Should science be secular?

[wanstronian]

1. You believe… On what basis? I would like you to give me your rational basis. What historian or writing has had the most influence on your position of doubt?

As I’ve already explained - because the Genesis account of the creation of the universe and of species is provably wrong. You STILL haven’t answered my question - what about the OT means it couldn’t have been written by human authors based on their observations of their surroundings? Now, if the OT stated the speed of light in a vacuum, that would indicate something other than the superstition of the day.

1. Sure, anyone can make up anything. You can show me this paper. Corroborate it. An supposed event in a vacuum can be readily doubted. It is when other signs and events that that reinforce it. The 500 witnesses who encountered Jesus. They spread the word. The Bible records it. These witnesses were alive when the account was written so anyone could go and ask them, therebye destroying the account and branding them liars. The Jews were definitely trying to disprove His death and Resurrection. Learn of the extra-biblical sources.

Again - I can write a self-confirming story about an impossible event. That doesn’t mean it happened.

1. By reading the entire Bible and investing yourself in learning of Tradition you will understand better the evidence for our belief. Read Scripture in its totality. You would at least know then what you are disagreeing with. To simply disagree is irrational.

Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I fail to see how reading the whole bible suddenly makes impossible events possible. To claim that it does, is irrational.

1. evolution - I stopped buying it when the science was showing evolution is not the best explanation. It is now clear Darwinism has bounds. Beyond those bounds lies ID. I have been showing this evidence on a multitude of threads for a while now. See my posts on IDvolution.

You haven’t been very clear - can you point out which parts of Evolutionary theory are inaccurate or an alternative - and better - explanation exists? I don’t really want to go searching for all your posts. ID is just Creationist maneuvering in the face of evidence that Creationism is wrong. It’s an attempt to keep God in the mix. There’s no evidence for ID, just as there’s no evidence for Creation.

1. E=MC2 - what underlying assumptions lie in this equation? At what speeds does it work? At what speeds does it not?

Well, I asked you a question. Simply asking me questions in return doesn’t really do anything to prove your point about this mysterious ‘truth’ playing a role.

1. Muslims - smug article.

Sorry - not sure what your emoticon means. Perhaps you could actually type the message you’re trying to convey?

1. God created the heavens and the earth. Again, my point is that (leaving the God created part out) the very first line informs us that time, space and matter began. Science confirms this just recently.

Well, whoopee-do. Science confirms an unremarkable hypothesis, so Genesis is proven true? Try again.

1. We believe in the evidence that Jesus walked on water, etc…

What evidence? Photographic? Video? A scientific proof that it’s possible? Or… some words in a book?

1. Good - so you no longer rule out that any parts of the Bible are true.

I don’t claim that all parts of the Bible are false - I never did. Now who’s misrepresenting?

What is the point? Take two positions - the first that 10% of the Bible is true. The second that 90% of the Bible is true. How does this effect your life and reasoning?

Well, it depends on how you calculate the percentages. It could be that 90% of the bible is true - or at least believable - and the impossible events asserted within it fall within the other 10%. Not every sentence in the bible contains an impossibility. So it could be 90% true and still not prove that God exists, or that Jesus was the son of God, or that he walked on water, or that the Noachic flood actually happened, etc.

I guess you need to define your assessment criteria.

1. I drifted with the thread. I am interested in the OP.

Okay. Maybe we’ll get back to it, although I’m still waiting for anybody to demonstrate any value in removing secularism from science, so as far as I’m concerned the point is made.

 

[buffalo]

As I’ve already explained - because the Genesis account of the creation of the universe and of species is provably wrong. You STILL haven’t answered my question - what about the OT means it couldn’t have been written by human authors based on their observations of their surroundings? Now, if the OT stated the speed of light in a vacuum, that would indicate something other than the superstition of the day.

Again - I can write a self-confirming story about an impossible event. That doesn’t mean it happened.

Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I fail to see how reading the whole bible suddenly makes impossible events possible. To claim that it does, is irrational.

You haven’t been very clear - can you point out which parts of Evolutionary theory are inaccurate or an alternative - and better - explanation exists? I don’t really want to go searching for all your posts. ID is just Creationist maneuvering in the face of evidence that Creationism is wrong. It’s an attempt to keep God in the mix. There’s no evidence for ID, just as there’s no evidence for Creation.

Well, I asked you a question. Simply asking me questions in return doesn’t really do anything to prove your point about this mysterious ‘truth’ playing a role.

Sorry - not sure what your emoticon means. Perhaps you could actually type the message you’re trying to convey?

Well, whoopee-do. Science confirms an unremarkable hypothesis, so Genesis is proven true? Try again.

What evidence? Photographic? Video? A scientific proof that it’s possible? Or… some words in a book?

I don’t claim that all parts of the Bible are false - I never did. Now who’s misrepresenting?

Well, it depends on how you calculate the percentages. It could be that 90% of the bible is true - or at least believable - and the impossible events asserted within it fall within the other 10%. Not every sentence in the bible contains an impossibility. So it could be 90% true and still not prove that God exists, or that Jesus was the son of God, or that he walked on water, or that the Noachic flood actually happened, etc.

I guess you need to define your assessment criteria.

Okay. Maybe we’ll get back to it, although I’m still waiting for anybody to demonstrate any value in removing secularism from science, so as far as I’m concerned the point is made.

1. Again reading Genesis 1 one can see established items that are true and verifiable.

What % is true and what % is objectionable? Do we throw it all out? Now read Genesis as if God dictated it to man.

1. Now furnish me the names and contact information of those witnesses. I would like to interview them. PM me.
2. By reading and understanding the Bible and Tradition will eliminate the atheist argument that it is just a bunch of made up stories. You will at least have a greater understanding of how we arrive at the teachings of the Catholic Church. You will be forced to assign it a credibility value. You are arguing against it without knowing what is in it. In your arguments you exhort people to learn all they can about evolution so they will understand. I am asking the same of you.

You - “I don’t claim that all parts of the Bible are false - I never did. Now who’s misrepresenting?” (perhaps I mixed you up with other atheist posters about the truth claims of Scripture - I apologize)

1. There is evidence for design. ID, the science, is calculating the odds. Just as you claim that evolution is the best explanation (assigned odds) ID shows more powerfully the odds against evolution. It is exposing the limits of the evo explanation. We can take this to another thread if need be.
2. It is not that secularism should be removed from science per se, it is that science should not prance around claiming materialism is a complete explanation of the universe. Faith and reason can not be opposed. Truth does not contradict truth.

Study the following image. In the area where faith and reason intersect the conclusions must be complementary. There are many areas where they do not touch.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=6274

IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act. This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).

The above is consistent with the latest science, St Thomas and St Augustine and the constant teaching and understanding of the Catholic Church.

IDvolution is the solution.

 

[wanstronian]

1. Again reading Genesis 1 one can see established items that are true and verifiable.

Perhaps so - once can certainly see that matter exists, which was also acknowledged in the bible. That doesn’t mean that Genesis is a true and accurate record of events. You’re committing a fallacy of association. If I tell you my cat flew around the Empire State Building, the fact of that building’s presence does not automatically make my story credible.

What % is true and what % is objectionable? Do we throw it all out? Now read Genesis as if God dictated it to man.

As an explanation of the creation of the universe, and of the creation of species, yes. We throw it all out. It’s provably incorrect.

If God dictated it to man, then he was intentionally lying. My point is that there is nothing about the account of Genesis that suggests it is anything other than man’s unlearned explanation about how he got here.

1. Now furnish me the names and contact information of those witnesses. I would like to interview them. PM me.

Unfortunately, they’ve all died. Never mind though, I’ve got a piece of paper saying they all saw it - that’s good enough, isn’t it? And just to seal it as the truth, the piece of paper states the piece of paper is telling the truth. Watertight, I think you’ll agree.

You’ve highlighted the difference between modern methods for documenting evidence, and third party “they all saw it, honest” claims made by impressionable goatherds centuries ago. Of course I can’t prove my cat can fly - but I can provide equal evidence for my cat flying, as you can for Jesus walking on water.

1. By reading and understanding the Bible and Tradition will eliminate the atheist argument that it is just a bunch of made up stories. You will at least have a greater understanding of how we arrive at the teachings of the Catholic Church. You will be forced to assign it a credibility value. You are arguing against it without knowing what is in it. In your arguments you exhort people to learn all they can about evolution so they will understand. I am asking the same of you.

Well, I asked the question in direct response to your exhortations to me to read the bible so that I understand it. However, I am happy for you to cherry-pick statements from either of the two books I mentioned - you don’t need to read the whole book to select a statement and investigate its truth. You seem to be suggesting that the bible is only accurate as a historical record of events if I read the whole thing. A claim that Jesus walked on water becomes obviously true if I read thousands of words totally disconnected with the phenomenon of walking on water? What nonsense.

You - “I don’t claim that all parts of the Bible are false - I never did. Now who’s misrepresenting?” (perhaps I mixed you up with other atheist posters about the truth claims of Scripture - I apologize)

You may find some atheists who claim that every word of the bible is a lie, but not many. That would be a positive claim which would be impossible to justify - a bit like the claim that God exists, for example. I believe that most atheists claim, correctly, that there is no objective reason to believe it is all true. The incredulity of atheists increases in direct proportion to the claims made by the bible. Jesus walking on water, for example, is an extraordinary claim. For that reason, it needs a little more evidence than being written down in a self-confirming book.

1. There is evidence for design. ID, the science, is calculating the odds. Just as you claim that evolution is the best explanation (assigned odds) ID shows more powerfully the odds against evolution. It is exposing the limits of the evo explanation. We can take this to another thread if need be.

Erm, ID is not science, it’s pseudo-science. I’d be happy for you to explain the scientific discoveries of ID and how they refute evolutionary theory. Just let me know the thread title. I look forward to reading about all the independent experiments that validate the hypothesis.

1. It is not that secularism should be removed from science per se, it is that science should not prance around claiming materialism is a complete explanation of the universe. Faith and reason can not be opposed. Truth does not contradict truth.

Okay, so we agree on something. Secularism shouldn’t be removed from science (In fact, it can’t be for it would no longer be science, but we’ve been there already). I don’t believe that science ‘prances around’ claiming a complete explanation of the universe. You’ve committed two fallacies in this one sentence. The first is the fallacy of loaded words, and the second is a misprepresentation of scientific claims. Science doesn’t claim to be able to explain the universe. Science in itself makes no claims whatsoever. Individual scientific theories make specific claims about aspects of the universe, based on freely available data, objective and verifiable methods, and peer-reviewed results, all of which can be re-used and repeated to confirm the explanation. All these theories are materialistic in nature, because - so far at least - that’s proved to be the only reliable and objective basis on which to assess our universe.

 

[wanstronian]

IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act. This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.

Yes, I’ve heard this rhetoric before. There’s no evidence to support it, it’s just the argument from incredulity. It offers no predictive power, no credible alternative explanation to the many quirks of nature which are readily explainable by evolutionary theory. As I said before, it’s a creationist dodge to try and keep God in the loop in the face of overwhelming (and increasing) evidence that he’s not required to explain anything.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).

Well, it’s not virtually certain at all - this is another creationist assertion. It’s an intellectually poor assertion at that, because a much fuller and more evidence-supported explanation already exists.

The above is consistent with the latest science, St Thomas and St Augustine and the constant teaching and understanding of the Catholic Church.

Of course it’s consistent, it’s been specifically devised to fit around the established facts. Being undisputed by scientific evidence doesn’t make it scientific evidence in itself, though. This is just God of the Gaps stuff - no more credible than Intelligent Falling Theory.

IDvolution is the solution.

It’s *a *solution. As arbitrary as all other theistic ‘explanations,’ devoid of evidence or predictive power, yet dressed up as science in a failed attempt to give it credibility. And as someone who has so vehemently defended the literality of the bible in this thread, how do you reconcile the contradictions between ID and that book?

BTW, do you intend to answer the questions I asked in my previous comment?

1. What about the OT excludes the possibility that it was written by Man, not God?
2. Which parts of evolutionary theory are wrong?
3. How is E=mc2 affected by this mysterious ‘truth’ you subscribe to?
4. What were you trying to convey with your emoticon, in response to my pointing out the smugness of the message in the link you provided?
5. What evidence do you have that Jesus walking on water?
6. How do you want to assess the accuracy of the bible? Sentence-by-sentence? Arbitrary (but agreed) separation into chunks?

If not, I suggest we forget this thread as we’ve gone OT anyway - let’s jump straight to the thread where you lay out the scientific evidence for ID.

 

[tonyrey]

Science cannot be anything but secular if it is confined to the investigation of empirical phenomena but scientists frequently overstep the mark by extending the scope of science to the whole of reality - as when they attempt to establish “a theory of everything” or regard human beings as no more than higher primates…

 

[buffalo]

Perhaps so - once can certainly see that matter exists, which was also acknowledged in the bible. That doesn’t mean that Genesis is a true and accurate record of events. You’re committing a fallacy of association. If I tell you my cat flew around the Empire State Building, the fact of that building’s presence does not automatically make my story credible.

As an explanation of the creation of the universe, and of the creation of species, yes. We throw it all out. It’s provably incorrect.

If God dictated it to man, then he was intentionally lying. My point is that there is nothing about the account of Genesis that suggests it is anything other than man’s unlearned explanation about how he got here.

Unfortunately, they’ve all died. Never mind though, I’ve got a piece of paper saying they all saw it - that’s good enough, isn’t it? And just to seal it as the truth, the piece of paper states the piece of paper is telling the truth. Watertight, I think you’ll agree.

You’ve highlighted the difference between modern methods for documenting evidence, and third party “they all saw it, honest” claims made by impressionable goatherds centuries ago. Of course I can’t prove my cat can fly - but I can provide equal evidence for my cat flying, as you can for Jesus walking on water.

Well, I asked the question in direct response to your exhortations to me to read the bible so that I understand it. However, I am happy for you to cherry-pick statements from either of the two books I mentioned - you don’t need to read the whole book to select a statement and investigate its truth. You seem to be suggesting that the bible is only accurate as a historical record of events if I read the whole thing. A claim that Jesus walked on water becomes obviously true if I read thousands of words totally disconnected with the phenomenon of walking on water? What nonsense.

You may find some atheists who claim that every word of the bible is a lie, but not many. That would be a positive claim which would be impossible to justify - a bit like the claim that God exists, for example. I believe that most atheists claim, correctly, that there is no objective reason to believe it is all true. The incredulity of atheists increases in direct proportion to the claims made by the bible. Jesus walking on water, for example, is an extraordinary claim. For that reason, it needs a little more evidence than being written down in a self-confirming book.

Erm, ID is not science, it’s pseudo-science. I’d be happy for you to explain the scientific discoveries of ID and how they refute evolutionary theory. Just let me know the thread title. I look forward to reading about all the independent experiments that validate the hypothesis.

Okay, so we agree on something. Secularism shouldn’t be removed from science (In fact, it can’t be for it would no longer be science, but we’ve been there already). I don’t believe that science ‘prances around’ claiming a complete explanation of the universe. You’ve committed two fallacies in this one sentence. The first is the fallacy of loaded words, and the second is a misprepresentation of scientific claims. Science doesn’t claim to be able to explain the universe. Science in itself makes no claims whatsoever. Individual scientific theories make specific claims about aspects of the universe, based on freely available data, objective and verifiable methods, and peer-reviewed results, all of which can be re-used and repeated to confirm the explanation. All these theories are materialistic in nature, because - so far at least - that’s proved to be the only reliable and objective basis on which to assess our universe.

1. No - but we can agree that the Empire State building exists.

If we work through Genesis we can see many more facts known to be true.

1. Nothing about early cosmology is provable. Evidence has been gathered and reasoned that is contrary to some parts.
2. How so? If God dictated it to man then it gives a different perspective. Start with time. Imagine time being rolled up like a measuring tape. From God’s perspective perhaps there are seven layers. He sees it all at once. From the human perspective we live on the tape itself. All we can see is forward and backward and we count the graduations.
3. Well know I cannot interview them can I? However, that is not the case in the Gospel .
4. I repeat - reading and understanding Scripture and Tradition will help you understand the credibility of both. Will you be converted? I didn’t make that claim.
5. Are you kidding me? Many atheists first attack is to trash Scripture and Tradition. You have done it yourself in various posts. But when we get down to it it does not stand. So again, what is the % of truth found there? 10% 90% Someday you are going to have to assign it or you remain irrational.
6. The Bible written as a self confirming book? What is your evidence that the writers had this intent?

 

[buffalo]

1. ID the science -
   Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
   

                                     Yes. The scientific method is  commonly described  as a four-step process involving observations,  hypothesis, experiments,  and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with  the observation that  intelligent agents produce complex and specified  information (CSI).   Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural  object was designed, it  will contain high levels of CSI.  Scientists  then perform experimental  tests upon natural objects to determine if  they contain complex and  specified information.  One easily testable  form of CSI is irreducible  complexity, which can be discovered by  experimentally  reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they  require all of  their parts to function. When ID researchers find  irreducible complexity  in biology, they conclude that such structures  were designed.

What do you disagree with here?

1. What - have you been reading science? Here is one - need more? ‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, **in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. ** It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. **Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ** The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen [but see the difference between http://creation.com/article/2891/#Naturalism”]origin and operational science—Ed.].’Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons (review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, I’ve heard this rhetoric before. There’s no evidence to support it, it’s just the argument from incredulity. It offers no predictive power, no credible alternative explanation to the many quirks of nature which are readily explainable by evolutionary theory. As I said before, it’s a creationist dodge to try and keep God in the loop in the face of overwhelming (and increasing) evidence that he’s not required to explain anything.

Well, it’s not virtually certain at all - this is another creationist assertion. It’s an intellectually poor assertion at that, because a much fuller and more evidence-supported explanation already exists.

Of course it’s consistent, it’s been specifically devised to fit around the established facts. Being undisputed by scientific evidence doesn’t make it scientific evidence in itself, though. This is just God of the Gaps stuff - no more credible than Intelligent Falling Theory.

It’s a solution. As arbitrary as all other theistic ‘explanations,’ devoid of evidence or predictive power, yet dressed up as science in a failed attempt to give it credibility. And as someone who has so vehemently defended the literality of the bible in this thread, how do you reconcile the contradictions between ID and that book?

BTW, do you intend to answer the questions I asked in my previous comment?

1. What about the OT excludes the possibility that it was written by Man, not God?
2. Which parts of evolutionary theory are wrong?
3. How is E=mc2 affected by this mysterious ‘truth’ you subscribe to?
4. What were you trying to convey with your emoticon, in response to my pointing out the smugness of the message in the link you provided?
5. What evidence do you have that Jesus walking on water?
6. How do you want to assess the accuracy of the bible? Sentence-by-sentence? Arbitrary (but agreed) separation into chunks?

If not, I suggest we forget this thread as we’ve gone OT anyway - let’s jump straight to the thread where you lay out the scientific evidence for ID.

Oops - no predictive power? It certainly has predictive power. In fact many of the predictions are being verified right now.

Here are a few:

(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless “junk DNA”.

Time, space, matter and information. The word… information. God breathed the word (information). The language/code of DNA is information. Language, symbols, maps, instructions do not occur in nature. They always come from a mind. A sender, receiver and a key is required.

Yes IDvolution is taking in account of established fact. Thank you . This is a big admission. We can wait until more evidence mounts. Science won’t say much about this anyway. The reasoning of IDvolution is philosophical taking into account the truth of Revelation and the truth of correct scientific reasoning.

There are limits to the explanatory power of evolution. The Edge of Evolution show the limits. The scale looks something like a thermometer scaled 1-100. Evolution explanatory power 10-15% - unknown - 10%, the remainder ID.

 

[inocente]

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).

I don’t understand why that is an observation rather than a hypothesis. When I see a buffalo on the prairie, I observe a buffalo, not a set of intelligent agents. Could you explain?

When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Could you point me at some of the papers published by the researchers? (I like to look at the original experimental results but so far, with my meager knowledge of the subject, have only found speculations and interpretations).

 

[wanstronian]

Science cannot be anything but secular if it is confined to the investigation of empirical phenomena but scientists frequently overstep the mark by extending the scope of science to the whole of reality - as when they attempt to establish “a theory of everything” or regard human beings as no more than higher primates…

Yes - ToE are a bit premature as not enough information is known about our universe. It’s hypothetically possible I suppose, but few such theories would be, or have been, given much credibility at our current level of knowledge.

However, it has been established beyond all reasonable doubt, that humans ARE higher primates. I’m well aware that you don’t like this, but it is a fact.

 

[larkin31]

Science cannot be anything but secular if it is confined to the investigation of empirical phenomena…

Indeed

Science should be empirical and thorough and honest. Where it is speculative, it simply needs to admit such. Nearly all scientific papers and publications actually are very clear about the limits of their findings and conclusions. It is the media and laypeople who tend to affix vague labels and inaccurate summaries to these documents and apply the findings to more than they are intended.

 

[larkin31]

Are we allowed to discuss evolution on this website? I would love to, but I remember reading a ban on the topic. What is the status?

 

[rapunzel77]

I have read all of the posts and I still don’t think there needs to be this dichotomy between them. Of course Science must be secular in method. I think at most it needs to be infused with a moral sense. That way scientists aren’t doing terrible experiments on people, etc.

I am personally a theistic evolutionist. I believe that God created the world but the process on how it happened can be answered mostly through science. I don’t see how the two must have a complete wall between them or be married. Why not be friendly partners? Science can’t explain everything. That isn’t what it is meant to be. Likewise, Religion can’t explain how an atom works or the distance of galaxies, etc. That isn’t the job of religion.

I think there needs to be mutual respect. To often I see less respect from the scientific community toward religion. Granted, there are some religious people who have a great mistrust and hatred of science and anything intellectual. I do think that when debating someone, especially an atheist about the existence of God, etc that the Bible should not be used to prove one’s point since the atheist doesn’t accept it as a valid and objective document.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rapunzel

*I think there needs to be mutual respect. To often I see less respect from the scientific community toward religion. Granted, there are some religious people who have a great mistrust and hatred of science and anything intellectual. I do think that when debating someone, especially an atheist about the existence of God, etc that the Bible should not be used to prove one’s point since the atheist doesn’t accept it as a valid and objective document. *

Good post.

The attitude of organized religion toward science in the old days is very much the attitude of many scientists toward religion today. Tit for tat. This should not be. Scientism has become bullish about claiming all possible knowledge for its territory and methodology. Science even wants to dispose of religion as a natural phenomenon with a natural explanation. In assuming that religion has no element of the divine, science has deified itself (made itself supreme) and judged religion to be an accident of history, an accident that sooner or later will fade from history. The new gospel will be filled with materialism, determinism, and ultimately a death dealing cynicism toward the future of humankind, as the following article suggests.

entertainmentandshowbiz.com/stephen-hawking-said-human-should-move-to-space-2010081067701

 

[j1akey]

Buffalo:

One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Irrducible complexity (and Behe) has been bebunked over and over again. Here’s an educational video youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU

If your theory is so scientific then send it to a peer reviewed journal or something but I’ll say right now it’ll get rejected so fast you won’t even know what happened. If someone has a scientific theory then it goes into the scientific arena to be analyzed by other people in the same field of study. Exactly what scientific field of study does “idvolution” fall under?

I googled your “idvolution” and got nothing except posts back to this website so you don’t seem to be trying to peddle it anywhere but here. As wastronian has already said It’s nothing but creationism dressed up to look like science.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

j1akey

Exactly what scientific field of study does “idvolution” fall under?

How about physics?

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

 

[larkin31]

Irrducible complexity (and Behe) has been bebunked over and over again. Here’s an educational video youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU

If your theory is so scientific then send it to a peer reviewed journal or something but I’ll say right now it’ll get rejected so fast you won’t even know what happened. If someone has a scientific theory then it goes into the scientific arena to be analyzed by other people in the same field of study. Exactly what scientific field of study does “idvolution” fall under?

I googled your “idvolution” and got nothing except posts back to this website so you don’t seem to be trying to peddle it anywhere but here. As wastronian has already said It’s nothing but creationism dressed up to look like science.

Behe is old news. Science–and the debate–has moved beyond him.

 

[j1akey]

Behe is old news. Science–and the debate–has moved beyond him.

And what’s your point? Are you the forum police or something? Buffalo brought up irreducable complexity which was championed by Behe but I don’t see you telling him what can be brought up in the topic.

 

[buffalo]

Irrducible complexity (and Behe) has been bebunked over and over again. Here’s an educational video youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU

If your theory is so scientific then send it to a peer reviewed journal or something but I’ll say right now it’ll get rejected so fast you won’t even know what happened. If someone has a scientific theory then it goes into the scientific arena to be analyzed by other people in the same field of study. Exactly what scientific field of study does “idvolution” fall under?

I googled your “idvolution” and got nothing except posts back to this website so you don’t seem to be trying to peddle it anywhere but here. As wastronian has already said It’s nothing but creationism dressed up to look like science.

Nope - just because a part is used in another mechanism does not debunk it. Specified complexity needs to be considered.

Saw the video several times.

If IDvolution can succeed here then it can be advanced. Remember now that the today’s science is feeding the reason side. Revelation is feeding the faith side. IDvolution is the explanation of the intersection.

I do not have to prove the science side. That is being done by the latest peer reviewed science itself.

*“By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have any thing to act on.” * Michael Behe, Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, 1996

Irreducible Complexity Revisited

 

[larkin31]

And what’s your point? Are you the forum police or something? Buffalo brought up irreducable complexity which was championed by Behe but I don’t see you telling him what can be brought up in the topic.

That was not my point at all. Behe’s argument is a floating fish in the backwater. THAT is my point. Anyone can bring him up as much as he/she wants.