Meet the Prizewinning Catholic Biologist Creationists Can’t Stand

  • Thread starter Thread starter JordanJD
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“Junk DNA” having regulatory function does not prove or disprove intelligent design or evolution.

Gain of genetic sequences through duplication, transpositions, etc can lead to those sequences regulating the expression of nearby (or far away) genes.

Those who espouse literal creationism believe (theistic) evolutionists are modernist heretics. Those who espouse (theistic) evolution believe literalists/creationists are mis/uninformed of scientific findings. There may be some elements of truth to both…
 
JordanJD said:
Wow, creationists also are climate change deniers?! tickle me surprised :rolleyes:

salon.com/2014/02/05/ken_ham_mans_fall_is_responsible_for_climate_change/
Click to expand...
I take it that your tendency to pigeonhole individuals into broad classes like “creationist” or “theistic evolutionist” will also be “surprised” and shocked to find that there exist atheist skeptics who deny that evolution in its most naturalistic form is anything like sufficiently demonstrated.

subversivethinking.blogspot.ca/search?q=Evolution

Even more will it “surprise” you that certified Mensa members exist who are skeptical of both evolution of the NS acting on RM variety and climate change of the Gorean variety.

voxday.blogspot.ca/search?q=Evolution

You may want to indulge in some critical thinking here…

conservapedia.com/Evolution
 
JordanJD said:
The Creationists, IDers, and Literalists are the 21st century snake oil salesmen. They try and package their magical mumbo jumbo into scientific sounding jargon but thankfully the majority of Catholic scientists, including those who directly work at the Vatican, call out this bovine poo. Sadly though many rank and file Catholics fall for this witchdoctor voodoo, which is even more ironic because the biggest proponents of creationism are the hostile anti-Catholic fundamentalists.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say that “many” rank and file Catholics fall for it - but certainly some do. I have yet to meet a YEC Catholic in the flesh; although I run into them on line all the time. (Well, mostly on this forum.)
 
edwest2 said:
My point is, science, as a tool, is being used as a bludgeon. Science is the answer. The only answer. **
"Some people have very good reasons to be suspicious of scientists and science. In the last week, for example, a researcher from Tufts University was barred from doing research with humans after feeding GM golden rice to Chinese study participants without informing them it had been genetically modified. I’d be peeved.**
Code: 
"Explore, understand and accept that science doesn’t know everything. Take your time if this is difficult, but try to accept this broadly, and come to terms with it deeply. There are complexities inherent in human interactions that invoking “science” doesn’t magically nullify. This is not some vague, post-modernist, anti-science position: it’s just true. **If it weren’t, then problems such as this golden rice brawl would not occur."**
Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Could you elaborate please. I’m not grasping this. :o
 
Peter_Plato said:
I take it that your tendency to pigeonhole individuals into broad classes like “creationist” or “theistic evolutionist” will also be “surprised” and shocked to find that there exist atheist skeptics who deny that evolution in its most naturalistic form is anything like sufficiently demonstrated.

subversivethinking.blogspot.ca/search?q=Evolution

Even more will it “surprise” you that certified Mensa members exist who are skeptical of both evolution of the NS acting on RM variety and climate change of the Gorean variety.

voxday.blogspot.ca/search?q=Evolution

You may want to indulge in some critical thinking here…

conservapedia.com/Evolution
Click to expand...
Thank you for posting that. Putting groups of unknown size into pigeon holes happens too often on internet forums in general. Doing research takes time.

Peace,
Ed
 
Peter_Plato said:
I take it that your tendency to pigeonhole individuals into broad classes like “creationist” or “theistic evolutionist” will also be “surprised” and shocked to find that there exist atheist skeptics who deny that evolution in its most naturalistic form is anything like sufficiently demonstrated.

subversivethinking.blogspot.ca/search?q=Evolution

Even more will it “surprise” you that certified Mensa members exist who are skeptical of both evolution of the NS acting on RM variety and climate change of the Gorean variety.

voxday.blogspot.ca/search?q=Evolution

You may want to indulge in some critical thinking here…

conservapedia.com/Evolution
Click to expand...
Conservapedia? Conservapedia?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh man, my sides, my sides just left orbit

Thank you, I need a good laugh

Please inform me next time you plan on linking to North Korean State News Agency
 
JordanJD said:
Conservapedia? Conservapedia?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh man, my sides, my sides just left orbit

Thank you, I need a good laugh

Please inform me next time you plan on linking to North Korean State News Agency
Click to expand...
The response I expected.

Your posts (at least on this thread) lack anything in the way of contributing to reasoned discourse and you seem to have difficulty rising above the level of mere detraction.

Try engaging in some self-reflection. Why, exactly, would you get “a good laugh” from any view not held by you? Superiority? Certainty regarding your intellectual abilities? Or mere assurance that you are “backing the right horse,” by all accounts “the winner?”
 
Peter_Plato said:
The response I expected.

Your posts (at least on this thread) lack anything in the way of contributing to reasoned discourse and you seem to have difficulty rising above the level of mere detraction.

Try engaging in some self-reflection. Why, exactly, would you get “a good laugh” from any view not held by you? Superiority? Certainty regarding your intellectual abilities? Or mere assurance that you are “backing the right horse,” by all accounts “the winner?”
Click to expand...
Would you please explain to all of us why you link to a website that calls mathematics “Satanic”?
 
JordanJD said:
Would you please explain to all of us why you link to a website that calls mathematics “Satanic”?
Click to expand...
I think you are missing my point.

The reason I provided that website was for you to extract a very simple (for you) to debunk position from that site, reflect on it and then provide a compelling argument against it. You haven’t done so. What you’ve done is apply detraction (again) rather than use logic.

Your “argument” amounts to “they call mathematics Satanic” therefore everything they claim must be false. Even doing this, you’ve failed to provide anything by way of proper citation. A link perhaps to where they called “mathematics ‘Satanic’” would be a start.

My overall point is that if you have something important to say on a subject then make a case. Merely pointing out how “stupid” or “ignorant” others are in holding a position contrary to yours adds precisely nothing to the debate.
 
Peter_Plato said:
I think you are missing my point.

The reason I provided that website was for you to extract a very simple (for you) to debunk position from that site, reflect on it and then provide a compelling argument against it. You haven’t done so. What you’ve done is apply detraction (again) rather than use logic.

Your “argument” amounts to “they call mathematics Satanic” therefore everything they claim must be false. Even doing this, you’ve failed to provide anything by way of proper citation. A link perhaps to where they called “mathematics ‘Satanic’” would be a start.

My overall point is that if you have something important to say on a subject then make a case. Merely pointing out how “stupid” or “ignorant” others are in holding a position contrary to yours adds precisely nothing to the debate.
Click to expand...
That whole website is based on garbage and falsehoods. I don’t have the time or patience to debunk even one article there since I would need to destroy it sentence by sentence

Luckily someone has done that homework already:

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia
 
edwest2 said:
First, the writer I’m quoting points out rule number one for scientists who use human beings as test subjects - you must inform them of what they are getting, the possible risk involved, and get their informed consent, in writing.

nature.com/news/china-sacks-officials-over-golden-rice-controversy-1.11998

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Thank you. But how does that answer this:
There are complexities inherent in human interactions that invoking “science” doesn’t magically nullify. This is not some vague, post-modernist, anti-science position: it’s just true. If it weren’t, then problems such as this golden rice brawl would not occur."
Click to expand...
Are you saying science doesn’t outweigh the morality of the test. e.g complexities inherent in human interactions
 
JordanJD said:
That whole website is based on garbage and falsehoods. I don’t have the time or patience to debunk even one article there since I would need to destroy it sentence by sentence

Luckily someone has done that homework already:

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia
Click to expand...
Why do I get the sense that your entire world view is based on someone else doing “that homework already?”

Perhaps the “someone” who “has done that homework already” has entrenched biases and his/her own stockpile of “garbage and falsehoods.” Of course, we do not need to make time or have the patience to “debunk” those “sentence by sentence” if they correspond to our own cherished set of beliefs.

Which takes me back to my general point…

Why bother posting detraction of views contrary to yours merely to muddy the water by denigrating holders of those views? Why not address the points directly?

If a creationist is making an error of logic or evidence, show the error. To answer that creationism is flawed because it is the position of creationists is completely unhelpful; worse, actually, because a false impression is left to stand in the place of the truth.
 
JordanJD said:
That whole website is based on garbage and falsehoods. I don’t have the time or patience to debunk even one article there since I would need to destroy it sentence by sentence

Luckily someone has done that homework already:

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia
Click to expand...
From the website you posted.
The site was launched on 21 November 2006 by Andrew Schlafly,[1] spawn of professional anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly,[2]
Click to expand...
By your logic, we should not believe anything on this site because of that statement alone.
 
The site was launched on 21 November 2006 by Andrew Schlafly,[1] spawn of professional anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly,[2]
Click to expand...
qui_est_ce said:
From the website you posted.
By your logic, we should not believe anything on this site because of that statement alone.
Click to expand...
The logic that would conclude one site to be errant about everything on the basis of its claims RE: mathematics being the “spawn of Satan” (citation still not provided, however) ought to be the same logic that condemns the other site as equally errant about everything on the basis of its claims RE: Schlafly being the spawn of a "professional anti-feminist” (citation provided above.)

The “logic” is actually a weird admixture of the Fallacy of Origins and the Fallacy of Composition

It seems apparent that “professional anti-feminists” are equivalent, morally speaking, to Satan from the point of view of RationalWiki, since being the “spawn” of either would make the thing equally reprehensible.
 
Peter_Plato said:
The logic that would conclude one site to be errant about everything on the basis of its claims RE: mathematics being the “spawn of Satan” (citation still not provided, however) ought to be the same logic that condemns the other site as equally errant about everything on the basis of its claims RE: Schlafly being the spawn of a "professional anti-feminist” (citation provided above.)

The “logic” is actually a weird admixture of the Fallacy of Origins and the Fallacy of Composition

It seems apparent that “professional anti-feminists” are equivalent, morally speaking, to Satan from the point of view of RationalWiki, since being the “spawn” of either would make the thing equally reprehensible.
Click to expand...
This is why I like to follow your posts! Thanks.
 
manualman said:
This is pretty close to what I said earlier, with one big divergence where I disagree with you. Atheistic evolutionists make the error of conflating science with reality. Science is a tool that is often useful for comprehending reality. To assert that nothing is real unless demonstrated via the scientific method is oxymoronic logic (self refuting).

Where believers can sometimes take offense is by making the SAME mistake. When believers get offended that a science textbook author refuses to give consideration to the possibility that miracles occurred at certain points in time, they give evidence that they ALSO are thinking along lines in which science = reality.
Click to expand...
As I said in my post,‘God’s creative activity is not the same thing as a miracle. A miracle is an event that God makes happen which goes against the normal,expected course of nature. But when God creates things,he is not causing nature to do something against its usual course,he is making things come into existence.’

I don’t expect science to acknowledge supernatural power,but science should be logical in its assessment of causes and effects. But because scientists have a professional commitment to natural,mechanical explanations,they are sometimes led to errors in logic,attributing to natural things the power to do what is impossible for them. They make these errors in regard to the source of matter,order in nature,life,species and thought. These things are all directly caused by the power of God.
Science is only science. It’s necessary and OK for it to have naturalistic / atheistic / deistic assumptions. It has to be functionally atheistic or everybody will merely go “OHP! Miracle! Can’t explain that one with science” every time something doesn’t fit the prevailing theory. The naturalistic assumption of the scientific method forces the scientist to keep working at things they don’t understand. What you and I need to do better is to educate the general public that the scientific method is a LIMITED tool that is USUALLY, but not always helpful for understanding reality, not the magic harness by which the universe can be entirely understood and thus controlled.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t follow that without the naturalistic assumption,people will always claim miracles. We can analyze and reason about natural phenomena without naturalism. People don’t claim that common natural phenomena are miracles. People don’t say that gravity or light or rain or lightning or thunder or storms are miracles,unless perhaps they have some reason to suspect that God is giving a sign. Christians believe that God directs nature,but that is belief in divine providence,not just belief in miracles.
The proper place for scientific inquiry and comprehension is in the professional compartment of the scientist’s mind. All too many let it take over their entire brain instead. Not a healthy place to be. We’d have a lot less conflict over scientific issues if people properly understood the scope and limitations of the scientific method itself.
Click to expand...
Scientists themselves don’t know the limitations of their methods. Since they think that natural causes are sufficient to correctly explain all natural phenomena,they misinterpret the abilities of natural causes.
 
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P19.HTM

From the Catechism:

God upholds and sustains creation

301 With creation, God does not abandon his creatures to themselves. He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end. Recognizing this utter dependence with respect to the Creator is a source of wisdom and freedom, of joy and confidence:

For you love all things that exist, and detest none of the things that you have made; for you would not have made anything if you had hated it. How would anything have endured, if you had not willed it? Or how would anything not called forth by you have been preserved? You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord, you who love the living.160

V. GOD CARRIES OUT HIS PLAN: DIVINE PROVIDENCE

302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. the universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call “divine providence” the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection:

By his providence God protects and governs all things which he has made, “reaching mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and ordering all things well”. For “all are open and laid bare to his eyes”, even those things which are yet to come into existence through the free action of creatures.161

303 The witness of Scripture is unanimous that the solicitude of divine providence is concrete and immediate; God cares for all, from the least things to the great events of the world and its history. the sacred books powerfully affirm God’s absolute sovereignty over the course of events: "Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases."162 and so it is with Christ, “who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens”.163 As the book of Proverbs states: "Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will be established."164

304 And so we see the Holy Spirit, the principal author of Sacred Scripture, often attributing actions to God without mentioning any secondary causes. This is not a “primitive mode of speech”, but a profound way of recalling God’s primacy and absolute Lordship over history and the world,165 and so of educating his people to trust in him. the prayer of the Psalms is the great school of this trust.166

305 Jesus asks for childlike abandonment to the providence of our heavenly Father who takes care of his children’s smallest needs: "Therefore do not be anxious, saying, “What shall we eat?” or “What shall we drink?”. . . Your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well."167

Providence and secondary causes

306 God is the sovereign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures’ co-operation. This use is not a sign of weakness, but rather a token of almighty God’s greatness and goodness. For God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other, and thus of co-operating in the accomplishment of his plan.

307 To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of “subduing” the earth and having dominion over it.168 God thus enables men to be intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation, to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbours. Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their prayers and their sufferings.169 They then fully become “God’s fellow workers” and co-workers for his kingdom.170

308 The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator. God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes: "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure."171 Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it. Drawn from nothingness by God’s power, wisdom and goodness, it can do nothing if it is cut off from its origin, for "without a Creator the creature vanishes."172 Still less can a creature attain its ultimate end without the help of God’s grace.173
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top