Denial of Evolution VI.

[wegs]

It may be more like science diminishes the value of a "Creator".

I think you will like this link wegs, there are well thought out opinions on both sides of the question...

Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Hey thanks! I look forward to reading it.

I may be misunderstanding you, but you seem to be saying that there are non-creationist rebuttals to evolution. I am not aware of any. If this is what you meant could you furnish som examples?

That was a poor choice of wording. I meant to say, there are nuances and disagreements with certain views when explaining evolution within this thread. (Just confining it to this thread)
I apologize; lol rebuttal was not the correct term.

But more of what I meant was how there can be disagreements here within this topic, without bringing creationism into the mix.
That there are ppl in this world ...who don't bring faith into the equation.

From a Christian view, it shows me that there is nothing wrong at all with just discussing "facts."
Excluding when i attended college, career, etc..I tend to bring faith into my reasoning with a variety of topics.

I have friends who are atheists and I don't see it as much because we are not always talking about "heavy" topics.
You know?

I hope this better clarifies.

 

[wegs]

As an aside, I read today that Rick Warren (not a fan of his either) who wrote the book, Purpose Driven Life...(which I read and meh, whatever) and is also a popular Christian pastor...supposedly said that for one to be moral, one must not believe in evolution.

:/

I'm going to look online later to see if there are any Christian groups who think like me. That faith and science can indeed complement one another.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wegs,

I'm going to look online later to see if there are any Christian groups who think like me. That faith and science can indeed complement one another.

Faith carries on where certainty of knowledge lacks.

Can give a current display of faith?

jan.

 

[iceaura]

Faith carries on where certainty of knowledge lacks.

Which if honestly posted would mean everywhere outside of a mathematical proof - including in the formulation of the proof.

That is: faith is a human virtue independent of theistic belief or religion in general.

But the assertion is seldom meant honestly - normally it is made by a reactionary theist attempting to use the uncertainty of all knowledge as evidence for the existence of their particular deity and the rightness of their beliefs; that if other people are not omniscient, the fundie's unsupported and confused and unreasonable claims become more likely, and their deceptive and misleading and dishonest rhetoric becomes justified and ethically good.

 

[wegs]

Which if honestly posted would mean everywhere outside of a mathematical proof - including in the formulation of the proof.

That is: faith is a human virtue independent of theistic belief or religion in general.

But the assertion is seldom meant honestly - normally it is made by a reactionary theist attempting to use the uncertainty of all knowledge as evidence for the existence of their particular deity and the rightness of their beliefs; that if other people are not omniscient, the fundie's unsupported and confused and unreasonable claims become more likely, and their deceptive and misleading and dishonest rhetoric becomes justified and ethically good.

Just some clarification, please...
Not all Christians are "fundies."
Many are not.
I will say that I don't believe any theists believe ppl are omniscient.
I'm sorry, not following what you mean there?

 

[Aqueous Id]

Which if honestly posted would mean everywhere outside of a mathematical proof - including in the formulation of the proof.

Say more if you don't mind.

faith is a human virtue independent of theistic belief or religion in general.

Somehow a lot of universal virtues have been annexed by religion, but this is the big one. Family values is another.

But the assertion is seldom meant honestly - normally it is made by a reactionary theist attempting to use the uncertainty of all knowledge as evidence for the existence of their particular deity and the rightness of their beliefs; that if other people are not omniscient, the fundie's unsupported and confused and unreasonable claims become more likely, and their deceptive and misleading and dishonest rhetoric becomes justified and ethically good.

That's pretty comprehensive as far as the rationale behind the argument. "Reactionary" is a probably the best word used so far to describe the motive.

I disagree that the two [sciene & religion] can't coexist. How does believing that there is a Creator behind the scenes diminish the value of science?

I would say that Science says the laws of Nature are invariant, while religions say that God repeals those laws as needed. The other dimension, the one that's a little more fact-based as opposed to doxology, are the issues like evidence there never was a global flood or the theory and laws that make telepathy, transubstantiation, levitation and resurrection physically impossible.

 

[wegs]

I have no "motive."
And I'm not "reactionary."
I think however we all have the propensity to be either.
Try to look beyond the labels and look at the person.

Anyways!!

 

[wegs]

Say more if you don't mind.


Somehow a lot of universal virtues have been annexed by religion, but this is the big one. Family values is another.



That's pretty comprehensive as far as the rationale behind the argument. "Reactionary" is a probably the best word used so far to describe the motive.



I would say that Science says the laws of Nature are invariant, while religions say that God repeals those laws as needed. The other dimension, the one that's a little more fact-based as opposed to doxology, are the issues like evidence there never was a global flood or the theory and laws that make telepathy, transubstantiation, levitation and resurrection physically impossible.

I hear u.
Yeah.
I think that part of the problem is when religious ppl start taking the bible to time square and want laws to match it.
We are not governed by the bible.
And I think the natural laws of science can mesh well with faith; but the unfortunate "motives" of some, can render the dialogue between atheists and theists, sometimes impossible.

That's my opinion.

There was a time when Galileo was locked up by the Catholic Church for his oh so "radical" beliefs about science.
Crazy times.

I think that is why we have a divide is because we try to make faith something it wasn't intended for. Even Jesus said "give to Caesar what is Caesar's." Perhaps the first display of separation of church and state.

Some ppl are Christian in name only, just sayin.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I have no "motive."
And I'm not "reactionary."
I think however we all have the propensity to be either.
Try to look beyond the labels and look at the person.

Anyways!!

No not you. I was addressing icearua's remark to jan ardena, who advocates for the fundamentalist arguments against science.

I thought "reactionay" was a much better word than "conservative" (which used to mean nearly the same thing) and it's more specific than "fundamentalist". Reactionaries would be the folks that are choking on modernism, who want to revert to the old way of doing things, which amounts to taking science back to the time the US didn't extend very far west of the Mississippi.

No, wegs, you are expressing the very mild and mellow persona, who isn't blowing things out of proportion, so no one in their right mind would try to stick that jacket on you. :thumbsup:

 

[origin]

I'm going to look online later to see if there are any Christian groups who think like me. That faith and science can indeed complement one another.

The world's largest christian denomination (Catholicism) has acknowledged that evolution is true. They had that nasty argument with with science about earth's position in the universe a few years back that didn't go well for them and they learned their lession I guess.

 

[leopold]

That is: faith is a human virtue independent of theistic belief or religion in general.

the placebo effect is proof of this.
you believe the medication will work, not that "god" will cure you.

 

[wegs]

The world's largest christian denomination (Catholicism) has acknowledged that evolution is true. They had that nasty argument with with science about earth's position in the universe a few years back that didn't go well for them and they learned their lession I guess.

Lol
Yep, maybe.

 

[leopold]

I have no "motive."
And I'm not "reactionary."

get used to it wegs, these people will attack and accuse and ad hom you to death.
look at this thread, you can't even say "i don't believe such and such" without being accused of "being in denial".
the article from science i posted alluded to the lack of data concerning evo, pay close attention how these posters address this fact.
frankly i don't see how we can even discuss this matter without an adequate definition of life.
the primary question of the conference was can the process of speciation be applied to the grander scale of macroevolution and their conclusion was no, it can't.
my internet is being upgraded as we speak, gotta go for awhile until its done.

 

[leopold]

can we say the placebo effect changes reality?
can we really alter reality simply because we want to?

 

[wegs]

get used to it wegs, these people will attack and accuse and ad hom you to death.
look at this thread, you can't even say "i don't believe such and such" without being accused of "being in denial".
the article from science i posted alluded to the lack of data concerning evo, pay close attention how these posters address this fact.
frankly i don't see how we can even discuss this matter without an adequate definition of life.
the primary question of the conference was can the process of speciation be applied to the grander scale of macroevolution and their conclusion was no, it can't.
my internet is being upgraded as we speak, gotta go for awhile until its done.

lol yeah, i hear you.
it's ok. it's what makes the world what it is. right?
everyone can't and shouldn't think alike.
even two christians don't see God in precisely the same way, weirdly. lol

at the end of the day, as long as you're not hurting anyone, be true to your values and beliefs, leopold. that's all u can do.
and that's all i can do.

 

[wegs]

It may be more like science diminishes the value of a "Creator".

I think you will like this link wegs, there are well thought out opinions on both sides of the question...

Does science make belief in God obsolete?

i looked at this when i got home, and wow, thank you. how did you know i'd like this?
this is SO great, seriously, thank you!

 

[Trooper]

Stay true to your beliefs?

wegs, you are endorsing cognitive biases. Science diminishes the effect of cognitive biases. Skeptics are more willing to engage in analytic reasoning. Faith is not a virtue and gullibility is not flattering. When you’re finished tearing pages from the scriptures, creating a personal papier-mâché god, ask yourself, who created who?

It’s not easy becoming an atheist. There is no euphoric feeling that greets this realization. The self-soothing activity of prayer will no longer reduce your anxiety. You’ll have to develop new strategies to cope. You’ll realize that at some point you will utterly cease to exist. You’ll become more aware of your insignificance, limitations, and vulnerabilities. You’ll see that there’s a reason why things happen but that things do not happen for a reason.

On the plus side, you’ll have the freedom to think for yourself without the unnecessary guilt. Your sense of wonder will drastically increase. The thoughts of heaven will be replaced with life itself. The future will become your source of hope.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Heb 11:1

 

[arfa brane]

Being a scientist means being a kind of detective. You look at all the possible explanations, eliminate all the impossible ones (in theory), leaving one remaining possilbility which, no matter how improbable, must be the true one (in theory).

As an explanation the Biblical account needs a bit of work. But I don't think the Bible was ever meant to be the same as a "proper" theory. In fact I think comparing evolution and the Bible is misunderstanding what they really are.

 

[Rav]

the primary question of the conference was can the process of speciation be applied to the grander scale of macroevolution and their conclusion was no, it can't.

Since leopold has been corrected on this misunderstanding so many times in this thread and others, at this point I think it's reasonable to characterize the comments above either as an outright lie, or as some sort of willful delusion. The only other possibility is that he simply lacks the raw intelligence necessary to properly parse the wealth of additional information and perspective that has been placed before him.

Really, at least one of these things has to be true.

 

[rpenner]

So BAD, MAD or SAD, is it?

It's a useful trilemma and while it may be a false trilemma (analogous to the more common case of false dilemma) it is up to leopold to present evidence and actually argue for a fourth possibility. To do anything else would simply ignore the first law of holes and more firmly cement in the minds of all readers is that leopold is the opposite of a reliable conduit of fact and reasoned argument in biology. Distinguishing between the three hypotheses is largely pointless over the internet where questions of sincerity, intent and identity can't be reliably verified within the bounds of etiquette and each is completely sufficient to explain why leopold presents such trivial falsehoods at the expense of his own reputation.