Should science be secular?

[larkin31]

We’re not discussing evolution, we’re discussing the pseudo-science that is ID.

Or ‘IDvolution’ as Buffalo seems to want to insist on calling it. I’m not sure what the difference is, if any.

roger

I’m not really interested in his version of “science” but thanks

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin
*
This reply is this: “Becuase some religious scientists were opposed and were right, Behe is right.”*

And your reply, I think, is this: “Atheistic scientists must be right about ID because they are atheists.”

 

[tonyrey]

True. That is a question which is currently beyond the scope of any discipline if verifiable and objective answers are required.

If that is the case we cannot be sure that you are not mindless…

 

[larkin31]

larkin
*
This reply is this: “Becuase some religious scientists were opposed and were right, Behe is right.”*

And your reply, I think, is this: “Atheistic scientists must be right about ID because they are atheists.”

No

They are very likely right. There is no “must” about it. And I would never suggest such.

I have already said: read the recent literature (research) on flagellar precursors. Decide for yourself. “Irreducibility” relies on a cannot-be-reduced-further argument. SO, when empirical research shows the precursors and their functionality beyond what Behe called “irreducible,” well, then, his argument floats dead in the backwater.

As I said.

 

[larkin31]

And yes, science should remain secular. The word “secular” hardly even belongs in the same sentence. Science, mostly, is empirical and material in focus. That is its “saving grace.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

*And yes, science should remain secular. The word “secular” hardly even belongs in the same sentence. Science, mostly, is empirical and material in focus. That is its “saving grace.” *

Yeah, as if Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton could not have known the “saving grace” of science when they attributed the order of the universe to an Intelligent Being.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Human Beings are primates.

Since no one is questioning that fact your assertion is pointless.

Even if Tony’s (in my opinion slightly crazed) surmise that we could be part Primate and part Supernatural Transdimensional Hyperbeing (hithertoforth shortened to the acronym SuTH) were to be taken seriously, it is an extraordinary claim that would require some extraordinary evidence, and it still would not alter the fact that human beings are Primates, that we have evolved from Primates, that we share a common ancestor with all of today’s Primates and that anything that is ever descended from us will be a Primate, albeit possibly also a SuTH.

Your simplistic surmise that we are merely members of the ape family is self-destructive given that apes lack responsibility for their mental processes and do not have rational insight into the nature of reality. There is not one jot of evidence that an ape **knows **what it is, let alone that it is an ape! In my opinion your opinion is not slightly crazed. That would be an overestimate of its value and an understatement of its incoherence. It is quite simply absurd…

 

[tonyrey]

No argument from me!

That sums up the basis of your conclusions perfectly…

 

[Moonstruck888]

Since no one is questioning that fact your assertion is pointless.

So, you’re not questioning that fact,

Your simplistic surmise that we are merely members of the ape family is self-destructive given that apes lack responsibility for their mental processes and do not have rational insight into the nature of reality.

But you actually are questioning that fact.

There is not one jot of evidence that an ape **knows **what it is, let alone that it is an ape! In my opinion your opinion is not slightly crazed. That would be an overestimate of its value and an understatement of its incoherence. It is quite simply absurd…

None of this semi hystrical drivel has any bearing on whether or not the species of taxonomic desgination Homo Sapiens Sapiens is or isn’t a part of the primate superfamily.

If a human being knows what it is, and a human being is taxonomically designated as an ape, then it stands to reason that there is evidence of an ape that knows what it is. That is hardly rocket science.

And another thing, surmise, crazed… Don’t imitate my turn of phrase, that’s grade school stuff. Use your own words, if you actually have any opinions of your own.

 

[tonyrey]

You can look up the responses to Behe yourself. They were overwhelming.

Overwhelming if you believe purposeless processes can lead to purposeful activity…

Start with his flagellum argument, and then read the subsequent research that was done on the flagellar motor precursor units.

It is not necessary. The sheer complexity of such co-ordinated activity by goal-seeking organisms in a finely tuned environment is a sufficient indication of the inadequacy of the hypothesis that it has occurred as a freak result of blind Chance and physical Necessity… Do you think it is reasonable to attribute your power of reasoning to the fortuitous combinations of atomic particles and random genetic mutations? To derive mind from that which is mindless? Autonomy from that which lacks autonomy? Value from that which is valueless? Significance from that which is insignificant? Persons from that which is impersonal?

The advances of empirical science will continue to debunk the “irreducible” part of the claim. It is only a matter of time.

It is only a matter of faith on your part…

 

[larkin31]

Overwhelming if you believe purposeless processes can lead to purposeful activity…

Certainly. See water crystals.

It is not necessary. The sheer complexity of such co-ordinated activity by goal-seeking organisms in a finely tuned environment is a sufficient indication of the inadequacy of the hypothesis that it has occurred as a freak result of blind Chance and physical Necessity…

This is not a scientific conclusion. You are simply stating that you don’t believe in the processes that you don’t understand.

Do you think it is reasonable to attribute your power of reasoning to the fortuitous combinations of atomic particles and random genetic mutations?

Oh, yes. The electrochemical processes of certain forms of thinking and emotions are well understood by now.

To derive mind from that which is mindless? Autonomy from that which lacks autonomy? Value from that which is valueless? Significance from that which is insignificant? Persons from that which is impersonal?

Yes, certainly.

It is only a matter of faith on your part…

No. There is no evidence to the contrary. And I do not despair over it.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, we can.

I had a quick breeze through the first two chapters earlier, and can’t find any true facts. There’s an acknowledgment of the Euphrates, and of Ethiopia, but that’s about it.

Quite true, but there are some bits that are disprovable. Like the fact that there was light before there were any stars, and that the light from these distant stars reached earth instantly, and that Adam was created from dust, and Eve from Adam’s rib, and that all earthly creatures were created in one day… and so on.

Yes, it gives it a different perspective. But you’re just conjecturing here. Nothing in the bible other than its own words, suggests that it wasn’t authored by man.

Really? All the witnesses to Jesus’s miracles are still alive and available for interview, are they?

Okay, we’re getting nowhere with this. You claim that reading the whole thing makes the impossible possible, I contend that a claim of miracle needs to be supported by more than just the words stating that it happened. In no other record of history do you need to read the whole thing for subsections to become valid.

I’ve never claimed that the bible is wholly inaccurate. And I’ve never seen an atheist post that makes that claim either. All I’ve said is that the extraordinary claims documented within it need more evidence than being written down.

I’ve told you, I can’t even begin to assign it until you define your assessment criteria. My reading of the first two chapters of Genesis reveal a 100% lack of provable facts.

Where did I claim that was their intent? However, the bible undeniably confirms its own truth, and it didn’t write itself.

Genesis
Chapter 1 1 1 In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, 2 2 the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. fact - light began
4 God saw how good the light was. God then separated the light from the darkness. fact - absence of light is darkness - darkness began
5 3 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” Thus evening came, and morning followed–the first day. fact - we call these night and day til this very day
6 Then God said, “Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other.” And so it happened: fact (only recently discovered - fresh water in the depths of the earth
7 God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it. fact - water is held in the atmosphere from which rain descends.
8 God called the dome “the sky.” Evening came, and morning followed–the second day. fact - night and day are cyclical
9 Then God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered into a single basin, so that the dry land may appear.” And so it happened: the water under the sky was gathered into its basin, and the dry land appeared. fact - land appeared
10 God called the dry land “the earth,” and the basin of the water he called “the sea.” God saw how good it was. fact - we make these distinctions til today.
11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it.” And so it happened: fact - stuff grows - they reproduce through seed
12 the earth brought forth every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it. God saw how good it was. 13 Evening came, and morning followed–the third day. yup
14 Then God said: “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night. Let them mark the fixed times, the days and the years, fact - we use to mark time to this very day
15 and serve as luminaries in the dome of the sky, to shed light upon the earth.” And so it happened: fact - they provide light
16 God made the two great lights, the greater one to govern the day, and the lesser one to govern the night; and he made the stars. fact - sun and moon

 

[buffalo]

17 God set them in the dome of the sky, to shed light upon the earth, yup
18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw how good it was. 19 Evening came, and morning followed–the fourth day. yup
20 Then God said, “Let the water teem with an abundance of living creatures, and on the earth let birds fly beneath the dome of the sky.” And so it happened: fact - the oceans teem with abundance of living creatures some we have still not seen - yup - birds fly but they can only fly so high
21 God created the great sea monsters and all kinds of swimming creatures with which the water teems, and all kinds of winged birds. God saw how good it was, yup
22 and God blessed them, saying, “Be fertile, multiply, and fill the water of the seas; and let the birds multiply on the earth.” fact - the earth is fertile, has multiplied and the seas are filled - purpose
23 Evening came, and morning followed–the fifth day.yup 24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals of all kinds.” And so it happened:fact - cattle, creeping things and wild animals began
25 God made all kinds of wild animals, all kinds of cattle, and all kinds of creeping things of the earth. God saw how good it was. yup - variation
26 4 Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground.” fact - man does have dominion - the highest intelligence, wonderfully adaptable and capable.
27 God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. fact - male and female procreate.
28 God blessed them, saying: “Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.” yup - purpose
29 God also said: “See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food; fact - fruits and vegetables are edible
30 and to all the animals of the land, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the ground, I give all the green plants for food.” And so it happened. fact
31 God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good. Evening came, and morning followed–the sixth day.How could you not have seen all that is true in this account. You are in denial.

I would say the % of truth contained in Genesis ! is pretty high, don’t you think?

Is invisible light light? Of course it is. What does the big bang posit about radiation at its earliest moments?

At the time the accounts were written the witnesses were alive. The written accounts could be easily verified or discounted. You will not offer me this will you?

 

[buffalo]

No

They are very likely right. There is no “must” about it. And I would never suggest such.

I have already said: read the recent literature (research) on flagellar precursors. Decide for yourself. “Irreducibility” relies on a cannot-be-reduced-further argument. SO, when empirical research shows the precursors and their functionality beyond what Behe called “irreducible,” well, then, his argument floats dead in the backwater.

As I said.

You are missing a huge point. Evo claims the pathways must be incremental. Every step of the way fitness must be improved or it is wasted energy. Common design does not need this claim.

Look back at the mousetrap. A very small short trigger bar will not allow the mousetrap to work. By incrementally lengthening the trigger bar, does not make it work. Until you get to the correct length. All the steps in between have no function. The mousetrap dies long before.

 

[colmcille1]

Yuri Gagarin stated that’ God is undoubtedly unreal because He was not to be seen during a journey round the world in space!’ (Runaway World, Michael Green, p.46)…
and…‘Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China or Communist Russia. If man is the outcome of a fortuitous concourse of atoms, why on earth should you* not *manipulate him as you please, provided it is in your power to do so with impunity?’(ibid.,p.53)
Atheists, you’ll agree, just don’t do Love.

 

[buffalo]

Right - so an ID site claims that ID is a scientific theory. A bit like the bible claims that the bible is true. Guess that about wraps it up.

Nobody, to my knowledge, has found any example of irreducible complexity that can’t be explained scientifically. And even if such an example was found, a lack of explanation doesn’t automatically make “God did it” true.

Well, the fallacious logic, for a start. “Intelligent entities create CSI. Designed objects contain CSI. Therefore all objects that contain CSI are designed by intelligent entities.” Whoops!! Put this hat on, go stand in the corner for an hour. Then, write, “I must learn basic logic” three hundred times on tablets of stone.

Not everything a scientist says is science. You’ve quoted a scientist - a single scientist, by the way - who is expressing an opinion on a certain aspect of science. Hardly a resounding demolition of secular scientific endeavour!

What unintelligent entities create CSI?

No it does not automatically mean God did it. I could have did it.

But the more CSI the odds go up that it was designed.

I assume you know who Lewontin is. Or do you?

 

[buffalo]

Certainly. See water crystals.

Explain.

 

[tonyrey]

Overwhelming if you believe purposeless processes can lead to purposeful activity…

In what way are water crystals purposeful?

It is not necessary. The sheer complexity of such co-ordinated activity by goal-seeking organisms in a finely tuned environment is a sufficient indication of the inadequacy of the hypothesis that it has occurred as a freak result of blind Chance and physical Necessity…
This is not a scientific conclusion. You are simply stating that you don’t believe in the processes that you don’t understand.

Can you understand those processes? If so explain precisely how they unwittingly transformed themselves.

Do you think it is reasonable to attribute your power of reasoning to the fortuitous combinations of atomic particles and random genetic mutations?

Oh, yes. The electrochemical processes of certain forms of thinking and emotions are well understood by now.

So you maintain that all reasoning can ultimately be reduced to electrochemical processes? In other words electrochemical processes have become capable of grasping the truth about themselves and the nature of reality?

To derive mind from that which is mindless? Autonomy from that which lacks autonomy? Value from that which is valueless? Significance from that which is insignificant? Persons from that which is impersonal?

Yes, certainly.

How do you justify those beliefs?

It is only a matter of faith on your part…

No. There is no evidence to the contrary.

The fact that you can choose what to think is just one item of evidence… Or do you believe all your thoughts have physical causes?

And I do not despair over it.

Your faith doesn’t make you despair? Or your lack of knowledge?

 

[larkin31]

In what way are water crystals purposeful?

You are not using scientific terms. They are highly organized, they have a natural complexity and they form without supernatural or human intervention. “Purpose” is in the eye of the beholder, usually human, but not always.

Can you understand those processes? If so explain precisely how they unwittingly transformed themselves.

I am a high school English teacher. I understand grammar much better than I understand electro-chemical brain processes. But I have had to read a good bit about Parkinson’s Disease lately, and I have read a bit about other brain processes. But I am no expert in this field, nor do I claim to be. I really don’t understand the relevance of your question in this regard.

So you maintain that all reasoning can ultimately be reduced to electrochemical processes?

Can now? No. There is much in science that is still not understood fully, particularly about the brain.

In other words electrochemical processes have become capable of grasping the truth about themselves and the nature of reality?

No. That is a silly summary of current neurological work.

How do you justify those beliefs?

I don’t. I am not here to bother to justify a simple summary of material empiricism about brain function. If you don’t want to believe it, then don’t. And don’t ever take a medication for your brain, either (to be consistent).

The fact that you can choose what to think is just one item of evidence… Or do you believe all your thoughts have physical causes?

I DO believe that ALL my thoughts have physical causes. Yes.

Your faith doesn’t make you despair? Or your lack of knowledge?

Neither.

 

[larkin31]

You are missing a huge point. Evo claims the pathways must be incremental. Every step of the way fitness must be improved or it is wasted energy.

False. This is a false summary of evolutionary claims. “Improvement” is not an evolutionary requirement. “Selection” is what you mean, and “wasted energy” is non-evolutionary term as well.