Sorry Evolution Again

[buffalo]

That constitutes the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Basically it means it ain’t necessarily so.

Truth cannot contradict Revealed truth.

And yes Catholics would concede God as an authority.

 

[wildleafblower]

*] AIDS is a disease, not a virus. HIV is the virus which causes AIDS.
rossum

 

[rossum]

Catholic Revelation is true Revelation.

No it is not. Buddhist scriptures show that Catholicism does not have everything correct.

By your definition of science you have painted yourself into a corner. You have only empiricism and pseudo-scientific philosophy to base your worldview on.

No. I base my scientific views on empiricism, I base my worldview on Buddhism. You are making a category error here.

rossum

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

Do you expect all the Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, agnostic and atheist scientists to pay Catholic Revelation the slightest notice? They all seem to have produced great science without its help. In fact, Revelation is entirely irrelevant to science.

Catholic Revelation is true Revelation.

So you say, and I am sure you believe it, but the vast majority of scientists do not. How can it be a counter-argument to my point, when it is a pure faith position.

As I say, Revelation is irrelevant to science.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

So you say, and I am sure you believe it, but the vast majority of scientists do not. How can it be a counter-argument to my point, when it is a pure faith position.

As I say, Revelation is irrelevant to science.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

As I say it isn’t. Round and round we go. Scientists have elected to disregard it. A point edwest has been making post after post. Ed will be happy to hear you are in agreement with him.

So if scientists elect to disregard any of the truths contained in Scripture then they limit themselves. Another point why empirical science should stay empirical. You yourself take the raw data a draw conclusions based on your philosophy.

So, how do we know any particular philosophy is correct?

 

[buffalo]

No it is not. Buddhist scriptures show that Catholicism does not have everything correct.

No. I base my scientific views on empiricism, I base my worldview on Buddhism. You are making a category error here.

rossum

So how do you arrive at your scientific conclusions? Your posts are laden with philosophy.

 

[The_Barbarian]

As I say it isn’t. Round and round we go. Scientists have elected to disregard it.

They don’t have a choice when doing science. Science only works for the physical univers. Like plumbing, it can’t incorporate belief in the supernatural into its processes.

So if scientists elect to disregard any of the truths contained in Scripture then they limit themselves.

Indeed they do. But like plumbers, scientists can apprehend the truths of Scripture, even if science and plumbing cannot.

Another point why empirical science should stay empirical.

Many of us have tried to tell you this.

You yourself take the raw data a draw conclusions based on your philosophy.

Hmm… did I miss that? Conclusions from evidence is the way science works. And that works very well, indeed.

 

[buffalo]

They don’t have a choice when doing science. Science only works for the physical univers. Like plumbing, it can’t incorporate belief in the supernatural into its processes.

Indeed they do. But like plumbers, scientists can apprehend the truths of Scripture, even if science and plumbing cannot.

Many of us have tried to tell you this.

Hmm… did I miss that? Conclusions from evidence is the way science works. And that works very well, indeed.

Many of us have tried to tell you this. Huh?

So you admit your conclusions are biased by your worldview?

 

[edwest2]

They don’t have a choice when doing science. Science only works for the physical univers. Like plumbing, it can’t incorporate belief in the supernatural into its processes.

Indeed they do. But like plumbers, scientists can apprehend the truths of Scripture, even if science and plumbing cannot.

Many of us have tried to tell you this.

Hmm… did I miss that? Conclusions from evidence is the way science works. And that works very well, indeed.

“Conclusions from evidence…” No. The conclusions are firmly attached to a worldview. Example: Human embryo. A unique individual. An Embryologist could prove it to anyone, but, thanks to an institutionalized worldview, it is not a human being. Science is no longer science when an ideology, or money, invades it.

Science is done to make money. Cures for diseases means investors and investors want a big dollar return. No return in a reasonable time, no more money. The science gets shut down. Or test results are tampered with. Human nature, as it’s called.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

“Conclusions from evidence…” No. The conclusions are firmly attached to a worldview.

If so, it’s hard to explain why both Francisco Ayala (Devout Catholic) and Richard Dawkins (disgruntled atheist) both do pretty good science.

Example: Human embryo. A unique individual. An Embryologist could prove it to anyone, but, thanks to an institutionalized worldview, it is not a human being.

Hmm… I missed the paper where a scientist showed it wasn’t a human being. Could you provide a citation from the literature showing this to us?

Science is no longer science when an ideology, or money, invades it.

Right. It’s why science can’t do what you want it to do, Ed.

Science is done to make money.

I can’t imagine a worse investment than a PhD, if money is the object. Fact is, most people do it, because it’s fun.

Cures for diseases means investors and investors want a big dollar return. No return in a reasonable time, no more money.

Never heard of SETI, um?

The science gets shut down. Or test results are tampered with.

Governments sometimes try to do that to science, but as in the case of climatology, someone always blows the whistle.

 

[Namesake]

“Conclusions from evidence…” No. The conclusions are firmly attached to a worldview.

As I have told you many times, if that were true why wouldn’t some young, aggressive graduate student figure it out and blow the whistle. If a grad student could show that something in contemporary science was corrupt, he/she would be able to become a super star over night. Most grad students dream of being able to show that some theory is wrong. Why, if you know there is corruption, doesn’t some bright student figure that out and publish it?

When I was a grad student in microscopic anatomy if I had information that an established theory was corrupted I would have pounced on the idea and published it.

Why doesn’t that happen Ed? Do you have any idea how many thousands of grad students in the world would love to discover what you claim is true?

How then do you know what they don’t know?

 

[Dark_Warrior]

You are not an atheist, so it is strange that you know how atheists think."

Hey Rossum, guess what, I USED to be an atheist pal, and I, for a long time, hung around with atheists, therefore I know what I think and according to their own words (**there is no God, evolution proves **that) I know how my atheists companions thought.

If there is no God, according to atheists, then the universe happened by accident, evolution was sparked by random blind chance. There was no guidance at all, zero, nothing! No God, no Creator.

 

[Namesake]

rossum;4481309:

If there is no God, according to atheists, then the universe happened by accident, evolution was sparked by random blind chance. There was no guidance at all, zero, nothing! No God, no Creator.

It looks like the universe came about through some really neat principles. That is not the same as blind chance, or no guidance. The laws of nature are responsible for what we observe and theorize in the universe.

I think God made those laws and gives us the opportunity to discover how it happened.

 

[Dark_Warrior]

The only folks I hear saying that God wasn’t behind evolution are extreme fundamentalists and extreme atheists.

Most people who accept evolution think God did it. Notice the dead silence when I asked people to tell of of textbooks or schools that taught evolution is blind chance?

I believe they know better. Why they say such things is beyond me. The truth matters.

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.” (Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; emphasis in original)

“[by coupling the] undirected, purposeless variation [with] the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
Futuyma, Douglas J. 1998. Evolutionary Biology. Third Edition, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 5.

Humans…came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and our brains…. Natural selection…explains…the whole of life, the diversity of life, the complexity of life, |and| the apparent design in life."
– Campbell, Neil A., Jane B. Reece, and Lawrence G. Mitchell. 1999. Biology. Fifth Edition, Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley Longman, 412-413.

The real difficulty in accepting Darwin’s theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance…. |Evolution| asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.
— Curtis, Helena and N. Sue Barnes. 1981. Invitation to Biology. Third Edition, New York, NY: Worth, 475.

The Darwinian view that… 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…. In this scheme a god of design and purpose is not necessary…. Religion has been bolstered by… the comforting idea that humanity was created in the image of a god to rule over the world and its creatures. Religion provided emotional solace, a set of ethical and moral values…. Nevertheless, faith in religious dogma has been eroded by natural explanations of its mysteries…. The positions of the creationists and the scientific world appear irreconcilable."
— Strickberger, Monroe. 2000. Evolution. Third Edition, Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett, 70-71.

We’re not saying life is no miracle, it’s a wondrous miracle, even those who do not believe in and God think life is wondrous, and give it their own meaning. It’s only those who care not about God, who think they won’t get judged, that say life is meaningless, and we can eat, drink, and be merry. That doesn 't fly with the common individual.

One study of 149 leading biologists found that 89.9 percent believed that evolution has no ultimate purpose or goal except survival, and we are just a cosmic accident existing at the whim of time and chance. A mere six percent believed that evolution has a purpose.
— Graffin, Gregory W. 2004. Evolution, Monism, Atheism, and the Naturalist World-View. Ithaca, NY: Polypterus Press, 42

Is that better barbarian??!!

 

[Dark_Warrior]

Dark Warrior;4503836:

It looks like the universe came about through some really neat principles. That is not the same as blind chance, or no guidance. The laws of nature are responsible for what we observe and theorize in the universe.

I think God made those laws and gives us the opportunity to discover how it happened.

And I agree. My point is that evolution in many science books, and the schools, gives the impression that there is no God. It’s the way the study of evolution is presented that bothers me, in many cases. This is why so many fundamentalists have a problem with it. I ackowledge evolution, I just wish it wouldn’t be talked about as “random blind processes,” CAUSE IT IS!! AND GIVES THAT IMPRESSION, no matter what master Barbarian and master Rossum say

 

[Dark_Warrior]

“The laws of nature are responsible for what we observe and theorize in the universe.”

And if there were no God, as most atheist scientists believe, these laws happened by chance, making life an accident. I’ve heard this time and time again, that life is all one big accident, and by the way evolution is presented, this is the impression so many people get.

 

[Dark_Warrior]

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.” (Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; emphasis in original)

“[by coupling the] undirected, purposeless variation [with] the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
Futuyma, Douglas J. 1998. Evolutionary Biology. Third Edition, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 5.

Humans…came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and our brains…. Natural selection…explains…the whole of life, the diversity of life, the complexity of life, |and| the apparent design in life."
– Campbell, Neil A., Jane B. Reece, and Lawrence G. Mitchell. 1999. Biology. Fifth Edition, Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley Longman, 412-413.

The real difficulty in accepting Darwin’s theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance…. |Evolution| asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.
— Curtis, Helena and N. Sue Barnes. 1981. Invitation to Biology. Third Edition, New York, NY: Worth, 475.

The Darwinian view that… 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…. In this scheme a god of design and purpose is not necessary…. Religion has been bolstered by… the comforting idea that humanity was created in the image of a god to rule over the world and its creatures. Religion provided emotional solace, a set of ethical and moral values…. Nevertheless, faith in religious dogma has been eroded by natural explanations of its mysteries…. The positions of the creationists and the scientific world appear irreconcilable."
— Strickberger, Monroe. 2000. Evolution. Third Edition, Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett, 70-71.

We’re not saying life is no miracle, it’s a wondrous miracle, even those who do not believe in and God think life is wondrous, and give it their own meaning. It’s only those who care not about God, who think they won’t get judged, that say life is meaningless, and we can eat, drink, and be merry. That doesn 't fly with the common individual.

One study of 149 leading biologists found that 89.9 percent believed that evolution has no ultimate purpose or goal except survival, and we are just a cosmic accident existing at the whim of time and chance. A mere six percent believed that evolution has a purpose.
— Graffin, Gregory W. 2004. Evolution, Monism, Atheism, and the Naturalist World-View. Ithaca, NY: Polypterus Press, 42

Is that better barbarian??!!

Things as these should not be mentioned because it’s opinon. What should be mentioned, and mentione donly is studying the science of evolution, how, when, and why things developed. That way it still leaves WHAT causes it a mystery.

Overall, I disagree with public schools, I see that as a socialist idea. I’d rather have other types of schooling available such as home or private, or town like the Amish. But that’s another topic.

 

[Namesake]

Namesake;4503869:

I ackowledge evolution, I just wish it wouldn’t be talked about as “random blind processes,” CAUSE IT IS!! AND GIVES THAT IMPRESSION, no matter what master Barbarian and master Rossum say

Evolution is not random. It is blind in that there is no purpose or design. Evolution goes where ever it goes according to natural selection.

Don’t you think God could have made it that way?.

 

[The_Barbarian]

And I agree. My point is that evolution in many science books, and the schools, gives the impression that there is no God.

I review textbooks from time to time. Never saw one that even hinted that there is no God.

It’s the way the study of evolution is presented that bothers me, in many cases. This is why so many fundamentalists have a problem with it. I ackowledge evolution, I just wish it wouldn’t be talked about as "random blind processes,

As you know, Darwin’s discovery was that it wasn’t random.

CAUSE IT IS!! AND GIVES THAT IMPRESSION, no matter what master Barbarian and master Rossum say

I don’t think stamping your foot and insisting that it is, will stand against the evidence.

 

[The_Barbarian]

And if there were no God, as most atheist scientists believe, these laws happened by chance, making life an accident.

But biology does not suppose that there is no God. If you take your points from atheists who want science to support them, you’ll be continuously misled.

I’ve heard this time and time again, that life is all one big accident, and by the way evolution is presented, this is the impression so many people get.

That’s the way ID/creationists present it, for the obvious reasons. If you accept their description of science, you’ll never learn what it’s really about.

Notice that the biologists here have repeatedly pointed out that science does not claim it’s all one big accident, and that science does not suppose that there is no God.

If you want to learn about capitalism, it’s probably not a good idea to ask Fidel Castro to explain it to you.