Creationism and life in general

[ricmat]

Yes, here it is: ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

No, that’s not it. From your own quote of the parody site you linked to:

NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

So you wished to mislead the public (at least here) with your definitive statement: “There are around 120,000 with doctorates in biology or allied sciences who do not dissent.”

But you actually have no proof of it, other than “we could easily have done so.” Sort of like Darwinism in general. Proof not needed, because “we easily could have done so, but just haven’t got around to it.”

 

[StAnastasia]

So you wished to mislead the public (at least here) with your definitive statement: “There are around 120,000 with doctorates in biology or allied sciences who do not dissent.”

Ricmat, I’m not deceiving anyone. If you can do the math, check it out: “Project Steve” includes only PhDs in biology or an allied science who happened to be named “Steve.” So far over 1100 “Steves” have signed the statement endorsing evolution. Since “Steven” makes up 1% of the named population, multiply 1,100 by 100, and you get 110,000 scientists who accept evolution. From my friends at NCSE I hear that they are,closing in on 1,200 Steves, rendering 120,000 PhD scientists who endorse evolution (as oppoised to 700 who do not).

But you actually have no proof of it, other than “we could easily have done so.” Sort of like Darwinism in general. Proof not needed, because “we easily could have done so, but just haven’t got around to it.”

 

[ricmat]

Ricmat, I’m not deceiving anyone. If you can do the math, check it out: “Project Steve” includes only PhDs in biology or an allied science who happened to be named “Steve.” So far over 1100 “Steves” have signed the statement endorsing evolution. Since “Steven” makes up 1% of the named population, multiply 1,100 by 100, and you get 110,000 scientists who accept evolution. From my friends at NCSE I hear that they are,closing in on 1,200 Steves, rendering 120,000 PhD scientists who endorse evolution (as oppoised to 700 who do not).

Your emphasis on the word “proof” makes it seem like you are unfamiliar with how science actually works. Am I correct?

Here is the dissent from Darwin statement:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Here is the statement that 1200 or so “Steves” have agreed with:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.

The Steve statement does not address the Dissent statement, except on one item - the item I bolded above. And it seems that the 120,000 scientists represented by the Steves actually would agree with the dissent statement in this area of overlap.

The Steve statement goes on into additional irrelevant and unnecessary emotion filled hate language “…pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience…” as well as a canard regarding our public schools. These have nothing to do with the Dissent statement, but the fact that so many scientists are apparently willing to sign the Steve statement (or be represented by “Steve”) does not speak well of them.

So, for you StA, do you disagree with this part of the Dissent -

1. “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.”

What? You have no skepticism at all? That’s not scientific is it?

How about this part.

1. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

What? It shouldn’t be encouraged? That’s not scientific either.

 

[tonyrey]

1. God never intervenes for anyone.

1. Prayer is wasted if it is not answered as we expect.
   .

1. Perhaps not since it may grant spiritual and emotional strength to the one praying.

Wasted as far as their requests are concerned. And often it makes people lose their faith.

1. Believers and unbelievers live in separate places!

]3. Well they do - look at the distribution of religions around the world.

Disasters don’t usually occur simultaneously around the world!

Then why did Jesus tell us to pray for our needs?

I don’t recall the ‘Our Father’ placing much emphasis on asking God to fulfil our physical needs (Other than ‘give us today our Daily Bread’ - which has quite a few interpretations).

The simplest and most reasonable interpretation is the bread we need every day to stay alive. It also means the spiritual bread of the Holy Eucharist but that is not a daily event for all Christians. And Jesus said “I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.”

The development of doctrine in the light of new discoveries is consistent with the fundamental teaching of the Church.

Glad to see someone agrees with me on that . And of course you’ve already been admonished for saying that.

A misunderstanding.

For example, coercive miracles defeat the purpose of giving us free will.

I don’t know about that - some Catholics I talk to give me examples of ‘miracles’ (though not very good examples, I must say) that have happened in their lives and are much of the basis for their beliefs.

It reinforced their existing beliefs. I am referring to atheists being compelled to believe by a constant spate of miracles in answer to prayer.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I recently had a debate with a creationist Christian in my family. It was entertaining and all, but I really don’t get why his family doesn’t accept evolution - or worse, oppose it, almost violently. My mother and sister don’t accept it, either.

I really don’t get it, because as far as I see it, evolution is real. So what? Does that mean God didn’t make us? That there were not two first humans? That man did not fall into mortal sin? They say the two ideas are unreconcilable (in simpler words). I say the science is real and the theology is real, and I chose to acknowledge truth, and reality. But science is just that, a truth. It is not a direction. It can give us a direction to work in. But theology far more gives us an ends to work for than does science.

Darwin hasn’t taught me anything in relation to God except how He made us. Marx has taught me nothing save that man isn’t God. And Freud has taught me nothing save that sexual sins are very dangerous sins I really, really ought to maintain against.

In short, science may be true. But what good is it, if it can’t lead us closer to God?

 

[StAnastasia]

The Steve statement goes on into additional irrelevant and unnecessary emotion filled hate language “…pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience…” as well as a canard regarding our public schools. These have nothing to do with the Dissent statement, but the fact that so many scientists are apparently willing to sign the Steve statement (or be represented by “Steve”) does not speak well of them.

“Pedagogically irresponsible” is not hate language. It is merely a statement of opposition to the pseudo-science of ID being taught in public schools at taxpayer expense.

So, for you StA, do you disagree with this part of the Dissent -

1. “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.”

 

[inocente]

I’ve also had an experience like Pauls’-although I’m sure it was different in some quality or another. But it was so overwhelmingly profound that there was nothing in the natural world to relate it to. Unless we want to arbitrarily include all things in the term “natural” and render the term “supernatural” meaningless, these experiences are certainly of the miraculous order.

I’ve also had that kind of overwhelming experience, but whether it’s inexplicable in principle or just not explained yet I don’t know. But then the experience itself taught me to hang back from even trying to explain.

Can’t comment on the baptized in the spirit experience tho, as I haven’t had it, but I do know that the HS can directly make known to a person Who it is that’s orchestrating an experience in them to such a degree that their left with no real means of questioning it.

Selling yourself short? To me it means you accept Christ, you trust Christ, you walk with Christ. I know people have differing views but Paul himself said:
*
Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. – 1 Cor 12:12-13*

You’re born again bro.

 

[inocente]

1. Catholic prayer is usually misrepresented. Catholics do things differently than other Christians. Sad to say, from reading a few enlightening posts on prayer and miracles, it is obvious that there are a few Catholics who are on the short side of Catholicism. They are not alone because I now wonder about some of prayer research participants.

Could you explain about how you do it differently?

 

[inocente]

The Steve statement does not address the Dissent statement, except on one item - the item I bolded above. And it seems that the 120,000 scientists represented by the Steves actually would agree with the dissent statement in this area of overlap.

There was a famous attempt by Indiana to legislate truth. More recently there was a hoax about Alabama setting the value of pi to 3, the “Biblical value”.

The Discovery Institute gains no credibility at all by trying to reduce science to politics.

 

[tonyrey]

NeoDarwinism is definitely atheistic because it regards natural selection and survival value as fundamental elements of biological development which dispense with the need for God. It inconsistently extracts the power of reason from blind processes.

You are assuming that natural selection, survival value and other physical factors are sufficient to explain all biological development - including that of human beings and their power of reason.

Do you really have such a shallow view of God that He has to make Himself quite so obvious? If God put the laws of General Relativity in place, why would He be so crass as to put Himself right there is the equations? If God put the laws of evolution in place why do you expect Him to behave any differently?

Do you really have such a simplistic view of theistic evolution? I wonder how you relate Buddhism to biological evolution… What scientific basis does it have? Or is it totally unrelated?

 

[tonyrey]

No he did not. He pointed out that as long as you give God credit for Evolution, it’s all good.

I advise you to read his statement that the interpretation of evolution must not conflict with Christian doctrine…

 

[edwest2]

I recently had a debate with a creationist Christian in my family. It was entertaining and all, but I really don’t get why his family doesn’t accept evolution - or worse, oppose it, almost violently. My mother and sister don’t accept it, either.

I really don’t get it, because as far as I see it, evolution is real. So what? Does that mean God didn’t make us? That there were not two first humans? That man did not fall into mortal sin? They say the two ideas are unreconcilable (in simpler words). I say the science is real and the theology is real, and I chose to acknowledge truth, and reality. But science is just that, a truth. It is not a direction. It can give us a direction to work in. But theology far more gives us an ends to work for than does science.

Darwin hasn’t taught me anything in relation to God except how He made us. Marx has taught me nothing save that man isn’t God. And Freud has taught me nothing save that sexual sins are very dangerous sins I really, really ought to maintain against.

In short, science may be true. But what good is it, if it can’t lead us closer to God?

Evolution has become a belief system for some. I saw Richard Dawkins, a biolgist, on TV. He used the same mountains of evidence to deny God.

And Biology textbook authors overstep their bounds when they touch on theological issues:

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

Peace,
Ed

 

[inocente]

And Biology textbook authors overstep their bounds when they touch on theological issues:

Can’t see your point ed. Are you proposing that no one can ever write anything until it’s stamped by a board of theological censors? That theology is never challenged, that the world must conform to theology? If so, which theology – Christian, Hindu, etc.

 

[edwest2]

Can’t see your point ed. Are you proposing that no one can ever write anything until it’s stamped by a board of theological censors? That theology is never challenged, that the world must conform to theology? If so, which theology – Christian, Hindu, etc.

My point is that theological statements have no place in science textbooks. It’s one thing to inform students about the natural world, and an innapropriate thing for scientists to present their own worldviews as something they would like students to believe.

As a Catholic who is aware of statements that science is silent about God and the supernatural, I am concerned when I see science being used to say God did not do it or was simply not involved in creation.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

My point is that theological statements have no place in science textbooks. It’s one thing to inform students about the natural world, and an innapropriate thing for scientists to present their own worldviews as something they would like students to believe.

Quite true.

As a Catholic who is aware of statements that science is silent about God and the supernatural, I am concerned when I see science being used to say God did not do it or was simply not involved in creation.

I think every Catholic scientists would agree with you.

 

[Al_Moritz]

My point is that theological statements have no place in science textbooks. It’s one thing to inform students about the natural world, and an innapropriate thing for scientists to present their own worldviews as something they would like students to believe.

As a Catholic who is aware of statements that science is silent about God and the supernatural, I am concerned when I see science being used to say God did not do it or was simply not involved in creation.

Peace,
Ed

I agree.

 

[grannymh]

Could you explain about how you do it differently?

Sorry, I can’t do that right now.
Most likely after I got through the objectve, methods, and materials, someone would declare that the research specifications were impossible.

 

[ricmat]

“Pedagogically irresponsible” is not hate language. It is merely a statement of opposition to the pseudo-science of ID being taught in public schools at taxpayer expense.

Taken out of context it is not hate language.

The Dissent from Darwin statement said nothing about ID being taught in public schools at taxpayer expense. This is a red herring that they threw in. Of course they are also opposed to rape, pillage, and plundering which has nothing to do with this. Perhaps if they included such language in their Steve statement, they could get even more signatures.

Yes, I disagree.

OK - You disagree with skepticism, which is what the first part of the dissent from darwin statement refers to.

Yes – all scientific knowledge is provisional, is subject to careful examination, and should be revised if necessary.

So skepticism is good although you disagree with it above. Perhaps what you should really be saying is that skepticism is good, unless it is skepticism of darwinism.

 

[ricmat]

There was a famous attempt by Indiana to legislate truth. More recently there was a hoax about Alabama setting the value of pi to 3, the “Biblical value”.

The Discovery Institute gains no credibility at all by trying to reduce science to politics.

There is no biblical value of pi. The things you refer to were hoaxes.

I looked this up a few years ago the last time it came up on the forums. It sounds really cool to bring up on the forums, but it isn’t what you think it is.

Look at the Discovery web site…what do they say about ID being taught in public schools? I can look it up for you if you can’t find it yourself.

 

[StAnastasia]

OK - You disagree with skepticism, which is what the first part of the dissent from darwin statement refers to. So skepticism is good although you disagree with it above. Perhaps what you should really be saying is that skepticism is good, unless it is skepticism of darwinism.

Skepticism is a good principle. It should be and is applied to the consideration of all scientific theories, including evolution. The NCSE is strongly in agreement with this principle.