Here is the thing, I don’t think random mutations can amount to “something good” it tells us nothing about the why, how, or where these changes are coming from. If anything, it says: I know nothing of what’s really going on, so we’ll just call it ‘random’.It is a monstrous, monumental logical fallacy to make this non sequitur. It is indeed what the adage “throwing out the baby with the bathwater” is about (throwing out something good because something bad has come off of it).
So was DarwinOne guy for many years was ignored. His theory did not fit the paradigm. It was suppressed and ridiculed for a long time.
I hadn’t noticed that argument. It would definitely be interesting.So if science can discover truth, why do you **attack all of science and say that it is all false **because some people go beyond science and use it to justify error in belief or behavior?
The Church understood and still understands that nature is intelligible. It understands that the universe has purpose and acknowledges God as the author of this intelligibility.Science is founded on skepticism. Please, study the scientific method!
The fact that the Church gave birth to science demonstrates that the Church considers observation of nature and the attempt to understand it a valid pursuit of truth. The Church even helped establish the intellectual discipline inherent in the scientific method that makes it a more rigorous investigation of truth that most.
So if science can discover truth, why do you attack all of science and say that it is all false because some people go beyond science and use it to justify error in belief or behavior?
That is exactly the same as the thought process by which people take Scripture or any religious belief (a source of truth) and use it to justify error in belief or behavior.
It is a monstrous, monumental logical fallacy to make this non sequitur. It is indeed what the adage “throwing out the baby with the bathwater” is about (throwing out something good because something bad has come off of it).
You and Ed have attacked not just evolution, but all of science, both directly and by extension through the arguments that you have used. If you use your arguments consistently, you CANNOT be Catholic, because you MUST throw out most of Catholic belief because it has been abused by some to justify error.
I already did admit it. I already did make that qualification. By “charity” I referred to your inference from this scientist and even the group of scientists to which he is referring that all or even most scientists are similarly unethical. Such an extension is also logical fallacy. Seriously, I have seen a bunch of doosies here. Non sequitur, straw man, red herring, misunderstanding the nature of statistics, spurious similarity, fallacy of the general rule, least plausible hypothesis, special pleading, slippery slope, reductive fallacy, two wrongs make a right, inconsistency, appeal to authority, probably more.It might be helpful for you to review the quote I posted and recognize who wrote it. You seem to be dismissing this as referencing just one scientist.
Please note that the scientist referred to “we” – as in “scientists”. Notice also how he spoke for the “National Academy of Sciences” and referred to “scientists”.
So, I don’t think what you said refuted the point – scientists are willing to lie in order to make money. That statement does not imply that “all scientists” … etc. But perhaps rather than the qualifier “some”, you would prefer: “one of the most prominent, well-respected and popular evolutionary scientists states that he (and his colleagues) are willing to lie in order to gain grants from the government.”
Is that better? Perhaps in “charity” and “basic logic” you could admit this fact. (?)
For the record, I feel this is necessary not to expose the sinful-deceptions of evolutionary scientists like Jerry Coyne, but to observe the reaction from this quote – especially from those who attack ID as a “political crusade” based on comments from a few scientists.
But think about it anyway. Professor Coyne admits here publicly that there is a deception going on and he says it is in order to present a false image and secure government funding.
The same could be said of many other disciplines about which you seem to have little complaint, including the arguments of Creationists, and including theology.This is not very much different than Charles Darwins’ pretense at religion which he used to protect his reputation and keep his wife somewhat at peace (he would go to church with her to seem respectable but then stand outside). So, this kind of duplicity has deep roots in the evolutionary culture.
Adaptation did fit the paradigm. Change was obvious to anyone who looked. It fits nicely with Catholic belief and teaching.So was Darwin
If I am only allowed to pick from the box that has chocolate in it and cannot pick from the other boxes I am limited in my research.I already did admit it. I already did make that qualification. By “charity” I referred to your inference from this scientist and even the group of scientists to which he is referring that all or even most scientists are similarly unethical. Such an extension is also logical fallacy. Seriously, I have seen a bunch of doosies here. Non sequitur, straw man, red herring, misunderstanding the nature of statistics, spurious similarity, fallacy of the general rule, least plausible hypothesis, special pleading, slippery slope, reductive fallacy, two wrongs make a right, inconsistency, appeal to authority, probably more.
Study up and try to avoid these:
don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#inconsistent
The same could be said of many other disciplines about which you seem to have little complaint, including the arguments of Creationists, and including theology.
Such a lack of ethics does not affect the merit of the actual theory derived from observation.
Really? EVERY Evolutionary biologist thinks it’s “random”? (and just what do you mean by random?) Oh and I never even heard of this “Humanist Maifesto” and I doubt 90% of scientists have.Evolutionary biologists now operate with the worldview that it is all random. Check out the Humanist Maifesto. It is a religion now and you do not even see it.
Can you cite one scientist on the PAB who does not.Really? EVERY Evolutionary biologist thinks it’s “random”? (and just what do you mean by random?) Oh and I never even heard of this “Humanist Maifesto” and I doubt 90% of scientists have.
Why? I have already explained how it is largely irrelevant. Scientific criticism through peer review, critique, and repetition weed out falsifications progressively and more completely over time. Unless, of course, there is vast deliberate and remarkably uniform collusion and conspiracy among virtually every single scientist.Please learn about breaches in scientific discipline. It will help our discussion.
You can repeat it all you want. It is still, in the manner in which you represent it, a false statement. I have explained this. You have not attempted to address my refutation. Please, study the scientific method and process.Again, I repeat, many conclusions are based on prior conclusions.
It seems like the alternative explanation you want here is that God must be actively guiding genetic variation so as to produce what He wants. I agree in that I think God actively authored the laws of nature and actively makes sure they operate, to the extent that we can call the laws and processes of nature the action of God’s “hand.” And yes, God obviously wanted nature to function in the specific way He authored the laws, so his continual creation of new life through the action of those laws is His will.Here is the thing, I don’t think random mutations can amount to “something good” it tells us nothing about the why, how, or where these changes are coming from. If anything, it says: I know nothing of what’s really going on, so we’ll just call it ‘random’.
Your claim is no matter the amount of corruption science is self correcting?Why? I have already explained how it is largely irrelevant. Scientific criticism through peer review, critique, and repetition weed out falsifications progressively and more completely over time. Unless, of course, there is vast deliberate and remarkably uniform collusion and conspiracy among virtually every single scientist.
You can repeat it all you want. It is still, in the manner in which you represent it, a false statement. I have explained this. You have not attempted to address my refutation. Please, study the scientific method and process.
Evolution is not “random”, it happens for purposes of survival and adapting. I guess you also think the reason you get hungry when you don’t have food is also “random” eh?Can you cite one scientist on the PAB who does not.
How about this?It seems like the alternative explanation you want here is that God must be actively guiding genetic variation so as to produce what He wants. I agree in that I think God actively authored the laws of nature and actively makes sure they operate, to the extent that we can call the laws and processes of nature the action of God’s “hand.” And yes, God obviously wanted nature to function in the specific way He authored the laws, so his continual creation of new life through the action of those laws is His will.
However, as creationists are quick to point out, many mutations (particularly the large ones) are harmful. If you want to claim that God directs mutations, rather than lets a process He created work, you must lay harmful mutation and “error” at God’s feet.
Also, your argument that scientists if scientists don’t know what’s going on, they call something “random,” is just false. “Random” is a technical term that is mathematically provable. Variation can be random or be slightly influenced off a random course by mathematically trackable, measurable observation. Much variation IS random, and that is a verifiable fact. Which is one of the reasons that believe God lets His creation continue to propagate and create anew rather than suspending laws of nature in daily intervention in the mechanics of nature to bring about the mutations He desires. He lets the system be self-organizing, because that is what He wanted when He created it.
So evolution is guided? or not guided?Evolution is not “random”, it happens for purposes of survival and adapting. I guess you also think the reason you get hungry when you don’t have food is also “random” eh?
The Church understood and still understands that nature is intelligible. It understands that the universe has purpose and acknowledges God as the author of this intelligibility.
So I am mainstream together with the public (who pays the bills) when being skeptical. The public should expect to be skeptical. Scripture tells us to be skeptical. Good science is indeed skeptical and should be, so when an ideology invades the reasoning it is no longer good science. Scientists who maintain a divine foot cannot be allowed in the door betray their bias. That alone should cause skepticism.
If you think I am attacking all of science you are dead wrong. I love good science.
Evolutionary biologists now operate with the worldview that it is all random. Check out the Humanist Maifesto. It is a religion now and you do not even see it.
Now you’re making important qualifications. Please carry them through in your argument. I have agreed all along that many philosophies derived improperly from evolution are wrong and against the Church. I have stated and restated this many times.The problem is materialist evolutionary philosophy condemned by the Church.
What do you mean by this limitation of “boxes?” The same evidence must be observable by many scientists to derive support for a scientific theory. That is what repeatability is all about.If I am only allowed to pick from the box that has chocolate in it and cannot pick from the other boxes I am limited in my research.
No. I have already explained that near-total corruption (the vast conspiracy and collusion) would overcome the self-correction of science. And I’ve already shown by the statistics that no such conspiracy and collusion are likely to exist.Your claim is no matter the amount of corruption science is self correcting?
What do you mean by “basic kinds?” Do you insist that He created DNA pre-assembled, off the shelf, with no possibility that He might have planned for it to arise out of a self-organizing chemical system? What about the original species? Did they need to come pre-packaged?How about this?
God created the language of DNA and set it in the basic “kinds”. Natural selection, isolation, harmful mutations and environment account for the diversity of life we observe.
Are we talking evolution here or general science?What do you mean by this limitation of “boxes?” The same evidence must be observable by many scientists to derive support for a scientific theory. That is what repeatability is all about.
Conclusions do not really build on conclusions like you suggest. For one conclusion to be accepted, it must survive a long battery of repeated observation and validation, with many other scientists using the same original evidence to test the conclusion. In other words, that first conclusion has to be verified thousands of times independently before it is considered well supported and relied upon as a premise for another conclusion.
Keep in mind that even if a scientist is interested in getting funding or supporting a worldview, he is likely just as if not much more interested in being the scientist to discover something new, to get the recognition and fame and legacy that comes from discovering anything significantly new. Therefore, virtually all scientists are eager to show that a paradigm is WRONG. Such recognition would bring them more funding and fame than just going with the flow.
So if you’re looking for motivation, it is motivation to find something new that changes how we understand things. That’s really, I would wager, the primary motivation of most scientists.
No. I have already explained that near-total corruption (the vast conspiracy and collusion) would overcome the self-correction of science. And I’ve already shown by the statistics that no such conspiracy and collusion are likely to exist.
Adaptation and isolation have produced speciation.What do you mean by “basic kinds?” Do you insist that He created DNA pre-assembled, off the shelf, with no possibility that He might have planned for it to arise out of a self-organizing chemical system? What about the original species? Did they need to come pre-packaged?
The second sentence I can agree with if it allows for the possibility of speciation and that DNA and ancestral species need not have popped into existence, but could have formed gradually just as the evolution of their descendants gives rise to change and diversity.