Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

[Arandur]

Unguided, unplanned, self-organizing evolution. It doesn’t require management by an outside source. This eliminates design, plan and purpose – eliminating God.

The proof doesn’t get much simpler than that. The pro-materialist Wikipedia will make sure to eliminate the role of intelligence, even in self-organizing processes which they can’t explain.

In your eagerness to find a smoking gun, you appear to have totally ignored context.

First of all, do you believe that any self-organizing system exists?
Do you accept that all those other self-organizing systems exist, or do you want to attack physics, chemistry, and all those other sciences?

If other self-organizing systems exist, are they incompatible with faith?

If not, then why can’t evolution then exist?

Now also consider all the self-organizing systems relying on humans–economics, societal interaction, language. Then also robotics and programming, where we have DESIGNED self-organizing systems that created complex outcomes without active, outside management. These act with the (name removed by moderator)UTS of intelligent beings. Thus it is simply a logical fallacy (non sequitur) to presume as you did that intelligence is not involved.

Then also consider that the self-organizing systems operate on pre-existing matter, energy, and laws. They have (name removed by moderator)UTS. They have assumptions. How did those get there, if not by an intelligent designer?

All this (“without being guided or managed by an outside source”) means is that the carrying out of the process does not require outside intervention. The ORIGIN of the process, the DESIGN of it, is not addressed by this assertion. Indeed, isn’t the mere existence of a self-organizing system (a system acting on (name removed by moderator)uts by catalystic processes to bring about order and complexity) strong evidence that that system was designed?

And since all known new self-organizing systems, all those that we’ve observed the origin of, (particularly in the realms of programming, robotics, artificial intelligence) were designed by humans, isn’t the best explanation available to us that self-organizing systems are designed?

Do not be so hasty; stop and think.

 

[Arandur]

Science must prove it is trustworthy. Empirical science must confine itself to the raw observed data. The conclusions and a priori reasoning of many scientists is suspect.

As time goes on the public has developed a mistrust. It must purify itself.

So you mean like sticking to describing natural processes and not making philosophical statements about design or lack of design without “raw observed data?” Not attempting to define the supernatural when it can’t directly observe it?

 

[buffalo]

So you mean like sticking to describing natural processes and not making philosophical statements about design or lack of design without “raw observed data?” Not attempting to define the supernatural when it can’t directly observe it?

Correct. Science is not the proper place to do the reasoning. If scientists attempt to reason according to accepted worldview or paradigm we do not find the truth.

The results of observation and experiment should be placed into the realm of metaphysics and philosophy and hashed out as to what it means. (I have made the point many times that evolution is philosophy.) In my view science has painted itself in a corner by attempting to philosophize. It cannot as it excludes the supernatural and is limited to 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time.

 

[Arandur]

Correct. Science is not the proper place to do the reasoning. If scientists attempt to reason according to accepted worldview or paradigm we do not find the truth.

The results of observation and experiment should be placed into the realm of metaphysics and philosophy and hashed out as to what it means. (I have made the point many times that evolution is philosophy.) In my view science has painted itself in a corner by attempting to philosophize. It cannot as it excludes the supernatural and is limited to 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time.

Then I believe we find common ground in Thomism, as advocated for use in the evolution debate by Pope Leo:
Aquinas vs. Intelligent Design
catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0811fea4.asp

I’ll highlight passages of this article when I get back if people refuse to read it.

This also follows the same Thomistic tradition:
Catholics and Evolution
newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm
We must carefully distinguish between the different meanings of the words theory of evolution in order to give a clear and correct answer to this question. We must distinguish (1) between the theory of evolution as a scientific hypothesis and as a philosophical speculation; (2) between the theory of evolution as based on theistic principles and as based on a materialistic and atheistic foundation; (3) between the theory of evolution and Darwinism; (4) between the theory of evolution as applied to the vegetable and animal kingdoms and as applied to man.

For example, many of Reggie’s textbook selections are indeed guilty of making highly improper philosophical judgments and biased statements, abusing the science to promote an agenda. This does happen all the time in classrooms today, on all kinds of subjects–most especially in similarly or even more egregious bias against Christianity in general; misrepresenting the Catholic Church specifically, particularly in history; in favor of homosexual lifestyles; derisive of any sexual morality; anti-life; anti-conservative politically; anti-capitalism economically; and in extreme environmental agendas.

So it’s not surprising that people are using textbooks to promote agendas and abuse their subjects. Do you think all of those things are held by the majority of people to be true?

Such agendas are indeed to be confronted. But let’s not misconstrue them as the dominant thought of society, for surely many of the agendas pushed in schools today are not majority opinions, and all of those subjects have mainstream opposition, which is what makes them so controversial. (Note that “mainstream” is a term that does not mean “consensus” or even “majority;” it essentially means “common” or “in the common debate” about a topic. Conservatism, for instance, is mainstream, just as liberalism is; neither can claim a disenfranchising monopoly on the concept of “mainstream.” Just so, there are mainstream beliefs about evolution that do not involve materialism, and even most materialists would admit to the limitations of science and the description of philosophy of science; they just take those limitations a step further and make assumptions that there is nothing that is not material.)

 

[buffalo]

Then I believe we find common ground in Thomism, as advocated for use in the evolution debate by Pope Leo:
Aquinas vs. Intelligent Design
catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0811fea4.asp

I’ll highlight passages of this article when I get back if people refuse to read it.

This also follows the same Thomistic tradition:
Catholics and Evolution
newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm
We must carefully distinguish between the different meanings of the words theory of evolution in order to give a clear and correct answer to this question. We must distinguish (1) between the theory of evolution as a scientific hypothesis and as a philosophical speculation; (2) between the theory of evolution as based on theistic principles and as based on a materialistic and atheistic foundation; (3) between the theory of evolution and Darwinism; (4) between the theory of evolution as applied to the vegetable and animal kingdoms and as applied to man.

For example, many of Reggie’s textbook selections are indeed guilty of making highly improper philosophical judgments and biased statements, abusing the science to promote an agenda. This does happen all the time in classrooms today, on all kinds of subjects–most especially in similarly or even more egregious bias against Christianity in general; misrepresenting the Catholic Church specifically, particularly in history; in favor of homosexual lifestyles; derisive of any sexual morality; anti-life; anti-conservative politically; anti-capitalism economically; and in extreme environmental agendas.

So it’s not surprising that people are using textbooks to promote agendas and abuse their subjects. Do you think all of those things are held by the majority of people to be true?

Such agendas are indeed to be confronted. But let’s not misconstrue them as the dominant thought of society, for surely many of the agendas pushed in schools today are not majority opinions, and all of those subjects have mainstream opposition, which is what makes them so controversial. (Note that “mainstream” is a term that does not mean “consensus” or even “majority;” it essentially means “common” or “in the common debate” about a topic. Conservatism, for instance, is mainstream, just as liberalism is; neither can claim a disenfranchising monopoly on the concept of “mainstream.” Just so, there are mainstream beliefs about evolution that do not involve materialism, and even most materialists would admit to the limitations of science and the description of philosophy of science; they just take those limitations a step further and make assumptions that there is nothing that is not material.)

I do not believe that most people make the distinctions that are made on these threads. They take scientists to be authorities in their fields and accept their philosophical determinations as fact. Most people have not been introduced to metaphysics and philosophy and do not know when conclusions wander into these areas.

Many people know in their hearts when something does not “ring” true, but nevertheless become accepting when the mainstream media keeps ramming it down their throats.

 

[reggieM]

Do you accept that all those other self-organizing systems exist, or do you want to attack physics, chemistry, and all those other sciences?

I want to attack any theory that compares the origin and development of human life with physics. Evolution is making claims about life. Physics and chemistry talk about inert matter and energy – non-living systems.

Probably most evolutionists cannot see a difference between what chemistry produces and the nature of life – even human life.

I think I showed that very clearly in the many quotes from mainstream biology textbooks. You will find quotes there comparing human life with whatever happens through randomness and phyiscal laws – unplanned, undirected and purposeless. As one said, nature has no need of humanity, has no care for humans and didn’t plan to bring them into existence.

That’s evolutionary theory – and that’s why it’s compared with physics and chemistry. Because it is believed that life is a product of unintelligent material forces.

 

[buffalo]

Then I believe we find common ground in Thomism, as advocated for use in the evolution debate by Pope Leo:
Aquinas vs. Intelligent Design
catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0811fea4.asp

I’ll highlight passages of this article when I get back if people refuse to read it.

Ahhh - the Cosmogonical Fallacy This I have seen before (I wanted to post or I did I can’t remember) and I agree with this:

…Into this medieval debate comes Aquinas, who reasoned thus: God is the author of all truth; the aim of scientific research is the truth; therefore, there can be no fundamental incompatibility between the two. Provided we understand Christian doctrine properly and do our science well, we will find the truth.

…Thus, God remains completely responsible for the being and operation of everything, even though natural beings possess real agency according to the way they were created.

…Observed species of plants and animals may or may not be descendent from common primordial ancestors. If they are, then it can only be because God created them to be so, and their common evolutionary ancestry is part of his divine design.

…In the Thomistic view, the teachings of the faith are fully compatible with what we learn of nature through scientific research, provided we both understand those divine teachings correctly and we do our scientific research consistently and rigorously. The truth or falsity of the claim that the diversity of living species is due to some sort of evolutionary process is a matter to be settled through biological research. Whatever the outcome of this research, it can never replace the need to explain the existence of the natural world in terms of a creation ex nihilo according to God’s divine design.

---

Now I do not believe ID is a God of the gaps argument. ID is the search for an empirical way to formulize design which we know for a fact exists in nature. As far as irreducible complexity language seems to be irreducibly complex and therefore the Language of DNA is evidence of God’s design. So i have some problems here, but in general I agree with the above points.

Our recent knowledge of the Language of DNA (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God) fits very well with this. The Language of DNA can explain the diversity of life.

One point to be made is if design is all around us, how can we actually distinguish it?

 

[reggieM]

For example, many of Reggie’s textbook selections are indeed guilty of making highly improper philosophical judgments and biased statements, abusing the science to promote an agenda. This does happen all the time in classrooms today, on all kinds of subjects–most especially in similarly or even more egregious bias against Christianity in general; misrepresenting the Catholic Church specifically, particularly in history; in favor of homosexual lifestyles; derisive of any sexual morality; anti-life; anti-conservative politically; anti-capitalism economically; and in extreme environmental agendas.

I think I provided a wide enough selection of quotes from biology textbooks to conclude that when we talk about “evolutionary theory” – these textbooks define what it is, and that is what the public it taught.

To claim that there is really a “good evolutionary theory” out there requires some reference points. Who are the scientists who challenge these textbooks?

As far as I can see – almost no scientists and science teachers challenge or argue against these texts. This is mainstream evolution and it is accepted by today’s scientific culture.

It is not enough to say that these books contain philosophy – they state clearly, that evolution is built on materialist philosophy and that it leads to materialist conclusions.

If this is true – then there is nothing wrong with the textbooks at all. They may be perfectly correct. Again, where is the dispute about this within the scientific community.

You’ve sent me to Wikipedia several times to read evolutionary ideas being promoted – where does Wikipedia state that these textbooks are in error?

Mainstream evolutionary theory – the kind that is found widely in textbooks is a danger to the faith. It is defined as materialist – by the scientists and teachers themselves.

It is something evil, and it is the dominant voice (by an extreme proportion) in the evolutionary culture today.

So it’s not surprising that people are using textbooks to promote agendas and abuse their subjects. Do you think all of those things are held by the majority of people to be true?

Here, in my opinion, you’re trying to justify it. You’re covering up the obvious problem by claiming that people are using textbooks in general to promote agendas.

Where is your comparison with chemistry and mathematics now?
How many mathematics textbooks state that God is irrelevant?
How many chemistry books say such things?
How about foreign language study - does that say that mankind is an accident and life has no purpose?

So, I see an injustice. You don’t fight against these things in evolutionary texts – and have never mentioned them until now. And science is your field of study - not mine. So you should know this very well, and not seek to cover it up by pointing to other kinds of textbooks.

But let’s not misconstrue them as the dominant thought of society, for surely many of the agendas pushed in schools today are not majority opinions, and all of those subjects have mainstream opposition, which is what makes them so controversial.

Which courses of study state explicitly, as a fact related to the definition and nature of the subject – that God is unnecessary and human life is without plan or purpose?

In my life – it’s only evolutionary textbooks that promote those evils.

(Note that “mainstream” is a term that does not mean “consensus” or even “majority;”

Again, you’re trying to whitewash the problem. These are textbooks used to teach children. They represent a vast majority of the teaching materials.

Just so, there are mainstream beliefs about evolution that do not involve materialism,

Which scientists are you referring to?

 

[buffalo]

I think I provided a wide enough selection of quotes from biology textbooks to conclude that when we talk about “evolutionary theory” – these textbooks define what it is, and that is what the public it taught.

To claim that there is really a “good evolutionary theory” out there requires some reference points. Who are the scientists who challenge these textbooks?

As far as I can see – almost no scientists and science teachers challenge or argue against these texts. This is mainstream evolution and it is accepted by today’s scientific culture.

It is not enough to say that these books contain philosophy – they state clearly, that evolution is built on materialist philosophy and that it leads to materialist conclusions.

If this is true – then there is nothing wrong with the textbooks at all. They may be perfectly correct. Again, where is the dispute about this within the scientific community.

You’ve sent me to Wikipedia several times to read evolutionary ideas being promoted – where does Wikipedia state that these textbooks are in error?

Mainstream evolutionary theory – the kind that is found widely in textbooks is a danger to the faith. It is defined as materialist – by the scientists and teachers themselves.

It is something evil, and it is the dominant voice (by an extreme proportion) in the evolutionary culture today.

This is why I advocate mandatory classes in metaphysics and philosophy in high school alongside empirical science classes.

Reggie, this is something we need to start getting across to the NYS Dept of education.

 

[reggieM]

So you mean like sticking to describing natural processes and not making philosophical statements about design or lack of design without “raw observed data?”

We already debated this point for several days.
Statements about the evidence of design in nature are evaluated by science.
You’ve already asserted that and have agreed with that.

Personally, I don’t think you really contemplated enough on what that means – therefore, you’re reverting back to claims that science cannot give evidence for design in nature.

The majority view of evolutionary theory is that there is no design, plan or purpose to be found in nature.

 

[reggieM]

This is why I advocate mandatory classes in metaphysics and philosophy in high school alongside empirical science classes.

Reggie, this is something we need to start getting across to the NYS Dept of education.

I totally agree, Buffalo. Kids are being indoctrinated into atheism via their evolution studies.

Actually, that is a violation of church and state – since the state cannot force a religious opinion on anyone – and here it is mandated in the kids books.

More honest evolutionists will state that this is a fact of evolutionary theory. It is built on materialism and seeks to give proof against God’s intelligent design in nature.

 

[reggieM]

Then it is time to start looking at evolution in the light of intelligent design, eh? This may take a few years for the paradigm shift to happen.

Maybe we should rename it idvolution.

And I agree- definitions are important.

You might have something there, Buf – I hope it catches on.

 

[buffalo]

You might have something there, Buf – I hope it catches on.

Can I trademark it?

Just remember where you heard it first.

 

[RACJ]

Look at those comments and you see that their scorn comes from a belief that we hold up blind faith AGAINST reason, that WE believe that science conflicts with faith, and that we are asking them to reject what they can objectively observe with their senses and reject principles that WORK in applied science in favor of something contradictory.

It is exactly the type of blanket attacks on science that you make here that are the cause of such scorn–and such scorn is rightly placed in these cases!

When you attack and reject what reason discovers out of hand because it doesn’t fit with your preconceived worldview, you commit the error the Church is accused of making with Galileo. You give evidence to the world that science and faith and reason and faith are in conflict with each other. You drive people into atheism.

The popes’ words and the Catechism cut both ways. Science must be conducted properly within its boundaries, and faith must recognize the complementarity and validity of proper science.

No Arandur, I do not disbelieve macro-evolution b/c it conflicts with my worldview. I reject it b/c evolutionary theory is not subject to repeatable testing, and b/c it is preposterous to believe that a miraculous organ such as the ear or eye *gradually* came into being. It may be shocking, but I believe Galileo, b/c his ideas were PROVED true! 
I find that just as with the global warming hoax, authorities declare discussion off limits, and claim "The debate is over", even though it never occurred. 
You seem to be genuine and a really decent guy. I think you're too invested in what you've been taught, and have believed over the years. As I said, many of those who emerge from godless teaching become not neutral about religion, but come to revile Christians. I refuse to be in denial about the tragic consequences of Christians being fearful of standing against balderdash and FOR Truth. 
 How would YOU convince someone steeped in atheism thanks to believing that God isn't necessary for creation that indeed He is real? Rob :rolleyes:

 

[RACJ]

More from textbooks – it is clear that this is the mainstream view of evolution, as I see it.

“The advent of Darwinism posted even greater threats to religion by suggesting that biological relationship, including the origin of humans and of all species, could be explained by natural selection without the intervention of a god. Many felt that **evolutionary randomness and uncertainty **had replaced a deity having conscious, purposeful, human characteristics. The Darwinian view that evolution is a historical process and present-type organisms were not created spontaneously but formed in a succession of selective events that occurred in the past, contradicted the common religious view that there could be no design, biological or otherwise, without an intelligent designer. “The variability by which selection depends may be random, but adaptions are not; they arise because selection chooses and perfects only what is adaptive. In this scheme a god of design and purpose is not necessary …“Nevertheless, faith in religious dogma has been eroded by natural explanations of its mysteries, by a deep understanding of the sources of human emotional needs, and by the recognition that ethics and morality can change among different societies and that acceptance of such values need not depend on religion.”
(Evolution by Monroe, W. Strickberger (3rd ed., Jones & Bartlett, 2000), pg. 70-71)

“Nothing consciously chooses what is selected. Nature is not a conscious agent who chooses what will be selected. “There is no long term goal, for nothing is involved that could conceive of a goal.”
(Evolution: An Introduction by Stephen C. Stearns & Rolf F. Hoeckstra, pg. 30 (2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2005).)

“[A]s E.O. Wilson puts it, a chicken is really the chicken genes’ way of making more copies of themselves. “[A]s an evolutionary biologist I believe that in some sense we exist solely to propagate the genes within us.”
(Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach, by John Alcock, pgs 16, 609 (Sinauer Associates, Inc, 1998).)

Outstanding job, Reggie. It's not irrational that someone who has swallowed this nonsensical conjecture in "science" class would reject God altogether. As I've said, all one needs to do is google "evolution" to see that the specious biology texts have contributed to hordes of young people having utter contempt for Christians. And the evos try to ridicule us by comparing us to Galileo skeptics! :shrug: Rob

 

[edwest2]

An abuse of trust is the issue. Kids in schools are taught to respect their teachers. This, in turn, is connected to what other experts write in textbooks; if your teacher is using that textbook then it must contain true and factual information.

The nature of deception is telling some truth while mixing in some lies.

And speaking of evangelism. Why would a pure rationalist who lives and decides only based on evidence accept a faith that he believes contains no evidence? What? Hi. Would you consider joining the Catholic Church? We believe in evolution, you know.

The nature of conversion is spiritual. Jesus said, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.” John 6:44. By accepting Christ we then receive the Holy Spirit. The entire Trinity is involved.

Thank you, reggiem, for those textbook quotes. It is clear that the science is strongly connected to materialistic conclusions that deny the full truth.

Peace,
Ed

 

[greg_b]

Wow, I come back to this thread after a few weeks and the creationists are still trying to promote their snake oil? What amazes me the most is the creationists have the nerve of dictating how God to create the universe, evidence be damned. They hate objective reality and science (both which are gifts from God) and instead create these ridiculous creationist nonsense theories that makes the creation myths of the ancient Pagan world seem like documented fact by comparison.

 

[reggieM]

Thank you, reggiem, for those textbook quotes. It is clear that the science is strongly connected to materialistic conclusions that deny the full truth.

Thanks, Ed. I fully agree.

Here’s another example which shows one of the most powerful scientific organizations in the country supporting an atheistic view.

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is an activist group that promotes evolution and tries to fight against Intelligent Design theory or anyone who criticizes Darwinian evolutionary theory. They’ve take a prominent role in governmental hearings about evolution in school.

In their talking points released for Texas State Board of Education the NCSE urged the State to adopt materialism as the state’s official ideology and they expressly deny the existence of the supernatural as a matter of state education policy.

From pages 32 and 44 of the talking points, the NCSE gives the atheistic-materialist view as being a part of science:

Science posits that there are no forces outside of nature. Science cannot be neutral on this issue. The history of science is a long comment denying that forces outside of nature exist, and proving that this is the case again and again. There is simply zero scientific evidence for forces outside of the natural world.
Scientific experiments do not rely on “magic” in order to explain their results. Magic—as
magicians Penn & Teller and James Randi hasten to point out—does not exist.
By implying that there exist explanations outside of nature, Seelke posits supernatural,
mystical phenomena. The assumption that “the only explanations that count are those that rely on nature” is indeed an important part of science; in fact, this is a foundational axiom for any rational thinking. Seelke seems to want the TEKS to **include magic **… **It needs to be said clearly: All educated people understand there are no forces outside of nature. **Education implies abandoning childish beliefs about cause and effect—“I wrote Santa Claus a letter, and I got a present”—and learning how the adult world works.

This is quite amazing. This is one of the most prominent evolutionary science organizations in America. Certainly, this is the mainstream view. This group fights against parent groups that seek to include critical discussion of evolutionary theory in classrooms. But here it is as clear as can be. They consider the supernatural actions of God to be equivalent to “magic” – and they say this explictly. They state that nothing outside of nature exists at all – as it is a fact proven by science.

This is propaganda. It fits perfectly with what we can see in the textbooks. For the mainstream evolutionary scientific culture, materialistic-scientism is the default position.

There is no room for God’s involvment in nature at all – and they make that clear.

 

[greg_b]

Thanks, Ed. I fully agree.

Here’s another example which shows one of the most powerful scientific organizations in the country supporting an atheistic view.

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is an activist group that promotes evolution and tries to fight against Intelligent Design theory or anyone who criticizes Darwinian evolutionary theory. They’ve take a prominent role in governmental hearings about evolution in school.

In their talking points released for Texas State Board of Education the NCSE urged the State to adopt materialism as the state’s official ideology and they expressly deny the existence of the supernatural as a matter of state education policy.

From pages 32 and 44 of the talking points, the NCSE gives the atheistic-materialist view as being a part of science:

Science posits that there are no forces outside of nature. Science cannot be neutral on this issue. The history of science is a long comment denying that forces outside of nature exist, and proving that this is the case again and again. There is simply zero scientific evidence for forces outside of the natural world.
Scientific experiments do not rely on “magic” in order to explain their results. Magic—as
magicians Penn & Teller and James Randi hasten to point out—does not exist.
By implying that there exist explanations outside of nature, Seelke posits supernatural,
mystical phenomena. The assumption that “the only explanations that count are those that rely on nature” is indeed an important part of science; in fact, this is a foundational axiom for any rational thinking. Seelke seems to want the TEKS to **include magic **… **It needs to be said clearly: All educated people understand there are no forces outside of nature. **Education implies abandoning childish beliefs about cause and effect—“I wrote Santa Claus a letter, and I got a present”—and learning how the adult world works.

This is quite amazing. This is one of the most prominent evolutionary science organizations in America. Certainly, this is the mainstream view. This group fights against parent groups that seek to include critical discussion of evolutionary theory in classrooms. But here it is as clear as can be. They consider the supernatural actions of God to be equivalent to “magic” – and they say this explictly. They state that nothing outside of nature exists at all – as it is a fact proven by science.

This is propaganda. It fits perfectly with what we can see in the textbooks. For the mainstream evolutionary scientific culture, materialistic-scientism is the default position.

There is no room for God’s involvment in nature at all – and they make that clear.

Well DUHHHHHHHHH

God created science, science did not make God, science is part of our universe and part of God’s creation, creation did not make God, therefore how can science be used to fully understand God? Science can only explain God’s creation (the universe) it cannot be used to explain God since the created cannot explain the creator. Therefore Scientists are correct in saying that God is out of bounds of science since God is quite literally just that… he is out of science because he created science, not the other way around.

Ironically, all you people wanting God mixed with science class are actually admitting that science created God, not vice versa

 

[reggieM]

Well DUHHHHHHHHH … Therefore Scientists are correct in saying that God is out of bounds of science since God is quite literally just that… he is out of science because he created science, not the other way around.

Let’s try again. You’re claiming agreement with these statements:

Science posits that there are no forces outside of nature. Science cannot be neutral on this issue. The history of science is a long comment denying that forces outside of nature exist, and **proving **that this is the case again and again …
It needs to be said clearly: All educated people understand there are no forces outside of nature.

That’s interesting. You sign yourself as a “Catholic” but you deny that there are any forces outside of nature at all. This denies that God exists.

Notice again, so you don’t confuse the issue “[science denies] that forces outside of nature exist”. It says this has been “proven”.

Can you see how that is radically different than what you claimed? It’s not that God is “out of bounds” for science. You had to distort the quote in order to fit it to your worldview. The statement is clear: “Science posits that there are no forces outside of nature”. That is a positive statement denying the existence of supernatural forces.

So, if you accept this (as your DUHHHH) seems to indicate – then you’ve apostasized from the Catholic Faith.

But again, if so, it’s most likely that you never had the faith in the first place (as many don’t) – or perhaps you sign yourself as a Catholic in a fraudulent way in order to disrupt conversations by falsely winning trust from people, I don’t know.

But again, if you assert that no supernatural forces exist, as the NCSE commentary states – then you’re a materialist-atheist.

That would be perfectly consistent with the comments that you’ve offered thus far, so not surprising at all.