Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[Bradskii]

No, we cannot trust genetic evidence completely as we are finding the genetic clock needs some calibration.

You don’t need a clock. You can calibrate genetic evidence any which way you like. But if the evidence in the Americas and Australasia shows no flood, then that’s what it shows. One doesn’t need a date if the event never took place.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

What on earth are you saying ‘crossing over into philosophy’? Formal and final causes are part of Thomistic philosophy. They are philosophical positions, NOT scientific ones.

Again, I am totally bemused that I have to point this out to you.

Methodological naturalism excluded it. It was not so in the beginning.

I don’t like using emoticons, but the one with the head banging against a wall is definitely applicable here.

‘Methodological naturalism is…an essential aspect of the methodology of science.’ http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/methodologicalnaturalism.htm

You are referring to an aspect of science. It has nothing to do with formal and final causes which are philosophical positions. It never excluded anything regarding the divine. It cannot, by definiton, include it.

I think that you are throwing comments at the wall in the hope that something sticks. All you are doing is making a mess of the wall.

 

[buffalo]

Australasia shows no flood

There are a few aboriginal flood stories. Almost every culture has one.

 

[buffalo]

You are referring to an aspect of science. It has nothing to do with formal and final causes which are philosophical positions. It never excluded anything regarding the divine. It cannot, by definiton , include it.

Purpose is routinely understood in science, except when it comes to evolution.

 

[rossum]

No, we cannot trust genetic evidence completely as we are finding the genetic clock needs some calibration.

We can trust science on this. Mutation rates would have to have changed by orders of magnitude to show the level of variation currently seen to have developed from a single breeding pair. Bacteria might be able to do it, but for slow-breeding land tetrapods: elephants, armadillos, kangaroos etc. then the measurements are accurate enough to rule out a recent global mass extinction.

 

[buffalo]

We can trust science on this.

I don’t think so. Stay tuned…

 

[rossum]

There are a few aboriginal flood stories. Almost every culture has one.

You have noticed that humans tend to settle near rivers and coastlines? Where do most local floods happen?

As a Medieval monk is meant to have said: “It is a wonderful example of the mercy of God that through every large city there runs a river.”

 

[buffalo]

You have noticed that humans tend to settle near rivers and coastlines? Where do most local floods happen?

Even the Chinese have the flood story built into their word characters.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

You are referring to an aspect of science. It has nothing to do with formal and final causes which are philosophical positions. It never excluded anything regarding the divine. It cannot, by definiton , include it.

Purpose is routinely understood in science, except when it comes to evolution.

Purpose is found in many things where its applicable. And not in many other things when it’s not. Sorry, I’m missing your point.

Bradskii:

Australasia shows no flood

There are a few aboriginal flood stories. Almost every culture has one.

So we cannot trust scientific evidence, but folklore…yeah, why not!

 

[buffalo]

So we cannot trust scientific evidence, but folklore…yeah, why not!

Some of the scientific so called evidence is scientific folklore.

Yes, accounts of the past give us pertinent information.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

So we cannot trust scientific evidence, but folklore…yeah, why not!

Some of the scientific so called evidence is scientific folklore.

Yes, accounts of the past give us pertinent information.

Indeed they do sometimes back up the science. Here’s an Australian flood story that indicates rising and falling sea levels:

‘We say, the present tides don’t rise like this. For this sea travelled across like a range to them. The mountains sank beneath it. Then she finished them. They were drowned.** While still there was no water, that is at the time when it disappeared, she picked up turtle and fish and took them up to the top of the hill at Nowulu The place is called Nowulu, it’s an island, that the place she climbed up to. Here she remained and dug for water right on the top. Then that one – the sea – was travelling and all the mainland was underneath it. That was the time it went back.’

 

[rossum]

Even the Chinese have the flood story built into their word characters.

Doubtful. See Claim CG101. This seems to be another of those YEC stories which are never properly checked.

Which of the eight passengers on the Ark could speak, and write, Chinese?

 

[buffalo]

Which of the eight passengers on the Ark could speak, and write, Chinese?

None. They were dispersed and migrated to China after Babel.

The Border Sacrifice Texts which supposedly date from 2203BC and was done semi-annually for 4,000 years. The emperor read:

“Of old in the beginning, there was the great chaos, without form and dark. The five elements [planets] had not begun to revolve, nor the sun and the moon to shine. In the midst thereof there existed neither forms for sound. Thou, O spiritual Sovereign, camest forth in Thy presidency, and first didst divide the grosser parts from the purer. Thou madest heaven; Thou madest earth; Thou madest man. All things with their reproductive power got their being.”

“Thy sovereign goodness is infinite. As a potter, Thou hast made all living things. Thy sovereign goodness is infinite. Great and small are sheltered [by Thee]. As engraven on the heart of Thy poor servant is the sense of Thy goodness, so that my feeling cannot be fully displayed. With great kindness Thou dost bear us, and not withstanding our shortcomings, dost grant us life and prosperity.”

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Ed is correct (don’t be too surprised - I’ll be agreeing with Buffalo shortly).The ToE is science purely and simply. It doesn’t allow, because it is a scientific theory, for any divine (name removed by moderator)ut. Now that is not a difficult concept to understand.

Therefore by not allowing a divine cause it is so limited. Why should anyone limit their search for knowledge so severely.

I’ll type this a little slower…

The ToE is a scientific theory. Scientific theories do not and cannot, by the very definition of the term, consider the divine. ID (as you apparently want to describe it and as the DI insists on describing it) is a scientific theory. Scientific theories do not and cannot, by the very definition of the term, consider the divine.

Are we completely clear on that?

But if you want a philosophical position that either includes or excludes the divine, you have a choice: Materialism or creationism.

Are we completely clear on that as well?

 

[buffalo]

Are we completely clear on that?

We are very very clear on this. The divine foot cannot be let in the door.

we agree then our search for knowledge is very limited by only using science.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Are we completely clear on that?

We are very very clear on this. The divine foot cannot be let in the door.

we agree then our search for knowledge is very limited by only using science.

It cannot be let in through the science door. And that will include, as the Design Institute itself states, ID.

 

[buffalo]

It cannot be let in through the science door. And that will include, as the Design Institute itself states, ID.

Now let me be clear. ID, the science, can be taught in science class.

I would take the position though if ID, the science, cannot be taught in science class, then neither can evolution.

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.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

It cannot be let in through the science door. And that will include, as the Design Institute itself states, ID.

Now let me be clear. ID, the science, can be taught in science class.

I would take the position though if ID, the science, cannot be taught in science class, then neither can evolution.

Please don’t kid yourself that I personally consider ID to be science. This has been your point all along. We have been using your definitions to demolish your arguments.

The DI cannot let the divine through the ID door because it wants to convince the gullible that it’s not creationism in a funny hat. That’s their position and also yours. So if someone wants to argue that ID is actually science then you need to convince others that it’s not connected with creationism in any way.

Oh, wait. They tried that.

 

[buffalo]

Oh, wait. They tried that.

Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he “agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement.” Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.” In other words, the charge that intelligent design is “creationism” is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. What Is Intelligent Design? | Intelligent Design

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Oh, wait. They tried that.

Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism.

Please don’t insult my intelligence:

‘One of the most damning moments in the (Dover) trial involved the use of a text-matching program to compare Of Pandas and People to the earlier editions. Sure enough, most of the book was identic
al to the earlier versions. The cosmetic difference was that all instances of “creator”, “creationism” and “creation science” were replaced with “intelligent agent” and “intelligent design”, leaving substantive content essentially unchanged’ Of Pandas and People - RationalWiki