Not about Evolution, nor a petition to get it unbanned

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hooding_Trees
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hooding_Trees

Guest
Given that the atmosphere on this forum has still not been deemed to have “sufficiently cooled” it would be prudent to present the hypothesis that the “atmosphere” had no correlation to the discussion of Evolution or Atheism.

Before presenting the case for this hypothesis, it seems only reasonable to lay emphasis on the false dichotomy between Evolution/Atheism and religion. It would be an appropriate juncture to draw attention to Professor Kenneth Raymond Miller, PHD Sc. B. of Brown University who is a prominent Molecular Biologist and a devout catholic. To wit: Arguably the leading Evolutionary Biologist on Earth at the time of writing is in fact a theist. Furthermore as benedict XVI and the highest orders of the catholic church accept Evolution as verifiable fact it is self evident that only the most obtuse mindset could subscribe to such an incongruous view point.

As such the following hypothesis is presented “The discussion of Evolution is censored for it assiduously presents an evidence based rebuttal to religious mythology“

`1)

IDvolution. This topic has been mentioned on the forum on numerous occasions where the poster has been uncensored by the moderating team despite the fact that it has been posited as an explanation to the origin of biodiversity conforming to nested hierarchies.

Interestingly, when examining the evidence for IDvolution, the validity of the idea is completely unsubstantiated. On the contrary Evolution is supported by incontrovertible evidence cross referenced over numerous scientific disciplines.

So why is the discussion of IDvolution permitted whereas the discussion of Evolution is censored? One can only presume that the rationale behind this is that “The discussion of Evolution is censored for it assiduously presents an evidence based rebuttal to religious mythology“

Let the discussion begin, more evidence shall follow. Please note this thread is NOT to discuss Evolution, evidence for Evolution, OR TO PETITION THAT EVOLUTION BE UNBANNED, but to discuss why the discussion of the topic is banned!
 
No where that i can see does it state that discussing why the topic is banned, is banned.

I would hope for a civil discussion on this subject so we can all understand for i would argue it would be very reasonable to propose that the atmosphere on this forum has “sufficiently cooled.

It is one thing to protect the sanctuary of an institution, it is another to directly sensor free speech!
 
Hooding_Trees said:
No where that i can see does it state that discussing why the topic is banned, is banned.

I would hope for a civil discussion on this subject so we can all understand for i would argue it would be very reasonable to propose that the atmosphere on this forum has “sufficiently cooled.

It is one thing to protect the sanctuary of an institution, it is another to directly sensor free speech!
Click to expand...
You might want to open a thread in the Water Cooler - Back Fence forum where discussion of evolution is allowed, within given limits. Perhaps you might get more responses there.

rossum
 
In my view discussion of evolution is unnecessary for the following reasons:
  1. The Church accepts evolution as a fact and regards it as consistent with Creation by God.
  2. The issue at stake is whether physical processes are a **sufficient **explanation of such facts as personality, consciousness, rationality, free will, morality, love and purposeful activity.
  3. All of these subjects can be discussed without reference to the way in which they have appeared.
  4. It suffices, for example, to explain what purposeful activity is in order to decide whether it can reasonably be attributed to purposeless processes.
  5. Philosophy is concerned with explanations of reality rather than the scientific details of a biological theory.
 
tonyrey said:
In my view discussion of evolution is unnecessary for the following reasons:
  1. The Church accepts evolution as a fact and regards it as consistent with Creation by God.
  2. The issue at stake is whether physical processes are a **sufficient **explanation of such facts as personality, consciousness, rationality, free will, morality, love and purposeful activity.
  3. All of these subjects can be discussed without reference to the way in which they have appeared.
  4. It suffices, for example, to explain what purposeful activity is in order to decide whether it can reasonably be attributed to purposeless processes.
  5. Philosophy is concerned with explanations of reality rather than the scientific details of a biological theory.
Click to expand...
In my humble opinion, one needs to examine “facts” (point 1) as they are in the 21st century.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=478146

Please note that the intention of this thread is to stay within the directives (links to forum guidelines) given in the OP – or else 😦

Blessings,
granny

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 355
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 355
 
My understanding is that all threads on creationism, ID, etc. as well as evolution are banned in the Philosophy section. Having been in a forum where every thread on the topic ended in ranting, I think that alone may be the reason for the ban.

As others have said, discussion is allowed in Back Fence, but presumably only on tightly controlled specifics where there is no intent to avoid the purpose of the ban.
 
Hooding Trees

*It is one thing to protect the sanctuary of an institution, it is another to directly sensor free speech! *

Free speech?

The fierce reaction to ID by evolutionists is an example of the attempt by atheist biologists to suppress free speech. Court cases brought by evolutionists to prevent ID from even being mentioned in school texts is a case in point, and certainly resembles the attempt by Tennessee public officials to suppress the teaching of evolution by John Scopes in 1925.

In the first years after his discovery of relativity, Einstein likewise experienced attempts within the scientific community to suppress his theory, or at least to ignore it. The same was true for George Le Maitre, who proposed what later became known as the Big Bang theory.

Censorship exists everywhere, and for different reasons; some good, some not so good.

This forum wisely put a lid on it because the rhetoric was fast approaching blasphemy in some extreme instances. Tell us why a Catholic forum should tolerate blasphemy as a form of free speech? :rolleyes:
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Hooding Trees

It is one thing to protect the sanctuary of an institution, it is another to directly sensor free speech!

Free speech?

The fierce reaction to ID by evolutionists is an example of the attempt by atheist biologists to suppress free speech. Court cases brought by evolutionists to prevent ID from even being mentioned in school texts is a case in point, and certainly resembles the attempt by Tennessee public officials to suppress the teaching of evolution by John Scopes in 1925.

In the first years after his discovery of relativity, Einstein likewise experienced attempts within the scientific community to suppress his theory, or at least to ignore it. The same was true for George Le Maitre, who proposed what later became known as the Big Bang theory.

Censorship exists everywhere, and for different reasons; some good, some not so good.

This forum wisely put a lid on it because the rhetoric was fast approaching blasphemy in some extreme instances. Tell us why a Catholic forum should tolerate blasphemy as a form of free speech? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Incorrect, ID was kept out of the science class room because** it is not science**. As far as i am aware you can teach ID along with all other mythology in R.E. (religious eduction).
 
Hooding_Trees said:
Incorrect, ID was kept out of the science class room because** it is not science**. As far as i am aware you can teach ID along with all other mythology in R.E. (religious eduction).
Click to expand...
Is atomic theory science?
 
Hooding_Trees said:
Yep???
Click to expand...
Here’s how the argument for the existence of atoms works:
  1. We have performed experiments whose results would be best explained by the existence of a substance called an atom.
  2. Therefore, atoms exist.
Here’s Intelligent Design:
  1. We have observed phenomena whose complexity and elegance would be best explained by the existence of an intelligent designer.
  2. Therefore, an intelligent designer exists.
Both arguments move from the observed to the unobserved (and perhaps unobservable). Neither appeals to any supernatural cause or agency. Why is the one scientific and the other not scientific? :confused:

(FYI, I am talking about *fine-tuning *arguments for ID, so this post does not pertain to evolution in the slightest).
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Here’s how the argument for the existence of atoms works:
  1. We have performed experiments whose results would be best explained by the existence of a substance called an atom.
  2. Therefore, atoms exist.
Here’s Intelligent Design:
  1. We have observed phenomena whose complexity and elegance would be best explained by the existence of an intelligent designer.
  2. Therefore, an intelligent designer exists.
Both arguments move from the observed to the unobserved (and perhaps unobservable). Neither appeals to any supernatural cause or agency. Why is the one scientific and the other not scientific? :confused:

(FYI, I am talking about *fine-tuning *arguments for ID, so this post does not pertain to evolution in the slightest).
Click to expand...
You seems to lack a rudimentary understanding of science, please can we take this to another thread. This thread was not intended to be science 101, thanks… :o
 
buffalo said:
moveit to the back fence.
Click to expand...
Please don’t spam my thread. If you want me to explain what constitutes science to you i will, but not on this thread. PS i should really charge you 20 quid, i paid for my education you should to the same for yours.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Why is the one scientific and the other not scientific? :confused:
Click to expand...
A theory is only taken to be scientific if it says something useful and there’s the possibility of falsification. Without the latter it is classed as “not even wrong”.

We can see the intelligent designer’s handiwork, but does the theory provide a procedure for locating the designer him/her/itself within nature? Without that it would be not even wrong.

Yes, this stuff should move to back fence.
 
Hooding_Trees said:
You seems to lack a rudimentary understanding of science, please can we take this to another thread. This thread was not intended to be science 101, thanks… :o
Click to expand...
I lack a rudimentary understanding of science?* Really?

You seems to lack a rudimentary understanding of grammar. :rolleyes:

Science is the process of forming hypotheses from observations, and testing these hypotheses. You may very well claim that ID is not *good *science, but I don’t see how you can say that it is not science, at all.

FYI, before I understood ID, I thought it wasn’t science, too. And anyone who infers the existence of God from ID is not doing science. But the existence of a natural designer (say, some extremely intelligent and powerful alien) is a possible inference. Perhaps not a good inference – perhaps not even a falsifiable inference – but then again, no ontological claims are falsifiable. And yet scientists make ontological claims all the time.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
I lack a rudimentary understanding of science?* Really?

You seems to lack a rudimentary understanding of grammar. :rolleyes:

Science is the process of forming hypotheses from observations, and testing these hypotheses. You may very well claim that ID is not *good *science, but I don’t see how you can say that it is not science, at all.
Click to expand...
If ID is science then ID has to do the second part of your definition: “testing those hypotheses”. Please indicate where ID has performed any experiment to test its hypotheses. I have seen some work from the ID side to the effect that “Evolution cannot do X”, but I have never seen any positive work actually showing the designer(s) doing something.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top