Ignorance and evolution

[itinerant1]

There is no conflict. Your conflation of man’s body with his soul is the problem. Our physical selves are different from apes in degree. This is all that science can say.

We are different from apes in kind, because we possess an immortal soul, but that is out of the reach of science.

If this seems wrong to you, I’m sure He will listen, even if He might not be willing to change it for you.

See post 480 to find out if you are even in the ball game on this one.

 

[itinerant1]

How about just showing us a proof in science? That would be a pretty effective argument, wouldn’t it?

IDers think so, at least some of them. Behe, for instance testified that ID is science in the same way that astrology is science.

Who cares about Behe? I don’t.

 

[itinerant1]

Sort of like a pigeon noticing he has a feather on his wing. But of course, the creationists got it right about who they were quote-mining.

His grandfather, who was Darwin’s formost defender would have disagreed with that. Thomas Huxley became engaged to a woman who was shortly thereafter diagnosed to have a fatal and dengerative disease. He married her anyway, and his constant and loving attention helped to restore her health; they had a long and faithful marriage. So perhaps you can understand why the way Thomas Huxley lived his life is far more persuasive than your claim about what Julian Huxley said.

Since you’ve actually read the book, and know exactly what it says, why not post that statment here, so we can see it?

I don’t think I said anything about “Julian Huxley”. Quote me and correct if I said “Julian Huxley” any where. I said Aldous Huxley.

Aldous Leonard Huxley (1894-1963) is the other prominent member of the Huxley family. He was a writer and a humanist. He wrote novels, poetry, and other types of literature. Two of his books are philosophical: “Ends and Means”, and “The Perennial Philosophy”. That’s A. L. Huxley. Capeesh?

Still, I can’t evaluate a person’s interpretation of the Origin based solely on their life style. Neither will I disparage what a person says because he has friends in low places. Isn’t what you are saying about Julian Huxley much like the type of argument you previously criticized, saying the tactic was characteristic of creationists? Remember how you said creationists discredit what Darwin said by saying what an awful person he was because of this or that thing? The argument from character is one you rejected in an earlier post, even though that was not what I was doing. But now you see fit to use such an argument. I’m so confused!

In any case, most of my books are now packed away because the itinerant1 is leaving very soon on a philosophical quest. This also means I will only have sporadic access to the internet. So, I can’t be of any assistance.

 

[Kaninchen]

My interest in discussing induction was not specifically in reference to you, but to certain other folks in the neighborhood. Of course, since you subsequently ask about evidence that science achieves proofs, then that brings me back to discussing induction. An argument, though, cannot be prematurely narrowed to meet the conditions you specified. It may or may not meet those conditions, while still being a logically compelling argument.

Err?

I was relying on memory about your question on conjecture, and I recalled it somewhat incorrectly. Competing scientific theories are what conjectural science is for you. For me, not all scientific theories are conjectural.

If a theory makes no predictions - no statements that are tested by the phenomena that it’s explaining, how on earth could it be described as ‘scientific’?

Hence, there is need for a discussion of induction and synthetic judgments, but it is not that I have the ability or intention of convincing hard-liners of any view different from than their own.

That’s why I suggested that you should assume we’d had the ‘induction’ conversation. Otherwise it would be a bit like trying to sell Christianity to a Jewess really

Before I answer your question about astrology, first tell me whether you think astrology qualifies as a natural science.

Ah, we’re back to me asking you for a methodology - this time for establishing whether astrology was, or was not, a natural science.

It’s terribly, terribly important in the discussion of ‘science’ to home in on ‘method’, you see. Theories don’t stand or fall on rhetorical flourishes but ‘method’ will get them every time (eventually).

 

[Hastrman]

That’s why I suggested that you should assume we’d had the ‘induction’ conversation. Otherwise it would be a bit like trying to sell Christianity to a Jewess really

Wait…Is that a joke? Aren’t you…a lady of the Hebrew persuasion (since it’s apparently rude for a Goy like me to say “Jewess”)?

Ah, we’re back to me asking you for a methodology - this time for establishing whether astrology was, or was not, a natural science.

I would say yes it is, just not a terribly good one. In that it’s based on flawed metaphysics and arguably on flawed cosmology (although the relation between the stars and our lives here was very complex; it’s arguably actually computing everything from the date of birth, which involves seasonal variables that could be non-negligible).

 

[itinerant1]

That’s why I suggested that you should assume we’d had the ‘induction’ conversation. Otherwise it would be a bit like trying to sell Christianity to a Jewess really

Oy vey! Fret not, my Jewess die-hard Popperian friend.

 

[itinerant1]

Musings on the Darwinian grade-less gray continuum continues in defense of the actually existing non-Darwinian, non-creationist varieties of organisms:

Gould, in his review of , says Simpson is thoroughly “committed to the Darwinian view that variety is all and essence is an illusion”.

Then how, according to this view held by Gould, Simpson, and other Darwinists, can varieties exist without things that vary? That is, the idea of gradations without grades means the abolition of things. Along these lines, G.K. Chesterton observed in , that Darwinism could be true if all distinctions, the basis of human reason, disappeared in a gray flux.

Musings on why natural science, as natural science, cannot avoid metaphysics:

What heresy has just been spoken here? Everyone knows natural science concerns itself with physical and not metaphysical reality. Well, this is certainly true in one sense, but not so true in another. By way of illustration, it is common to hear people say, “You can’t legislate morality”. However, this statement reveals a failure to understand of the nature of law. Civil or positive law is specifically the legislating of morality. Every law reflects a moral system. Concerns about law are really about which moral system or values are behind the law. One does not want laws based on an ethical system to which he objects. True cicil or human law reflects the objective natural moral law. A law that contravenes the natural law is not a true law. It is a corruption of law. This situation is common when laws are the product of legal positivism, which does not recognize the natural moral law.

Likewise, the natural sciences cannot escape metaphysics because every scientific statement, from the most trivial, to vast scientific generalizations, reflects a metaphysical vision. None other than Thomas Huxley, himself, realized that a view, which connects data and circumstances remote in space and time, is actually a metaphysical vision: it is philosophical act of faith. Huxley stated this more than once.***** However, other Darwinists failed to see the truth in Huxley’s statement or the fact that evolutionary theory necessarily reflects a metaphysical vision. Darwin’s vision, as revealed in the Origin and Descent is that of philosophical materialism. The materialism is more refined than what he states in his early Notebooks.

Concerns about metaphysics and scientific statements may not be concerns about whether there is a metaphysical vision behind the statements, but rather, which metaphysics is necessarily reflected by the statements. Darwin’s metaphysical vision of materialism, reflected in his “certain” view of man’s mind differing in degree only from that of “higher animals”, the evolution of the human moral sense, and in many other places, is only corrected by a sound, traditional epistemology that sees immateriality as an essential component of every physical thing.

• For example, Huxley says, “Belief, in the scientific sense of the word, is a serious matter, and needs strong foundations. To say, therefore, in the admitted absence of evidence, that I have any belief as to mode in which the existing forms of life have originated, would be using words in a wrong sense. But expectation is permissible where belief is not; but if it were given to me to look beyond the abyss of geologically recorded time to the still more remote period when the earth was passing through physical and chemical conditions, which it can no more see again than a man can recall his infancy, I should expect to be a witness of the evolution of living protoplasm from not living matter. I should expect to see it appear under forms of great simplicity, endowed, like existing fungi, with the power of determining the formation of new protoplasm from such matters as ammonium carbonates, oxalates and tartrates, alkaline and earthy phosphates, and water, without the aid of light. That is the expectation to which analogical reasoning leads me; but I beg you once more to recollect that I have no right to call my opinion anything but an act of philosophical faith.”

Thomas Henry Huxley, : Chapter VIII: Biogenesis and Abiogenesis (The Presidential Address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science for 1870)

 

[Kaninchen]

Likewise, the natural sciences cannot escape metaphysics because every scientific statement, from the most trivial, to vast scientific generalizations, reflects a metaphysical vision. None other than Thomas Huxley, himself, realized that a view, which connects data and circumstances remote in space and time, is actually a metaphysical vision: it is philosophical act of faith.

Knowledge does not legitimize itself by its pedigree - but by its explanatory value and ability to survive severe testing.

Of course science is dependent on metaphysics - otherwise where does the ‘guess’ that is tested come from (remembering my Popperian attitudes to induction outside formal systems)? On the other hand, trying to tie science in with some kind of ‘Metaphysical Vision’ is another matter altogether.

Method, method, method, itinerant1. If you attach some kind of ‘Metaphysical Vision’ component to scientific explanations, you’re doing the equivalent of merely attaching some kind of baroque filigree decoration. ‘Metaphysical Vision’ may give rise to testable research programs but those visions themselves are not testable research programs (by definition).

 

[The_Barbarian]

Still, I can’t evaluate a person’s interpretation of the Origin based solely on their life style.

So your references to Darwin’s supposed personal failings were merely rhetoric? No one is surprised.

Isn’t what you are saying about Julian Huxley much like the type of argument you previously criticized, saying the tactic was characteristic of creationists?

No.

Remember how you said creationists discredit what Darwin said by saying what an awful person he was because of this or that thing?

And you did. More evidence, um?

The argument from character is one you rejected in an earlier post, even though that was not what I was doing. But now you see fit to use such an argument.

No. You first alleged that Thomas Huxley said things that were actually (possibly falsely) attributed to Julian and Aldous Huxley. Then I pointed out that Thomas Huxley could hardly have agreed with the notion you attributed to him ( endorsing Darwin’s theory because it supposedly justified sexual license) because he lived a life directly opposed to such a thing.

I’m so confused!

That’s believable. But sometimes it looks more like “deny everything, make counter-accusations.”

 

[The_Barbarian]

Still, I can’t evaluate a person’s interpretation of the Origin based solely on their life style.

So your references to Darwin’s supposed personal failings were merely rhetoric? No one is surprised.

Isn’t what you are saying about Julian Huxley much like the type of argument you previously criticized, saying the tactic was characteristic of creationists?

No.

Remember how you said creationists discredit what Darwin said by saying what an awful person he was because of this or that thing?

And you did. More evidence, um?

The argument from character is one you rejected in an earlier post, even though that was not what I was doing. But now you see fit to use such an argument.

No. You first alleged that Thomas Huxley said things that were actually (possibly falsely) attributed to Julian and Aldous Huxley. Then I pointed out that Thomas Huxley could hardly have agreed with the notion you attributed to him ( endorsing Darwin’s theory because it supposedly justified sexual license) because he lived a life directly opposed to such a thing.

I’m so confused!

That’s believable. But sometimes it looks more like “deny everything, make counter-accusations.”

Musings on why natural science, as natural science, cannot avoid metaphysics:

Of course. It all depends on one metaphysical assumption; uniformitarianism. So far, it’s worked just fine.

What heresy has just been spoken here? Everyone knows natural science concerns itself with physical and not metaphysical reality.,

Right. So it just assumes that the universe is consistent and knowable, and goes from there. Perhaps you should learn a little about the philosophy of science to see what it works so well.

Likewise, the natural sciences cannot escape metaphysics because every scientific statement, from the most trivial, to vast scientific generalizations, reflects a metaphysical vision. …Darwin’s vision, as revealed in the Origin and Descent is that of philosophical materialism.

You’ve confused methodological naturalism with philosophical materialism. Darwin’s opinon, in the last sentence of The Origin of Species, was that God was behind it all.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species 1872

This, you want us to believe, is “philosophical materialism.” Amazing.

 

[itinerant1]

Knowledge does not legitimize itself by its pedigree - but by its explanatory value and ability to survive severe testing.

Of course science is dependent on metaphysics - otherwise where does the ‘guess’ that is tested come from (remembering my Popperian attitudes to induction outside formal systems)? On the other hand, trying to tie science in with some kind of ‘Metaphysical Vision’ is another matter altogether.

Method, method, method, itinerant1. If you attach some kind of ‘Metaphysical Vision’ component to scientific explanations, you’re doing the equivalent of merely attaching some kind of baroque filigree decoration. ‘Metaphysical Vision’ may give rise to testable research programs but those visions themselves are not testable research programs (by definition).

“Barogue filigree decoration”?

The human mind works in many interesting ways, whether one is aware of it or not. One acts on philosophical judgements even though he may know nothing at all about philosophy. For instance, let us assume one knows nothing at all about philosophy. I mean he does not possess even a little knowledge, that which is just enough to make him dangerous by his tossing around terms like “methodological naturalism” or “philosophical materialism”, of which he only has, at best, a vague understanding. Okay, such a person has never considered the nature of man (or woman), in itself, and decided according to that nature in what happiness consists. Nonetheless, the way this person, who is totally oblivious of things philosophical, and even theological, lives his life, reveals that he has made what is really a philosophical decision. It is not that “happiness” is a subject for philosophy, which it is, but that the normal, average guy on the street often makes what are truly philosophical judgements. He may not be able to argue whether happiness consists in such things as wealth, pleasure, power, honour, or virtue, but his way of life reveals that he has made a particular philosophical decision.

Likewise, politicians may know nothing at all about ethical theories (which would not surprise me), when they write one law after another. However, those laws reflect ethical assumptions, be they false or true.

LIkewise, scientific statments reflect an underlying metaphysics, whether scientists even understand the word “metaphysics” or not. This does not imply that their statements are not necessarily scientific ones. The expression of human judgement in language is multi-level. Concerning intentionality, meanings even go beyond what one intends. There may be meanings in what one said that he was unaware of when he expressed himself in verbal or written language.

Thomas Huxley showed some insight into how certain kinds of statements in science are expressions of philosophical faith. Huxley’s metaphysical vision can be scientifically supported or rejected consequent to additional scientific research.
I think he is on the right track as far as life orginating from non-living matter. It is up to the scientist to continue their endeavors to show how this was possible in that primordial soup. As far as I am I aware, I have posted the only article so far on the internet that explains from philosophical principles why it is possible for non-living matter to give rise to living forms. This particular philosophical explanation did not originate with me, but I am still looking to see if anyone else on the WWW is in cahoots with my explanation, or has some similar explanation.

The magic key to understanding what I was talking about in my previous post can be found towards the last part where I said every physical thing has a non-physical component or aspect to its being. Understanding the relation of the non-physical aspect of physical things in nature to human knowledge is an unveiling of the great mystery. Unfortunately, I can’t explain things in the necessary detail in this particular thread.

Right now I am just wondering why the word “Popperian” brings up the image of popping popcorn. Perhaps it means I should take a break and go make some.

 

[itinerant1]

No. You first alleged that Thomas Huxley said things that were actually (possibly falsely) attributed to Julian and Aldous Huxley. Then I pointed out that Thomas Huxley could hardly have agreed with the notion you attributed to him ( endorsing Darwin’s theory because it supposedly justified sexual license) because he lived a life directly opposed to such a thing.

Always misleading and out of context, you are.

Review your posts on this matter such as 423, 441, and so on.

In your attempt to discredit me you accused me of copying from creationist sources, which is part of your tired screed of accusing me of being a creationist. You will next deny that you said any such thing or try to explain away or gloss over your creationist’s retorts as you tried to do, but failed, regarding your statement that says I disbelieve in the existence of the human soul. Your attempt to explain away what you said about the soul was something I also previously anticipated and posted such. So predictable, you are.

In addition, you did not previously refer to “Aldous Huxley” as your statement above falsley alleges. More Barbarian game playing. The Barbarian said,

“That one has a convoluted history. It turns out you’ve copied an allegation about Julian Huxley by creationists. But the funny part is, that is false, too, depending on a rewriting of a statement by Thomas Huxley, which had nothing to do with sexual ethics.
edwardtbabinski.us/julian_huxley_lie.html”
(posts 423 and again in 444)

Hmm. No “Alduos Huxley” in your quote. Furthermore, you intentionally left out the fact that I actually corrected my reference to T.H. Huxley by saying that I meant “Alduos Huxley”. I posted the correction to the name in post 483. But you already knew that, which is why you can now include the name “Alduous Huxley” and pretend to everyone that you did not make a mistake in your previous accusations about me. You never knew the criticism of the *Origin *I was referring to was actually from Alduos Huxley until I corrected myself in post 483.

It makes no never mind to me anyhow, because, unlike the creationists, I see through your games.

 

[Kaninchen]

“Barogue filigree decoration”?

Master Pangloss taught the metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology. He could prove to admiration that there is no effect without a cause; and, that in this best of all possible worlds, the Baron’s castle was the most magnificent of all castles, and My Lady the best of all possible baronesses.

“It is demonstrable,” said he, “that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end. Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles. The legs are visibly designed for stockings, accordingly we wear stockings. Stones were made to be hewn and to construct castles, therefore My Lord has a magnificent castle; for the greatest baron in the province ought to be the best lodged. Swine were intended to be eaten, therefore we eat pork all the year round: and they, who assert that everything is right, do not express themselves correctly; they should say that everything is best.”​

LIkewise, scientific statments reflect an underlying metaphysics, whether scientists even understand the word “metaphysics” or not. This does not imply that their statements are not necessarily scientific ones. The expression of human judgement in language is multi-level. Concerning intentionality, meanings even go beyond what one intends. There may be meanings in what one said that he was unaware of when he expressed himself in verbal or written language.

You having laid down the challenge, it’s up to me to choose the weapons - Derrida at 40 meters?

Thomas Huxley showed some insight into how certain kinds of statements in science are expressions of philosophical faith. Huxley’s metaphysical vision can be scientifically supported or rejected consequent to additional scientific research.

Explain the research program and its methodology - it may help.

Right now I am just wondering why the word “Popperian” brings up the image of popping popcorn. Perhaps it means I should take a break and go make some.

“There is a concatenation of all events in the best of possible worlds; for, in short, had you not been kicked out of a fine castle for the love of Miss Cunegund; had you not been put into the Inquisition; had you not traveled over America on foot; had you not run the Baron through the body; and had you not lost all your sheep, which you brought from the good country of El Dorado, you would not have been here to eat preserved citrons and pistachio nuts.”

“Excellently observed,” answered Candide; “but let us cultivate our garden.”​

 

[itinerant1]

You’ve confused methodological naturalism with philosophical materialism. Darwin’s opinon, in the last sentence of The Origin of Species, was that God was behind it all.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species 1872

This, you want us to believe, is “philosophical materialism.” Amazing.

You haven’t shown anything worth considering yet. First, you haven’t said anything about why this statement is not consistent with other statements Darwin made about God. Second, you have not accounted for Darwin’s changing theological views made in consideration of the consequences of this theory of evolution. Third, assuming Darwin’s statement actually reflects his view about a Creator, then you have not explained how his theory of evolution might possibly be consistent with belief in a Creator.

Consistency with the assumed position that Darwin has some kind of belief in a Creator, which we are interpreting to mean God, involves, among other things, properly addressing Darwin’s conception of man’s mind as differing in degree only from higher animals, and the evolutionary origin of the human moral sense. So far, these issues have not been correctly addressed by you.

Those are just a few reasons why what you have said here gives nothing to consider in regard to the issues presented.

 

[itinerant1]

You having laid down the challenge, it’s up to me to choose the weapons - Derrida at 40 meters?

If you mean Jacques Derrida, that’s a lose-lose challenge. Derrida doesn’t shoot straight. His move is to use reason to subordinate reason to will. It’s a lateral move away from philosophy.

Explain the research program and its methodology - it may help.

I gave one extended quote from Huxley at the bottom of post 486. The book is a good collection of essays for one to read while eating popcorn. One essay has good advice for students, etc.

“There is a concatenation of all events in the best of possible worlds; for, in short, had you not been kicked out of a fine castle for the love of Miss Cunegund; had you not been put into the Inquisition; had you not traveled over America on foot; had you not run the Baron through the body; and had you not lost all your sheep, which you brought from the good country of El Dorado, you would not have been here to eat preserved citrons and pistachio nuts.”“Excellently observed,” answered Candide; “but let us cultivate our garden.”​

Just when I thought I had Voltaire figured out, I learned he had a private chapel built in which Mass was celebrated and he recieved communion. Does this mean he sought the best of all existing worlds, even though those worlds are diametrically opposed? Perhaps he was smoking something from Candide’s garden.

 

[Kaninchen]

If you mean Jacques Derrida, that’s a lose-lose challenge. Derrida doesn’t shoot straight. His move is to use reason to subordinate reason to will. It’s a lateral move away from philosophy.

Beware hubris.

I gave one extended quote from Huxley at the bottom of post 486. The book is a good collection of essays for one to read while eating popcorn. One essay has good advice for students, etc.

One extended quote does not a research program and methodology describe.

Just when I thought I had Voltaire figured out, I learned he had a private chapel built in which Mass was celebrated and he recieved communion. Does this mean he sought the best of all existing worlds, even though those worlds are diametrically opposed? Perhaps he was smoking something from Candide’s garden.

Beats smoking popcorn, I expect.

I’m sorry, itinerant1, but method really, really matters and there comes a time when you have to move beyond rhetoric into the world of consequences - how would ‘itinerant1’ scientific method work?

 

[itinerant1]

Beware hubris.

One extended quote does not a research program and methodology describe.

Beats smoking popcorn, I expect.

I’m sorry, itinerant1, but method really, really matters and there comes a time when you have to move beyond rhetoric into the world of consequences - how would ‘itinerant1’ scientific method work?

No need to feel sorry. My original challenge was for a certain someone to show that Darwin’s most certain conclusion, that man’s mind differs from that of higher animals in degree only, and that the human moral sense is a product of evolution, is anything but gross materialism. These are points on which Wallace and Lyell depart from Darwin. I am still waiting for a serious response from anyone.

In this context, for one to interject the belief that “nothing in science is provable”, merely serves as a distraction from the issue at hand while providing illusory grounds for ultimately rejecting any conclusion contrary to one’s own beliefs because any such conclusion would be deemed “not provable”, that is, according to one who does not correctly understand the nature of knowledge, truth, induction, and synthetic judgements.

Furthermore, the belief that “nothing in science is provable” is not something that is proven or disproven in terms of “research methodolgy”, since that would mean to assume the very position that one party to the dispute believes can offer no proof. If it is believed that research methodology cannot prove anything then it is illogical to begin with research methodology. On the other hand, to arrive at an acceptable answer to the problem of proof in science, one must critique research methodology from a position a higher discipline. Otherwise, it would be even an ever stranger state of affairs than the Oval Office investigating itself to determine if there was any wrong doing on the part of the president.

This may disappoint someone standing ready and waiting in the laboratory hallway with half-dozen Popperian arguments loaded in their revolver, and even more weighing down their ammo belt. But because of where I’m from, my choice of platforms would have to be the *philosophia perennis *at 5 paces, using my weapons of choice: Jacques Maritain and Etienne Gilson. You should have seen what I did one day with these two 50 caliber French revolvers to Jacques Derrida and his Hobby Horse. It wasn’t a pretty sight! And it wasn’t hubris. It was justice.

 

[Kaninchen]

As a Jew(ess), I’ve always had a sneaking feeling that the genius of Christianity lay in inventing an illness and announcing itself to be the only cure (only then, of course, to split into various groups all of which said that not only had they the only cure but that all the other cures would make the illness worse).

I rather think that ‘itinerant1 Science’ has similar features.

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Barbarian shows that Darwin attributed the orgin of life to God in The Origin of Species)

You haven’t shown anything worth considering yet.

I showed you his opinion on the matter. He gets to decide what He thought about it.

First, you haven’t said anything about why this statement is not consistent with other statements Darwin made about God. Second, you have not accounted for Darwin’s changing theological views made in consideration of the consequences of this theory of evolution.

Whatever made Darwin “leaning toward agnosticism” late in life, he was an orthodox Anglican when he was most involved in evolutionary theory. I am aware that some say a lie is all right, if it has a beneficial effect. That there are truths with unfortunate effects on some people, is not license to lie.

Third, assuming Darwin’s statement actually reflects his view about a Creator,

As I said, he gets to say what he thought.

then you have not explained how his theory of evolution might possibly be consistent with belief in a Creator.

How could creation be consistent with a Creator? Gee, that’s a hard one. How do you think it’s inconsistent with a Creator?

Those are just a few reasons why what you have said here gives nothing to consider in regard to the issues presented.

It did get you to come out of the closet for a second. Stealth creationist, um? And you think the Pope is wrong to accept God’s creation is consistent with evolution, therefore?

I think we’re done here.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Always misleading and out of context, you are.

You’re outraged precisely because I restored the context. I’ll do it again, if you complain.

In your attempt to discredit me you accused me of copying from creationist sources, which is part of your tired screed of accusing me of being a creationist.

See the post directly below. If you waddle around, quacking, you can hardly complain about being taken for a duck.

You will next deny that you said any such thing or try to explain away or gloss over your creationist’s retorts as you tried to do, but failed, regarding your statement that says I disbelieve in the existence of the human soul.

Never said you did. Would you like to see that one in context again?

It makes no never mind to me anyhow, because, unlike the creationists, I see through your games.

Like the creationists, when your argument collapses, you fall into mere name-calling. That’s not why you seem to be a creationist, however. It’s because you have copied their arguments. A prime example:

Likewise, the natural sciences cannot escape metaphysics because every scientific statement, from the most trivial, to vast scientific generalizations, reflects a metaphysical vision. …Darwin’s vision, as revealed in the Origin and Descent is that of philosophical materialism.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species 1872
This, you want us to believe, is “philosophical materialism.” Amazing.