Vatican astronomer likens creationism to superstition

[Riada]

No, you’re mistaken. Evolution is not a metaphysical idea, but a scientific one. Evolution is not atheistic any more than gravity theory is atheistic, or plate tectonics, or the atomic theory of matter.

You are exactly the trained but uneducated technician I was talking about. You make a pronouncement, not an argument. Metaphysics concerns the nature of God, man and the universe. This is basic to all other thinking. The stated agenda of evolutionism is to explain the universe without any reference to God or the “supernatural”(a very badly defined term). That is an atheistic agenda. A great deal of evolutionist so called “thinking” involves several sorts of denial of reality. Read Anthony Flew, There Is a God, he points out that scientists are often doing philosophy for which they have no knowlege of training. Read Whitehead, Science and the Modern world, where he points out the Christian origin and foundation of science. Then there is E. L. Burt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science, a title which speaks for itself. Do get a general education, read books, get out of your hermetically sealed compartment. “The unexamined life is not worth living.” and also remember that “Ideas have consequences!”

 

[Namesake]

You are exactly the trained but uneducated technician I was talking about. You make a pronouncement, not an argument. Metaphysics concerns the nature of God, man and the universe. This is basic to all other thinking. The stated agenda of evolutionism is to explain the universe without any reference to God or the “supernatural”(a very badly defined term). That is an atheistic agenda. A great deal of evolutionist so called “thinking” involves several sorts of denial of reality. Read Anthony Flew, There Is a God, he points out that scientists are often doing philosophy for which they have no knowlege of training. Read Whitehead, Science and the Modern world, where he points out the Christian origin and foundation of science. Then there is E. L. Burt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science, a title which speaks for itself. Do get a general education, read books, get out of your hermetically sealed compartment. “The unexamined life is not worth living.” and also remember that “Ideas have consequences!”

From my perspective you do not understand science at all. Science is simply confined to natural phenomena. Nothing else. When you bring in concepts other than those that occur in nature you have left the realm of science. It really is very simple.

 

[ricmat]

You get to choose. Science or religion. They are not at odds with each other at all. They are simply separate.

Just like art and religion, or music and religion, or archeology and religion, or history and religion. Right?

Nobody has given their opinion on the question I asked above, so here it is again:

If someone were to ask God, "Lord, do you want the discipline of science to totally ignore you , I wonder what he’d say?

 

[Riada]

Namesake, define science, define metaphysics. How about intellectual integrity, is that important to science? Is that a scientific idea? Can you justify it by empiracal evidence? How about moral principles, are they scientific? Is it OK to use bacterial warfare to exterminate a huge proportion of the human race on the theory that maybe the really fit will survive? The idea of an automanous science is insane!

 

[Namesake]

Just like art and religion, or music and religion, or archeology and religion, or history and religion. Right?

Nobody has given their opinion on the question I asked above, so here it is again:

If someone were to ask God, "Lord, do you want the discipline of science to totally ignore you , I wonder what he’d say?

Since He would be totally honest, He would probably say that science isn’t about Me. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.

Science is objective. That means it is not at all interested in belief, only objective truth.

If religion were to operate according to the scientific method it would always and forever have to ask the question, does God exist and be willing, even eager to find proof that God does not exist.

That’s not good for religion, but it’s vital for science. Science must constantly question theories.

 

[Riada]

Ricmat, The Lord God who made heaven and earth demands to be included in all of our thinking about everything. The Bible is the revelation of His truth. “God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Now what is in view here is that believing in someone is an inclusive sort of a thing. “I really loved my wife but I never saw her or paid any attention to her or considered her wishes.” Try posting that on a dating site like Senior People Meet. I bet the women would stampede to to get together with you! LOL

 

[Namesake]

Namesake, define science, define metaphysics. How about intellectual integrity, is that important to science? Is that a scientific idea? Can you justify it by empiracal evidence? How about moral principles, are they scientific? Is it OK to use bacterial warfare to exterminate a huge proportion of the human race on the theory that maybe the really fit will survive? The idea of an automanous science is insane!

It’s been a very long time since I felt comfortable at that kind of elementary level. Do your own basic education and then maybe we can talk. Peace.

 

[Riada]

Namesake the point is you can’t answer my questions because you have never thought about them. You are the one who needs a basic education. Your answers are irrational, inconsistent and incoherent. Do take a good course in logic and introduction to philosophy. It is the mark of a truly educated person to know what they doing when they are doing it. Anthony Flew is so right, most evolutionists are doing philosophy while knowing nothing about it.

 

[Namesake]

Namesake the point is you can’t answer my questions because you have never thought about them. You are the one who needs a basic education. Your answers are irrational, inconsistent and incoherent. Do take a good course in logic and introduction to philosophy. It is the mark of a truly educated person to know what they doing when they are doing it. Anthony Flew is so right, most evolutionists are doing philosophy while knowing nothing about it.

OK…

 

[drpmjhess]

Namesake, define science, define metaphysics. How about intellectual integrity, is that important to science? Is that a scientific idea? Can you justify it by empiracal evidence? How about moral principles, are they scientific? Is it OK to use bacterial warfare to exterminate a huge proportion of the human race on the theory that maybe the really fit will survive? The idea of an automanous science is insane!

Riada, could you please run your posts through a spell checker?

 

[drpmjhess]

You are exactly the trained but uneducated technician I was talking about. !"

No, regrettably I have no formal technical training. My masters degrees are in theology and philosophy, and my PhD in historical and systematic theology. My teaching in seminaries has been in both philosophy and historical theology, and my graduate and undergraduate teaching is in the history and philosophy of science, as well as in theology.

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

Namesake the point is you can’t answer my questions because you have never thought about them. You are the one who needs a basic education. Your answers are irrational, inconsistent and incoherent. Do take a good course in logic and introduction to philosophy. It is the mark of a truly educated person to know what they doing when they are doing it. Anthony Flew is so right, most evolutionists are doing philosophy while knowing nothing about it.

Sadly, those without a coherent argument often resort to ad hominem attacks.

 

[Riada]

dr-hess, would you please choose a shorter name?The jumble of letters is hard to remember but highly symbolic! And you really need to learn how thinking is done. Petty remarks about typos do not constitute a crushing rejoinder! You need to study “insufficient evidence”, “post, proctor hoc”, “refusal to discuss” and several other classic logical fallacies which are the mainstay of evolutionist pseudo-science. If evolutionism is real science why does it have to be propagated by indoctrination and the powerof the sword?

 

[Namesake]

No, regrettably I have no formal technical training. My masters degrees are in theology and philosophy, and my PhD in historical and systematic theology. My teaching in seminaries has been in both philosophy and historical theology, and my graduate and undergraduate teaching is in the history and philosophy of science, as well as in theology.

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

Well, I do have substantial “technical” training. However, my undergrad degrees are in zoology and psychology. My grad work was a PhD in anatomical research, which is essentially focused on evolution. I also did some grad work in psychology but never finished. I taught comparative anatomy and histology and embryology and micro anatomical techniques. I completed grad courses in ethics and logic and a whole bunch of grad American and English literature, as well as advanced mathematics, and of course statistics.

 

[drpmjhess]

Well, I do have substantial “technical” training. However, my undergrad degrees are in zoology and psychology. My grad work was a PhD in anatomical research, which is essentially focused on evolution. I also did some grad work in psychology but never finished. I taught comparative anatomy and histology and embryology and micro anatomical techniques. I completed grad courses in ethics and logic and a whole bunch of grad American and English literature, as well as advanced mathematics, and of course statistics.

Namesake, it looks as though you and I pretty well cover the waterfront in terms of our doctoral training, and we are supported in our position regarding science and religion by numerous others on CAF. Absent any cogent argument, Riada has resorted to the pathetic move of attacking the credentials of people he/she doesn’t even know, in a desperate attempt to sidetrack attention from that fact that her/his “argument” is in fact both scientifically and theologically vacuous.

Petrus

 

[Stephen_LB]

The only reason scientists bother with research in lab mice, rats, and monkeys is common descent, which makes testable predictions about the agreement between phylogenies based on genes and on morphology, behavior, etc. What kind of predictions does ID make?

ID predicted that we could not build life from scratch. So it has been. It is impossible to chemically produce many basic molecules required for any living system That is becaue it was designed.

ID predicted that Darwinists would find no evolutionary pathway to complexity. So it has been. Neither the biochemical nor replicative pathways have been described. In fact, many scientists think that they could not have arisen by any naturalistic means.

By the way, you claimed otherwise, insisting the IR has been refuted. I asked for evidence, and you did not provide it.

 

[Stephen_LB]

I taught comparative anatomy at a major US land grant university. That’s pretty much how we did our research, by studying infra-human species and making correlations with humans.

But as far as ID is concerned, that simply can’t be researched with meaningful scientific models. As you well understand, when God is brought into the questions, science ceases to exist.

Once again, I invite you to investigate the process by which a formal design inference is made. It is of fundamental importance that you understand a process prior to making claims about it. I would not presume to comment on the modern evolutionary synthesis if I did not understand the usage of terms such as random variation, gentic drift, and natural selection.

 

[Stephen_LB]

You make a very strong point, for religion. But science isn’t in the least interested in Jesus.

That is not the same as saying that science is hostile to religion. Science simply is not interested in religion. When you bring Jesus into the discussion you have left science. Not very hard to understand.

You get to choose. Science or religion. They are not at odds with each other at all. They are simply separate.

This is not true. Science is inextricably bound up with metaphysics. Indeed, science cannot operate unless it honors the higher philosophical principle of the “excluded middle.” This philosophical principle rests on an even higher theological principle.

Theology defines the very foundation of all scientific research. As Christians, we know that God created [A] a rational universe, ** rational minds to comprehend it, and [C] a correspondence between the two. Take away even one of these pieces of the puzzle, and the entire rational enterprise collapses. Logic itself depends on theological dualism.**

 

[Stephen_LB]

It’s been a very long time since I felt comfortable at that kind of elementary level. Do your own basic education and then maybe we can talk. Peace.

If you think that defining terms is a fruitless intelledtual exercise, you will continue to make egregious logical errors. No one is above defining their terms, If you actually tried to do it, you would find out what a rigorous actiity it really is. It is VERY HARD to know what to LEAVE OUT of a definition. It requires profound understanding and the ability to reduce a subject to its BARE ESSENCE.

 

[Namesake]

This is not true. Science is inextricably bound up with metaphysics. Indeed, science cannot operate unless it honors the higher philosophical principle of the “excluded middle.” This philosophical principle rests on an even higher theological principle.

Theology defines the very foundation of all scientific research. As Christians, we know that God created [A] a rational universe, ** rational minds to comprehend it, and [C] a correspondence between the two. Take away even one of these pieces of the puzzle, and the entire rational enterprise collapses. Logic itself depends on theological dualism.**

Science is not bound up with metaphysics. Theology does not define all of scientific research. Those claims are simply ridiculous.

Once you insert metaphysics or theology you force science to the sideline until the conversation comes back to objective truth. Philosophy of science is a distinct area of study, but it is not natural science. Same with theology. You theologians are pretty much in a class by yourselves.

Of course science uses logic, but not in the way that you describe. Theologians and philosophers approach logic as a primary subject. Science uses logic only as a way to discover objective truth.

And, at the moment you begin a theological excursion into science, science leaves the building. Science doesn’t care one whit about theology. Theology cares about science, as it should, but science does just fine without (name removed by moderator)ut from theology.

And I might further comment that both are much more satisfying when they can remain separate.