Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

why are science and faith at odds?

30 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

When replying to one of threads on this board I was inspired to think of past scientists who were believers, and inspired by their faith to study nature. One that came to mind immediately is one of my favorite overall physicists, Michael Faraday. Faraday was a devout lay preacher in a conservative Presbyterian sect aside from making groundbreaking physics discoveries, one of which is a large part of our life now (electromagnetic induction). While I was thinking about sharing this in response to this other thread, I couldn't help but wonder again at the question, why is there animus between the scientific community and community of believers?

 

The reason I find this so odd is that this is clearly a new phenomenon. It seems fundamentally needless that this is the case, and is more a matter of historical accident than a matter of principle. Even if you take evolution into account, why would accepting or rejecting evolution make one a better or worse physical chemist? I don't think that alone explains facts like the number of believers among scientists being so low as compared to the overall general population.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

well think of it this way, God is the creator of all things except of course man made logic so he also created science. the issue is man took that and made their idea of science

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

When replying to one of threads on this board I was inspired to think of past scientists who were believers, and inspired by their faith to study nature. One that came to mind immediately is one of my favorite overall physicists, Michael Faraday. Faraday was a devout lay preacher in a conservative Presbyterian sect aside from making groundbreaking physics discoveries, one of which is a large part of our life now (electromagnetic induction). While I was thinking about sharing this in response to this other thread, I couldn't help but wonder again at the question, why is there animus between the scientific community and community of believers?

 

The reason I find this so odd is that this is clearly a new phenomenon. It seems fundamentally needless that this is the case, and is more a matter of historical accident than a matter of principle. Even if you take evolution into account, why would accepting or rejecting evolution make one a better or worse physical chemist? I don't think that alone explains facts like the number of believers among scientists being so low as compared to the overall general population.

 

 

That is so Hilarious.

 

I wanted to take a break from Studying Plasma Physics LOL....so I said, what's going on with the forum; click on yours...and you bring up Michael Faraday and Electro- Magnetism. :thumbsup:

 

And then evolution...in the same post. :huh:    I was @ the Highest Point all day then crashed and burned all within 60 seconds.  Like that Ski Jumper on Wide World of Sports...."The Thrill of Victory and The Agony of Defeat., you know the one.

 

Get back to the serious stuff Alpha!!

 

Talk to me here....you got all these Astrophysicists Fumbling and Stumbling with: Dark Matter/Dark Energy, searching for Gravitons, conveniently forgetting (accidentally on purpose) Newton's Inverse Square Law, wondering where 97% of the mass of the Universe is and on and on pathetically trying to Prop Up 13th Century Alchemy Theories when they got a BIG CHUNK of some Answers Right in front of their Face.............PLASMA!!!!!!!

 

Hey I'm no expert in this stuff but....R Ya Kiddin Me??  I'm Stupified!!  My 10 year old Daughter can take a cursory look @ some of this and @ least say.....this needs a little further Investigation.

 

And They can Replicate alot of the Tenets/Characteristics and TEST these IN A LAB for !##$$##%$^%(&(&*$$!@&&(&*%^#$!@.  I'm Close to a Conniption Fit  :24:

 

They need to get back in A BIG WAY to:  Maxwell, Faraday, Einstein, Bohm, Birkeland, Langmuir, Alfven, Peratt, et al.

 

You need to make this happen Alpha....YOU!!!  LOL  Make A Stand tell them you'll QUIT if they don't!!!  :thumbsup:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

well think of it this way, God is the creator of all things except of course man made logic so he also created science. the issue is man took that and made their idea of science

 

~

 

Man Made Sin

 

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:13-15

 

God Made Logic

 

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18

 

Science Makes Fantasy

 

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

When replying to one of threads on this board I was inspired to think of past scientists who were believers, and inspired by their faith to study nature. One that came to mind immediately is one of my favorite overall physicists, Michael Faraday. Faraday was a devout lay preacher in a conservative Presbyterian sect aside from making groundbreaking physics discoveries, one of which is a large part of our life now (electromagnetic induction). While I was thinking about sharing this in response to this other thread, I couldn't help but wonder again at the question, why is there animus between the scientific community and community of believers?

 

The reason I find this so odd is that this is clearly a new phenomenon. It seems fundamentally needless that this is the case, and is more a matter of historical accident than a matter of principle. Even if you take evolution into account, why would accepting or rejecting evolution make one a better or worse physical chemist? I don't think that alone explains facts like the number of believers among scientists being so low as compared to the overall general population.

 

 

That is so Hilarious.

 

I wanted to take a break from Studying Plasma Physics LOL....so I said, what's going on with the forum; click on yours...and you bring up Michael Faraday and Electro- Magnetism. :thumbsup:

 

And then evolution...in the same post. :huh:    I was @ the Highest Point all day then crashed and burned all within 60 seconds.  Like that Ski Jumper on Wide World of Sports...."The Thrill of Victory and The Agony of Defeat., you know the one.

 

Get back to the serious stuff Alpha!!

 

Talk to me here....you got all these Astrophysicists Fumbling and Stumbling with: Dark Matter/Dark Energy, searching for Gravitons, conveniently forgetting (accidentally on purpose) Newton's Inverse Square Law, wondering where 97% of the mass of the Universe is and on and on pathetically trying to Prop Up 13th Century Alchemy Theories when they got a BIG CHUNK of some Answers Right in front of their Face.............PLASMA!!!!!!!

 

Hey I'm no expert in this stuff but....R Ya Kiddin Me??  I'm Stupified!!  My 10 year old Daughter can take a cursory look @ some of this and @ least say.....this needs a little further Investigation.

 

And They can Replicate alot of the Tenets/Characteristics and TEST these IN A LAB for !##$$##%$^%(&(&*$$!@&&(&*%^#$!@.  I'm Close to a Conniption Fit  :24:

 

They need to get back in A BIG WAY to:  Maxwell, Faraday, Einstein, Bohm, Birkeland, Langmuir, Alfven, Peratt, et al.

 

You need to make this happen Alpha....YOU!!!  LOL  Make A Stand tell them you'll QUIT if they don't!!!  :thumbsup:

 

It might help if you read what I said with a calm spirit. You missed the point entirely.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

When replying to one of threads on this board I was inspired to think of past scientists who were believers, and inspired by their faith to study nature. One that came to mind immediately is one of my favorite overall physicists, Michael Faraday. Faraday was a devout lay preacher in a conservative Presbyterian sect aside from making groundbreaking physics discoveries, one of which is a large part of our life now (electromagnetic induction). While I was thinking about sharing this in response to this other thread, I couldn't help but wonder again at the question, why is there animus between the scientific community and community of believers?

 

The reason I find this so odd is that this is clearly a new phenomenon. It seems fundamentally needless that this is the case, and is more a matter of historical accident than a matter of principle. Even if you take evolution into account, why would accepting or rejecting evolution make one a better or worse physical chemist? I don't think that alone explains facts like the number of believers among scientists being so low as compared to the overall general population.

Science and faith are not at odds.  Never have been.   It is Evolution and the Bible that are at odds.   It is any attempt by science to explain the origin of our universe and the origin of life in a way that precludes God and factors Him out of the equation entirely, and the Bible that are at odds.

 

What many people don't understand is that this is a battle of worldviews, not a battle of science vs. faith.     One thing I noticed after the Nye/Ham debate and even before that debate took place is that Ham received death threats and extremely vulgar comments on his facebook page and on his website.   He wasn't merely ridiculed or belittled.  He reported all kinds of violently hateful things that people said to him  just because of his participation in that debate.   That shows that this is not an intellecual issue, but a spritiual one and it shows that there is more going on than a debate over different points of view.  

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

When replying to one of threads on this board I was inspired to think of past scientists who were believers, and inspired by their faith to study nature. One that came to mind immediately is one of my favorite overall physicists, Michael Faraday. Faraday was a devout lay preacher in a conservative Presbyterian sect aside from making groundbreaking physics discoveries, one of which is a large part of our life now (electromagnetic induction). While I was thinking about sharing this in response to this other thread, I couldn't help but wonder again at the question, why is there animus between the scientific community and community of believers?

 

The reason I find this so odd is that this is clearly a new phenomenon. It seems fundamentally needless that this is the case, and is more a matter of historical accident than a matter of principle. Even if you take evolution into account, why would accepting or rejecting evolution make one a better or worse physical chemist? I don't think that alone explains facts like the number of believers among scientists being so low as compared to the overall general population.

 

 

That is so Hilarious.

 

I wanted to take a break from Studying Plasma Physics LOL....so I said, what's going on with the forum; click on yours...and you bring up Michael Faraday and Electro- Magnetism. :thumbsup:

 

And then evolution...in the same post. :huh:    I was @ the Highest Point all day then crashed and burned all within 60 seconds.  Like that Ski Jumper on Wide World of Sports...."The Thrill of Victory and The Agony of Defeat., you know the one.

 

Get back to the serious stuff Alpha!!

 

Talk to me here....you got all these Astrophysicists Fumbling and Stumbling with: Dark Matter/Dark Energy, searching for Gravitons, conveniently forgetting (accidentally on purpose) Newton's Inverse Square Law, wondering where 97% of the mass of the Universe is and on and on pathetically trying to Prop Up 13th Century Alchemy Theories when they got a BIG CHUNK of some Answers Right in front of their Face.............PLASMA!!!!!!!

 

Hey I'm no expert in this stuff but....R Ya Kiddin Me??  I'm Stupified!!  My 10 year old Daughter can take a cursory look @ some of this and @ least say.....this needs a little further Investigation.

 

And They can Replicate alot of the Tenets/Characteristics and TEST these IN A LAB for !##$$##%$^%(&(&*$$!@&&(&*%^#$!@.  I'm Close to a Conniption Fit  :24:

 

They need to get back in A BIG WAY to:  Maxwell, Faraday, Einstein, Bohm, Birkeland, Langmuir, Alfven, Peratt, et al.

 

You need to make this happen Alpha....YOU!!!  LOL  Make A Stand tell them you'll QUIT if they don't!!!  :thumbsup:

 

It might help if you read what I said with a calm spirit. You missed the point entirely.

 

 

==========================================================================

 

 

It might help if you read what I said with a calm spirit. You missed the point entirely.

 

Calm Spirit ?

 

How do you know I didn't..... Special Evolution Mind Powers?

 

Do "Calm Spirits" have Particularly Acute Reading Comprehension Skills?

 

I read it and got the point thanks.

 

Figured with your background you may have some insight into Plasma's ....  Nothing more Nothing Less.  Sorry for derailing your OP on a tangent, there was no malicious intent.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

well think of it this way, God is the creator of all things except of course man made logic so he also created science. the issue is man took that and made their idea of science

 

~

 

Man Made Sin

 

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:13-15

 

God Made Logic

 

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18

 

Science Makes Fantasy

 

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

 

I love how you always answer with scripture and not your own words and whats more you understnd the scriptures well enough to use it for the exact point you would have said in words- you didnt even need to twist it for it to fit the point exactly. honestly an ability like that simply amazing:]

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Shiloh357 - What many people don't understand is that this is a battle of worldviews, not a battle of science vs. faith.

 

This is a valid point but I would just suggest further that there is a considerable difference in the "debate" when terms are left open to interpretation. Evolution as an all encompassing worldview with naturalistic origins is quite different from evolution as a process without reference to origin/creation.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

The animus lies in the fact science does not need any gods.  I'm quite sure Faraday did not include his God in any of his equations.  I think many in religion feel threatened by this.  If science, even evolution, threaten your faith in Jesus Christ you should reexamine your faith, not your science.  Jesus gave us two great commandments that evolution does not impact.

Edited by jerryR34
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

I wanted to take a break from Studying Plasma Physics LOL....

haha...nice attempt at a plea to authority.  Could you expand on how God impacts Plasma Physics?

Edited by jerryR34
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 One thing I noticed after the Nye/Ham debate and even before that debate took place is that Ham received death threats and extremely vulgar comments on his facebook page and on his website.   He wasn't merely ridiculed or belittled.  He reported all kinds of violently hateful things that people said to him  just because of his participation in that debate.   That shows that this is not an intellecual issue, but a spritiual one and it shows that there is more going on than a debate over different points of view.  

 

How does this impact science?  It's like me bringing up the inquisition and saying that Jesus does not exist because men did a bad thing. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

JerryR34 -How does this impact science?  It's like me bringing up the inquisition and saying that Jesus does not exist because men did a bad thing.

 

Good morning ...Not that I need to defend Shiloh357 but I think this was brought up just to show the "animus" inherent in the debate.  I would not suggest that it is not a two way street.  Wouldn't you agree that one's worldview is significant in many of life's arenas?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

JerryR34 -How does this impact science?  It's like me bringing up the inquisition and saying that Jesus does not exist because men did a bad thing.

 

Good morning ...Not that I need to defend Shiloh357 but I think this was brought up just to show the "animus" inherent in the debate.  I would not suggest that it is not a two way street.  Wouldn't you agree that one's worldview is significant in many of life's arenas?

I think that if one lets his world views impact his science then it is bad science.  As I mentioned above regarding Alpha's reference to Faraday...I think you would be hard pressed to find any mention of God in his formulas regarding electricity.  Evolution is not a world view.  It is a basis for all biology.  Until its predictive value is nullified, there is no reason not to base all biology experiments on its precepts.  That is how knowledge is gained..it builds.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Shiloh357 - What many people don't understand is that this is a battle of worldviews, not a battle of science vs. faith.

 

This is a valid point but I would just suggest further that there is a considerable difference in the "debate" when terms are left open to interpretation. Evolution as an all encompassing worldview with naturalistic origins is quite different from evolution as a process without reference to origin/creation.

In this conversation though, I think it is fair to assume that we are rerferring to the former.    I realized that we used the word "evolution" in other ways not related to origin or creation.   But in the context of this conversation, we are referring to the naturalistic theory of Evolution.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Shiloh357 - What many people don't understand is that this is a battle of worldviews, not a battle of science vs. faith.

 

This is a valid point but I would just suggest further that there is a considerable difference in the "debate" when terms are left open to interpretation. Evolution as an all encompassing worldview with naturalistic origins is quite different from evolution as a process without reference to origin/creation.

 

 

=======================================================================

 

This is a valid point but I would just suggest further that there is a considerable difference in the "debate" when terms are left open to interpretation

 

Which leads to Equivocation Ad Nauseum.

 

Sure would help if they defined the "theory"  into a coherent thought.  But we can't have that because it would implode @ a hint of even the slightest scrutiny.

 

 

evolution as a process without reference to origin/creation.

 

Like evolution is just change?  Well we see change; therefore, evolution is true, Right? 

 

However, MOST propagating this Lazily Ambiguous Terminology passes this off to Joe Coffee and Betty Breadmaker and uses the Facade of "science" to offer some conjured fallacious validity.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

JerryR34 -How does this impact science?  It's like me bringing up the inquisition and saying that Jesus does not exist because men did a bad thing.

 

Good morning ...Not that I need to defend Shiloh357 but I think this was brought up just to show the "animus" inherent in the debate.  I would not suggest that it is not a two way street.  Wouldn't you agree that one's worldview is significant in many of life's arenas?

I think that if one lets his world views impact his science then it is bad science.  As I mentioned above regarding Alpha's reference to Faraday...I think you would be hard pressed to find any mention of God in his formulas regarding electricity.  Evolution is not a world view.  It is a basis for all biology.  Until its predictive value is nullified, there is no reason not to base all biology experiments on its precepts.  That is how knowledge is gained..it builds.

 

Everyone has a worldview.  Every has a paradigm where life is concerned.  It impacts everything we do.  It is our paradigms that shape how we view and interact with the world  and the information it contains.  It affects how we interpret that information.

 

Evolution is rooted in a naturalistic worldview.   Evolution, however, is not science and it is not a theory.  Evolution is more of a philosophy.  Evoluion isn't proven, not by a longshot.  It is an untested hypothesis that many have tried to force us to accept as fact. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The animus lies in the fact science does not need any gods.  I'm quite sure Faraday did not include his God in any of his equations.  I think many in religion feel threatened by this.  If science, even evolution, threaten your faith in Jesus Christ you should reexamine your faith, not your science.  Jesus gave us two great commandments that evolution does not impact.

Actually the animus lies in the fact that men are in a state of rebellion and they are trying to purge the knowledge of God from his creation.   God is actually the best explanation for the origin of the universe.  If you were a Christian, you would know that.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Enoch2021 - Which leads to Equivocation Ad Nauseum.

 

I think it is fair and reasonable to make the distinction between "Evolution" as a worldview of life and it's origins (and beyond) as opposed to "evolution" confined, if you will, to a process that explains the diversity of life.  Certainly one can "equivocate" within the terms themselves however the terms from my perpective are mutually exclusive. While I might choose to argue against Evolution, I seldom choose to argue against evolution.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

JerryR34 -How does this impact science?  It's like me bringing up the inquisition and saying that Jesus does not exist because men did a bad thing.

 

Good morning ...Not that I need to defend Shiloh357 but I think this was brought up just to show the "animus" inherent in the debate.  I would not suggest that it is not a two way street.  Wouldn't you agree that one's worldview is significant in many of life's arenas?

I think that if one lets his world views impact his science then it is bad science.  As I mentioned above regarding Alpha's reference to Faraday...I think you would be hard pressed to find any mention of God in his formulas regarding electricity.  Evolution is not a world view.  It is a basis for all biology.  Until its predictive value is nullified, there is no reason not to base all biology experiments on its precepts.  That is how knowledge is gained..it builds.

 

Everyone has a worldview.  Every has a paradigm where life is concerned.  It impacts everything we do.  It is our paradigms that shape how we view and interact with the world  and the information it contains.  It affects how we interpret that information.

 

Evolution is rooted in a naturalistic worldview.   Evolution, however, is not science and it is not a theory.  Evolution is more of a philosophy.  Evoluion isn't proven, not by a longshot.  It is an untested hypothesis that many have tried to force us to accept as fact. 

 

Evolution is not a worldview or philosophy, it is a scientific theory.  No scientific theories can be proven, only disproven, and in 150+ years evolution has not been disproven.  Evolution is the basis for all modern biology for a reason, it has predictive value. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Enoch2021 - Which leads to Equivocation Ad Nauseum.

 

I think it is fair and reasonable to make the distinction between "Evolution" as a worldview of life and it's origins (and beyond) as opposed to "evolution" confined, if you will, to a process that explains the diversity of life.  Certainly one can "equivocate" within the terms themselves however the terms from my perpective are mutually exclusive. While I might choose to argue against Evolution, I seldom choose to argue against evolution.

 

 

however the terms from my perpective are mutually exclusive

 

That's a start

 

 

While I might choose to argue against Evolution, I seldom choose to argue against evolution.

 

Are you saying you might choose but seldom choose?  Or is this erroneous.

 

No Problem, that's one of the reasons I'm here.  And for "evolution" side it's not much of an argument as in ZERO.  Here one minute, I'll give you an example...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

JerryR34 -How does this impact science?  It's like me bringing up the inquisition and saying that Jesus does not exist because men did a bad thing.

 

Good morning ...Not that I need to defend Shiloh357 but I think this was brought up just to show the "animus" inherent in the debate.  I would not suggest that it is not a two way street.  Wouldn't you agree that one's worldview is significant in many of life's arenas?

I think that if one lets his world views impact his science then it is bad science.  As I mentioned above regarding Alpha's reference to Faraday...I think you would be hard pressed to find any mention of God in his formulas regarding electricity.  Evolution is not a world view.  It is a basis for all biology.  Until its predictive value is nullified, there is no reason not to base all biology experiments on its precepts.  That is how knowledge is gained..it builds.

 

 

==========================================================

 

I think that if one lets his world views impact his science then it is bad science.

 

 

‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.

Stephen Jay Gould, 1994, Natural History103(2):14.

 

Professor Richard Lewontin, Geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology…..

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’

Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.

 

 

I think you would be hard pressed to find any mention of God in his formulas regarding electricity

 

:huh:  Is this your argument?

 

 

Evolution is not a world view.

 

 

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."

Michael Ruse; How evolution became a religion; creationists correct? National Post May 13 2000

 

"Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation. Consider Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of straight science. In his On Human Nature, he calmly assures us that evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity."

Michael Ruse: Science, March 7 2003 p. 1524

 

"Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you’ve experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that’s true of me, and I think it’s true of a good many of you in here."

Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London). Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981

 

Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini PhD Physics and Professor Cognitive Science University of Arizona....

'Some months ago an American philosopher explained to a highly sophisticated audience in Britain what, in his opinion, was wrong, indeed fatally wrong, with the standard neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution. He made it crystal clear that his criticism was not inspired by creationism, intelligent design or any remotely religious motivation. A senior gentleman in the audience erupted, in indignation: ‘You should not say such things, you should not write such things! The creationists will treasure them and use them against science.’ The lecturer politely asked: ‘Even if they are true?’ To which the instant and vibrant retort was: ‘Especially if they are true!’ with emphasis on the ‘especially’.

This stunning exchange exemplifies the religious fervour with which some scholars and laypersons adhere to the Darwinian doctrine. It’s a secular religion, for sure, an atheistic banner under which the white knights of scientific rationality rally in their fight against the forces of darkness. There are countless manifestations of this unwholesome religious Darwinian fervour, more than can be listed here."

Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini PhD, March 2010

 

"Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives. Absent that insistence, they would have to concede that their commitment to naturalism is based upon faith rather than proof. Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that faith in naturalism is no more "scientific" (i.e. empirically based) than any other kind of faith."

Phillip Johnson Professor of Law; Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism, October 1990

 

 

It is a basis for all biology.  Until its predictive value is nullified, there is no reason not to base all biology experiments on its precepts.

 

It's "Predictive Value" ??  What "Tree Diagrams"?  :24:

 

This is quite "Predictive".....

 

We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’

Harold, Franklin M. (Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University) The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205.

 

 

Anything Else?  I should say...anything with any substance?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

 

Anything Else?  I should say...anything with any substance?

 

I guess I could go out on the web like you did and copy and paste some quotes of people's opinions, or intersperse a few emoticons in my posts...looks like that is what you consider substance.

 

Or I could direct you to do some research on genetics.  What we've learned from evolution has allowed us to predict how genes will behave helping us in medicine - especially vaccinations. 

Edited by jerryR34
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Enoch2021 -Are you saying you might choose but seldom choose?  Or is this erroneous.

 

Yes, on rare occasions I might briefly dive into a discussion on evolution, though I most always choose not to do so as to specifics.  The simple reason is that over the years I've come to firmly believe that both sides have validity. (I will note that Colin Patterson qualified his oft used quote) I won't argue the point but there any number [don't give me that Ad populum : )] of Evangelical Christians who hold to evolution within parameters, and certainly not extended to neo-darwinistic Evolution. So typically I will confine my specific thoughts in the general tense and disregard the minutiae.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Enoch2021 -Are you saying you might choose but seldom choose?  Or is this erroneous.

 

Yes, on rare occasions I might briefly dive into a discussion on evolution, though I most always choose not to do so as to specifics.  The simple reason is that over the years I've come to firmly believe that both sides have validity. (I will note that Colin Patterson qualified his oft used quote) I won't argue the point but there any number [don't give me that Ad populum : )] of Evangelical Christians who hold to evolution within parameters, and certainly not extended to neo-darwinistic Evolution. So typically I will confine my specific thoughts in the general tense and disregard the minutiae.

 

 

=====================================================================

 

 

The simple reason is that over the years I've come to firmly believe that both sides have validity

 

neo-darwinian evolution has no validity whatsoever.  I ask you to Support this claim.

 

 

(I will note that Colin Patterson qualified his oft used quote)

 

Please post HIS rebuttal to the oft used "quote" and we'll review it.  Also, there are about 7 more up there that I posted...anything on those? 

 

 

Evangelical Christians who hold to evolution within parameters

 

It really doesn't matter what or who believes anything...... it's what the can support or PROVE

 

So typically I will confine my specific thoughts in the general tense and disregard the minutiae.

 

ooooh, Not a good idea to post generalities here....especially regarding "Just So" stories

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0