favorite quote from the Pope about that theory he likes so much.

Peace,
Ed

Your anger about science is ridiculous. So much of what you post here is totally false.

 

[Namesake]

They are not mutually exclusive. They are interelated. To separate them so, is a mistake. Any empirically found truth is part of absolute truth. For many years I believed in your position. I don’t see it viable anymore. It was just a position to appease the public school concept of keeping God out. It was court ruled because of a minority of unbelievers.

Since God is truth, then we must teach truth.

It would do you a lot of good to understand that in science there is no such thing as absolute truth.

 

[Namesake]

That’s pure nonsense and you know it. Why does Richard Dawkins spend so much time denying God and His work based on science? And if it’s not based on science, then what is it based on? Why did he write a book telling parents how to raise their children without God?

The laboratory is not some “philosophy free zone.” Anyone who walks in and does ‘science’ is affected by what they find. Look at Mr. Dawkins. He’s certainly been affected, along with all those who follow him. The rationalists, the reductionists, the anarchists and free thinkers. They all need to fill their minds and free time with something. So what do we have? A lot of web sites that denounce religion based on science and what they call reason. There is such a thing as Behavioral Science, but, according to journals like Evolutionary Psychology, you’re just a biological robot programmed by your genes whose primary purpose is reproduction, performing adaptive behaviors and dying. The connection between science, as described here, and atheism-materialism-nihilism is direct and explicit.

And you can ask The Barbarian about his favorite quote from the Pope about that theory he likes so much.

Peace,
Ed

You have such a shallow understanding of science that it just screams out. I bet you don’t know that but to those of us who actually do science every day you are very shallow. I think you are impenetrably ignorant and I think you think that is a good thing, but it isn’t a good thing. Stick to religion because science isn’t your strong suit.

 

[grannymh]

Science doesn’t necessarily protect human life because it is sacred. It’s our duty to protect human life just for the sake of protecting human life, nothing more.

So how are we different from the primates and insects? And duty–where does that come from if not from our recognition that life is sacred?

That’s how science works, nothing supernatural.

I guess that leaves out humans. Too bad for the drug companies. There really is something supernatural, or beyond the natural, about humans.

It isn’t wrong to believe in the supernatural but science cannot go there.

I understand that it isn’t wrong to believe in the supernatural. But science has been going there for ages. It’s the awe of the mysterious that draws in the scientists. O.K. That’s a poetic view. I’ll put some white-out on the screen.

People might wish that science could figure in a sacred meaning and that is quite noble, but it just doesn’t enter into the scientific realm.

If scientists figured in a sacred meaning, it would probably be with subjective reasoning. I happen to accept subjective reasoning as well as experiential learning. The point is that " human life is sacred" is an objective fact which exists externally, not dependent on scientists or anyone else.

That doesn’t reduce the importance of religion in any way.

I dislike the mutually exclusive “or”. I agree with your statement.

All it does is limit science to the natural world. Why is that a problem for some people?

It wouldn’t a problem except there are many people who follow Richard Dawkins’ lead into the spiritual world. And there is the philosophy of scientism which a lot of scientists rattle off when there is any discussion about the spiritual.

You can still have any supernatural ideas that make sense to you but science must remain separate from those ideas.

I really do wish that science would separate and leave babies in the womb.

If you think about it very critically you should be able to understand that that is the best of all possible situations.

I would probably agree with you except that the philosophy of relativism is taking over moral standards.

Let science be science and let religion be religion.

That would be fine if both observed the same basic concepts and principles of human life.

The two do not have to overlap at all. Science doesn’t address religion and religion doesn’t try to be science

I am not a creationist.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[buffalo]

It would do you a lot of good to understand that in science there is no such thing as absolute truth.

There would be more than a few here who believe science is truth for it is the evidence we see. In fact the “truth” of science trump the truths of Revelation. But we know better than that now don’t we.

So we must use due caution when teaching this to our kids. Perhaps a disclaimer on the textbooks would be a good idea. The contents of this here textbook we think are true, but since we cannot know truth then maybe they are false. Hmmmm! Maybe we should just put the odds of this being true are 15% and could change tomorrow.

 

[Namesake]

There would be more than a few here who believe science is truth for it is the evidence we see. In fact the “truth” of science trump the truths of Revelation. But we know better than that now don’t we.

So we must use due caution when teaching this to our kids. Perhaps a disclaimer on the textbooks would be a good idea. The contents of this here textbook we think are true, but since we cannot know truth then maybe they are false. Hmmmm! Maybe we should just put the odds of this being true are 15% and could change tomorrow.

Laugh as you will, but science never claims absolute truth. Religion does claim absolute truth. Science always asks the question, is that really true. Religion does not.

 

[buffalo]

Laugh as you will, but science never claims absolute truth. Religion does claim absolute truth. Science always asks the question, is that really true. Religion does not.

I ROTF because I cannot imagine an evolutionist saying evolution is not absolutely true. Have you heard anyone of them say here could be another explanation?

 

[Namesake]

I ROTF because I cannot imagine an evolutionist saying evolution is not absolutely true. Have you heard anyone of them say here could be another explanation?

Of course. Any scientist will easily say that any theory can be wrong and in fact any scientist would welcome evidence against any theory. Not just any evidence mind you, but any well founded evidence. Scientists are always looking for new information.

I have stated here many times that any grad student would just jump at a chance to show that a currently held principle was wrong. That’s what scientists hope for, the chance to discover new information especially if it refutes standing theories. That’s the stuff of Nobel prizes.

 

[grannymh]

Laugh as you will, but science never claims absolute truth. Religion does claim absolute truth. Science always asks the question, is that really true. Religion does not.

May I alter the above just a bit before I close my eyes for the night? Both religion and science should recognize the small handful of foundational truths which are universally absolute for all human beings. Science needs to keep asking questions. Religion does ask questions which are directed to us as individuals.

 

[Namesake]

May I alter the above just a bit before I close my eyes for the night? Both religion and science should recognize the small handful of foundational truths which are universally absolute for all human beings. Science needs to keep asking questions. Religion does ask questions which are directed to us as individuals.

Wrong! Science never accepts anything to be an absolute truth, nothing ever. Religion does offer absolute truth. That’s a very important concept to grasp in this discussion.

Science always welcomes evidence that would upset everything in science, everything! Show evidence that biological evolution is not true and science will change it’s view. Religion never does anything even remotely similar to that, and it should not because religion is a matter of faith not a discipline of evidence.

 

[buffalo]

Of course. Any scientist will easily say that any theory can be wrong and in fact any scientist would welcome evidence against any theory. Not just any evidence mind you, but any well founded evidence. Scientists are always looking for new information.

I have stated here many times that any grad student would just jump at a chance to show that a currently held principle was wrong. That’s what scientists hope for, the chance to discover new information especially if it refutes standing theories. That’s the stuff of Nobel prizes.

Scientists should be curious. That is why it is so disappointing that they give higher credence to science than the definition of science itself does. If anyone should believe in the supernatural they should.

Today’s grad students raw data as far as evolution goes is none existent.

I think we agree on some basic points.

 

[buffalo]

Wrong! Science never accepts anything to be an absolute truth, nothing ever. Religion does offer absolute truth. That’s a very important concept to grasp in this discussion.

Science always welcomes evidence that would upset everything in science, everything! Show evidence that biological evolution is not true and science will change it’s view. Religion never does anything even remotely similar to that, and it should not because religion is a matter of faith not a discipline of evidence.

But they cannot allow the Divine foot in the door so their conclusions must be suspect to begin with.

 

[Namesake]

Scientists should be curious. That is why it is so disappointing that they give higher credence to science than the definition of science itself does. If anyone should believe in the supernatural they should.

Today’s grad students raw data as far as evolution goes is none existent.

I think we agree on some basic points.

I think scientists should believe in the supernatural too, but that’s just my belief. I don’t think they should interject the supernatural into their science because then belief corrupts their science. Science can not include belief, only evidence.

 

[Namesake]

But they cannot allow the Divine foot in the door so their conclusions must be suspect to begin with.

Not at all if you understand science. If a scientist allows the Divine foot in the door then the science has been corrupted. Science ceases to exist when the supernatural comes in. Science is just about the *natural world, not the *supernatural world.

 

[buffalo]

I think scientists should believe in the supernatural too, but that’s just my belief. I don’t think they should interject the supernatural into their science because then belief corrupts their science. Science can not include belief, only evidence.

I submit that God who is absolute truth should illuminate their reasoning.

 

[Namesake]

I submit that God who is absolute truth should illuminate their reasoning.

But not their facts.

 

[buffalo]

But not their facts.

Raw data is raw data. One thing to note though is that we usually don’t have all the data.

 

[Namesake]

Raw data is raw data. One thing to note though is that we usually don’t have all the data.

Raw data is something you have brought into this discussion. It’s a meaningless term in the way you have used it. Raw data just means that information has been gathered but not analyzed to make it understandable in scientific terms. Like statistical analysis that indicates whether the data is reliable, or true to a certain level of probability.

Scientists deal with data, but evidence, facts, requires analysis.

 

[grannymh]

Wrong! Science never accepts anything to be an absolute truth, nothing ever.

Saw this as I was shutting down. Don’t want to go to bed with you mad at me. I was trying to find a word congenial to both science and religion, but at the moment, couldn’t remember the better sounding word.

Religion does offer absolute truth. That’s a very important concept to grasp in this discussion.

 

[Namesake]