Your comments might have a place in a discussion on different worldviews or various metaphysical concepts.
Thomas Aquinas used the analogy of a bow, arrow and target. The user of the bow knows what the target is and aims for it. The bow and arrow have no such knowledge. So, without this guiding intelligence, the bow and arrow are just instruments until used by the guiding intelligence. And the guiding intelligence would also need to know how to craft a bow and arrow for their usefulness.I’m hoping you two know you agree right?
Rather than “chance” mutations, you are both implying “ordered” mutations. As in they are acting for an end, which would ascertain the reality of teleology. This would actually contradict a core premise of naturalist philosophy
If you think in the presentation of numerous scientific theories enormous philosophical assumptions were not made you would be mistaken. Especially if you are discussing something in the Atheist/Theist debate. Also; I’m also picking out key words from previous posts. One of the key issues seems to be with the idea of “chance”; we’ve already thrown out the idea of “design” as bad philosophy, so the idea of “purpose” was brought in. The comment I replied was explicitly notions of Teleology or Final Causality; which would be an example of “purpose” as it is acting to an end.
What is being argued? Whether the “chance” giving rise to a mutation looks to be random, or whether God may have influenced it? Whether God intervenes continuously in biology, or in far more selective ways? What merit has this debate? Why does it matter? Faith in God would not be at odds with reason no matter what position was adopted.
That a cause is intrinsically directed towards its effect, as agent to end. As efficient to final cause, getting rid of the problematic philosophical presumptions of Darwins theory. Thus putting it into the more sound metaphysics of of Aristotle and St Thomas. Where God does not “intervene” in creation as that contradicts Divine Immutability; but God is eternally acting as Pure Actuality. What we are doing here helps bring reason in line with faith, and to ensure that there is no contradiction arising from a flawed understanding of doctrine or reason.
Now I get you. But I disagree.
I am a media professional. I have been in this business for a while. Why do companies spend billions of dollars on advertising every year? According to several professional publications which I get on a regular basis, the answer is simple: to affect consumer behavior. Evolution is being sold here, and elsewhere, like a product. The same “commercials” for it are repeated here frequently for only one purpose: to get non-consumers of that product to buy it.
You lost me again.
I didn’t read the article in that link, but the title says it all: “Pope says that evolution can’t be proven”.
You should!
Science is observable and repeatable. One wrong scientific assumption across millions of years can throw off the entire trajectory of inquiry. No one was around millions of years ago. And there are unexplained anomalies, like fossilization.
Look, I have dozens of books on Christianity and other religious topics. But if I have a question on biology, or astronomy I won’t go to St Augustine, or pope Benedict, I’ll consult a book on science.
Then you know that methodological naturalism is the weeding out process that eliminates all intelligence and creation possibilities from science. And that this is how science has cut off its own air supply by forcing itself, whether right or wrong, to follow the path it has cleared for itself in regards to evolution and it’s exclusiveness.
This seems overly cynical / extremist. If a scientist(s) could win fame by demolishing established theories, they’d jump at the chance. Fame and fortune would be sure to follow. Book deals, speaking tours…
But if you truly understand Methodological Naturalism, then you will know that science can NEVER admit that mutations are ‘pre-set’, even if 50 different species found in space all grew eyes independently from each other. Because, to admit that life has order or set parameters would mean that life has intelligence and memory. To admit this would be breaking the cardinal rule that science was created on. The whole foundation would become like rubble.
Scientists often works with clues, like a detective on a crime scene. That’s how we know about the past.
Science continuously corrects itself. That’s what makes it so powerful. It is continuously checked against reality. But we don’t expect to find evidence for the speed of light to change, or that the dinosaurs did not die out 65 million years ago. But if we find new evidence contradicting established and treasured theories - bad luck for the established and treasured theories; they will be overthrown and replaced by better theories.
If somebody comes and tells you that the germ theory is nonsense - a disease is really caused by demons. Or someone tries to convince you that he can make gold out of lead. What would do you call that? I call it “intellectually dishonest”, because we have overwhelming evidence that our present theories are correct.
…and does this mean all scientific discoveries would cease to work? Medicines would cease to work, computers would not compute?
no CAF!No , it would just mean scientists life work would be scrapped, and thrown either in the garbage or in the history books. Then a new discipline would replace modern science and we’d start all over again.…and does this mean all scientific discoveries would cease to work? Medicines would cease to work, computers would not compute?
Not all scientists! The one(s) who debunked existing theories would rule the world (metaphorically)!