Myth of evolution and new drug discovery

[StAnastasia]

I linked it because StA ridicules the ancients and I was trying to show the ancients were not the simpletons she claims.

buffalo, surely even you are not that truth-challenged. I never ridiculed the ancients. I said that Aristotle’s crystalline spheres do not exist, and I said that "You cannot look to Basil of Caesarea for accurate cosmology. " How do either of these true statements imply that I’m ridiculing the ancients?

 

[buffalo]

Got that reference yet that states that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle (Greek), Galen, Ptolemy, Pliny (Roman), Aryhabata, Brahmagupta (Indian), Ibn Sahl, Avicenna and Alhazen (Islamic) did not believe that the universe is orderly?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

The pagans argued against all of these:

1. Nature is real, not an illusion / God is Creator

• Psalm 33:6,9; Genesis 1:7,9,11,15,24,30 — “And it was so.” Objects in nature have real existence. This contrasts with (e.g.) Hinduism, which teaches that the everyday world of material objects is maya, an illusion.
  
  2. Nature is good, not inherently evil / God is good
• Genesis 1:4,10,12,18,21,25,31 — “it was (very) good.” The ancient Greeks often equated the material world with evil and disorder — manual labour was relegated to slaves, while philosophers sought a life of leisure to pursue ‘higher things.’ Many historians believe this is one reason the Greeks did not develop an empirical science, which would require practical, hands-on observation and experimentation.

“. . . there has never been room in the Hebrew or Christian tradition for the idea that the material world is something to be escaped from, and that work in it is degrading. Material things are to be used to the glory of God and for the good of men.”
— Mary Hesse, British philosopher of science (Pearcey and Thaxton, p. 23)
“I give you thanks, Creator and God, that you have given me this joy in thy creation, and I rejoice in the works of your hands. See I have now completed the work to which I was called. In it I have used all the talents you have lent to my spirit.”

— Johannes Kepler, seventeenth century astronomer (Pearcey and Thaxton, p. 23)
3. Nature is to be enjoyed and investigated, not worshiped / God is One, and is distinct from his creation

• Genesis 1:26-28; 2:15,16,19,20; Exodus 20:1-4; Romans 1:25; I Kings 4:29-34.

“The monotheism of the Bible exorcised the gods of nature, freeing humanity to enjoy and investigate it without fear. When the world was no longer an object of worship, then—and only then—could it become an object of study.” (Pearcey and Thaxton, p. 24)
“The veneration, wherewith men are imbued for what they call nature, has been a discouraging impediment to the empire of man over the inferior creatures of God: for many have not only looked upon it, as an impossible thing to compass, but as something impious to attempt, the removing of those boundaries which nature seems to have put and settled among her productions; and whilst they look upon her as such a venerable thing, some make a kind of scruple of conscience to endeavor so to emulate any of her works, as to excel them.” [emphasis added]

— Robert Boyle, seventeenth century chemist (Pearcey and Thaxton, p. 251)
4. Nature is reliable, not disorderly / God is faithful

• Genesis 8:22; Psalm 104:19-24.

“As I try to discern the origin of that conviction [that the universe is ordered], I seem to find it in a basic notion discovered 2000 or 3000 years ago, and enunciated first in the Western world by the ancient Hebrews: namely, that the universe is governed by a single God, and is not the product of the whims of many gods, each governing his own province according to his own laws. This monotheistic view seems to be the historical foundation for modern science.”
— Melvin Calvin, Nobel prize-winning biochemist (Pearcey and Thaxton, p. 25)
**
**

 

[buffalo]

5. Nature is lawful, not irrational / God is Law-giver

• Jeremiah 31:35-36; Psalm 19:1-2,4b-11.

“The phrase ‘laws of nature’ is so familiar to the modern mind that we are generally unaware of its uniqueness. People in pagan cultures who see nature as alive and moved by mysterious forces are not likely to develop the conviction that all natural occurrences are lawful and intelligible. . . . As historian A. R. Hall points out, the concept of natural law was unknown to both the ancient Western world and the Asian world. When the concept finally arose in the Middle Ages, Hall says, it signified ‘a notable departure’ from anything that had gone before.” (Pearcey and Thaxton, p. 26)
6. Nature is precise, not capricious / God is fully in control

• Hebrews 11:3; Job 42:1-2.

“The Biblical God created the universe ex nihilo and hence has absolute control over it. Genesis paints a picture of a Workman completely in charge of His materials. . . . In all other religions, the creation of the world begins with some kind of pre-existing substance with its own inherent nature. As a result, the creator is not absolute and does not have the freedom to mold the world exactly as he wills.” (Pearcey and Thaxton, p. 27)
“Matter in the Platonic sense, which must be ‘prevailed upon’ by reason, will not obey mathematical laws exactly: matter which God has created from nothing may well strictly follow the rules which its Creator has laid down for it. In this sense I called modern science a legacy, I might even have said a child, of Christianity.”

— C. F. von Weizsacker, noted twentieth century physicist (Pearcey and Thaxton, p. 28)
7. Nature is intelligible by man / God created man in his image

• Genesis 1:26; Psalm 8.

“Belief in a rational order in nature would have no practical benefit for science were it not accompanied by the belief that humans can discover that order. . . . Joseph Needham, a student of Chinese culture, asks in his book The Grand Titration why the Chinese never developed modern science. The reason, he said, is that the Chinese had no belief either in an intelligible order in nature nor in the human ability to decode an order should it exist.” (Pearcey and Thaxton, p. 29)
8. Nature must be studied and experimented on in order to gain knowledge / God created freely, and his ways are above our ways

• Isaiah 44:24; 55:8-9. Aristotle (followed by Thomas Aquinas) stressed logic and deduction, rather than observation and experimentation. Such an approach tended to confine nature to what human thinking could rationally deduce. Christians influenced by Aristotle viewed the universe as “a necessarily determined emanation from God’s reason, instead of a free creation of His will” (Pearcey and Thaxton, pp. 31-32). Early scientists, such as Van Helmont, Boyle, and Newton, rejected Aristotelian thinking and supported a “voluntarist theology,” which held that God created freely, unrestrained by any predetermined restrictions or logical necessities.

“As historian John Hedley Brooke puts it, ‘If the workings of nature reflected the free agency of a divine will, then the only way to uncover them was by empirical investigation. No armchair science, premised on how God must have organized things, was permissible.’ Science must observe and experiment.” (Pearcey and Thaxton, p. 33)
9. Nature ought to be studied, in order to glorify God and benefit man / God has commanded man to subdue nature and to love one another

• Genesis 1:26; 2:19-20; Romans 13:8-10.
  
  “. . . as science historian P. M. Rattansi argues, it is now generally accepted that the Christian concept of moral obligation played an important role in attracting people to the study of nature. . . . In his words, Protestant principles ‘encouraged a commitment to the study of God’s “Book of Nature” as complementing the study of the book of God’s word. They imposed a religious obligation to make such study serve the twin ends of glorifying God and benefiting fellow-men.’ ” (Pearcey and Thaxton, pp. 35-36)

 

[itinerant1]

Christians influenced by Aristotle viewed the universe as “a necessarily determined emanation from God’s reason, instead of a free creation of His will” (Pearcey and Thaxton, pp. 31-32). Early scientists, such as Van Helmont, Boyle, and Newton, rejected Aristotelian thinking and supported a “voluntarist theology,” which held that God created freely, unrestrained by any predetermined restrictions or logical necessities.

Can you name some of the Christians influenced by Aristotle who were emanationists, a view more often associated with the influence of Plotinus?

 

[itinerant1]

“As I try to discern the origin of that conviction [that the universe is ordered], I seem to find it in a basic notion discovered 2000 or 3000 years ago, and enunciated first in the Western world by the ancient Hebrews: namely, that the universe is governed by a single God, and is not the product of the whims of many gods, each governing his own province according to his own laws. This monotheistic view seems to be the historical foundation for modern science.”

Buffalo, I read over your quotes again, and I find that while they may be generally true, there is much to disagree with as a matter of history. I will use just the quote above as an example, not wishing to spend time on everything you posted.

I agree that the historical foundation for modern science has its roots in Revelation. But you have discounted a parallel development in Greece, where reason first arose. As one pope has referred to Athens as “that home of all learning”.

The pre-Socratics of Ionia and Milesia searched for natural causes of the events in nature, and generally rejected mythological explanations. Later, in regard to God, Aristotle clearly reached for a monistic system, and adopted the Homeric phrase “the rule of many is not good; one ruler let there be.”

Aristotle’s arguments for a prime mover, etc. assume an orderly universe.

Aristotle’s rotating concentric spheres, a theory he adopted from Eudoxus and modified, also reflects the belief in an orderly universe. Though there is an element of disorder in Aristotle’s universe, he knew nature was generally orderly, rational and intelligible. His doctrine of the four causes, which includes final causes or purpose testifies to this.

In biology, Aristotle’s classification system stood the test of time, and was not improved on until Linnaeus.This involved a lot of collecting, examination and dissection of hundreds of species. This fact means that your quote about Aristotle and the deductive method is an exaggeration. It is mainly true with Aristotle’s physics, in which he used a substantive logic throughout. Hence, there is no scientific value at all in his scientific physics in the Physica, only what pertains to his philosophical physics, I think is of lasting worth.

Many Greeks believed in the order of the universe. For example, the physician Hippocrates stressed the need to be in tune with nature.

I could continue with many counter-examples that show the need for modification of many of your quotes. My advice is for you to select your sources with a little more discretion.

BTW, NASA bombed the moon only after shooting a passage way through the firmament.

Chill out, bro.

 

[John_Pascendi]

WELL ,with what certain humans …! have done to freedom and liberty in so many centuries…I kinda believe maybe humans did NOT descend from the ape but the jackass!..Pas

 

[StAnastasia]

WELL ,with what certain humans …! have done to freedom and liberty in so many centuries…I kinda believe maybe humans did NOT descend from the ape but the jackass!..Pas

No, from a common ancestor with the apes.

 

[redneck22]

WELL ,with what certain humans …! have done to freedom and liberty in so many centuries…I kinda believe maybe humans did NOT descend from the ape but the jackass!..Pas

Good observation!..and if they believe they came from animals, then you can’t blame them when they act like animals.

.

 

[itinerant1]

Good observation!..and if they believe they came from animals, then you can’t blame them when they act like animals.

.

Useless and provocative comments are no substitute for informed and intelligent discussion.

 

[redneck22]

Useless and provocative comments are no substitute for informed and intelligent discussion.

Your right Itinerant 1, let me expand.

Jeffery Lionel Dahmer killer of 17 people, said, "“If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s—what’s the point of—of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought, anyway. I always believed the ***theory of evolution as truth ***that we all just came from the slime. When we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing … ” docstoc.com/docs/11381719/Jeffrey-Lionel-Dahmer

Then there is Columbine," when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed Darrell Scott’s daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and 12 other students and teachers at Columbine High School, the two teens used Charles Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” theory to justify their actions. Harris even wore a “natural selection” T-shirt on the day of the killings.headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/afa/282003a.asp

I suppose they acted consistently with their beliefs, what they have been taught in biology, that we are animals. Ideas have consequences and you will know them by their fruits.

 

[pzona]

This is a common problem; theists don’t realize that morality is not necessarily based in theism. Obviously atheists (not all of them at least) don’t condone murder any more than a theist would. Some people act irrationally regardless of their religious beliefs. See: Inquisition.

 

[liquidpele]

Your right Itinerant 1, let me expand.

Jeffery Lionel Dahmer killer of 17 people, said, "“If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s—what’s the point of—of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought, anyway. I always believed the ***theory of evolution as truth ***that we all just came from the slime. When we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing … ” docstoc.com/docs/11381719/Jeffrey-Lionel-Dahmer

Then there is Columbine," when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed Darrell Scott’s daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and 12 other students and teachers at Columbine High School, the two teens used Charles Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” theory to justify their actions. Harris even wore a “natural selection” T-shirt on the day of the killings.headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/afa/282003a.asp

I suppose they acted consistently with their beliefs, what they have been taught in biology, that we are animals. Ideas have consequences and you will know them by their fruits.

Oh please, that’s like pointing to some killer that happens to be Catholic and saying “Look, Catholicism breeds murderers”… it’s ridiculous.

 

[buffalo]

This is a common problem; theists don’t realize that morality is not necessarily based in theism. Obviously atheists (not all of them at least) don’t condone murder any more than a theist would. Some people act irrationally regardless of their religious beliefs. See: Inquisition.

Oh yes it is - morality is based on absolute truth.

Why didn’t the first atheist kill the second?

 

[liquidpele]

Why didn’t the first atheist kill the second?

… because morality is not based on theism?

 

[Matthias123]

Oh please, that’s like pointing to some killer that happens to be Catholic and saying “Look, Catholicism breeds murderers”… it’s ridiculous.

I agree with you; however I think we can agree that teaching evolution to children, without grounding them somehow in philosophy is a bad idea. Evolution per se, isn’t really the problem here, but it is the ideology that piggybacks along with it. I would argue that this particular ideology, when it is followed to its logical conclusions, result in this kind of thinking, unless it is supplemented by some philosophy of ethics. Otherwise, it teaches our children that there are no holds barred, and it is basically every man for himself – nobody wants a whole generation to believe this…

 

[liquidpele]

I agree with you; however I think we can agree that teaching evolution to children, without grounding them somehow in philosophy is a bad idea. Evolution per se, isn’t really the problem here, but it is the ideology that piggybacks along with it. I would argue that this particular ideology, when it is followed to its logical conclusions, result in this kind of thinking, unless it is supplemented by some philosophy of ethics. Otherwise, it teaches our children that there are no holds barred, and it is basically every man for himself – nobody wants a whole generation to believe this…

I think you give too much credit to the “idiology that piggybacks along with it” there.
I’ve long maintained (even arguing with other atheists) that violent people will be violent regardless of whatever rationalization they actually find for it. That said, I do agree that evolution should not be making any claims on what the overall purpose behind life and the universe is, at least not in a public school anyway. I’d also be for teaching philosophy in public schools, but I question whether there are enough qualified teachers to pull it off.

 

[itinerant1]

Your right Itinerant 1, let me expand.

Jeffery Lionel Dahmer killer of 17 people, said, "“If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s—what’s the point of—of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought, anyway. I always believed the ***theory of evolution as truth ***that we all just came from the slime. When we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing … ” docstoc.com/docs/11381719/Jeffrey-Lionel-Dahmer

Then there is Columbine," when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed Darrell Scott’s daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and 12 other students and teachers at Columbine High School, the two teens used Charles Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” theory to justify their actions. Harris even wore a “natural selection” T-shirt on the day of the killings.headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/afa/282003a.asp

I suppose they acted consistently with their beliefs, what they have been taught in biology, that we are animals. Ideas have consequences and you will know them by their fruits.

You conflate evolution science with materialist evolution theory.

 

[redneck22]

You conflate evolution science with materialist evolution theory.

That should have been explained to Jeffery. How many school kids is that being explained to and do they recognise the difference. Theistic evolution is bad theology mixed with bad science.

 

[redneck22]

Oh please, that’s like pointing to some killer that happens to be Catholic and saying “Look, Catholicism breeds murderers”… it’s ridiculous.

No, that would be against the teachings of Catholicism and inconsistent with its tenets but would be consistent with the teachings of materialist evolutionary philosophy. You will know them by their fruits.

.

 

[liquidpele]

No, that would be against the teachings of Catholicism and inconsistent with its tenets but would be consistent with the teachings of materialist evolutionary philosophy. You will know them by their fruits.
.

Oh BS. You’re playing the no true scotsman fallacy.

Even if I accepted that, another analogy is that you’re saying we shouldn’t teach kids how to use knives because they might decide to use them for something bad.