Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

noguru

Well-known member
Good for you. But if you don't mind me saying, as a TOLer', you are the exception not the rule. Though I suspect there are more like you and Ken Miller out there than this broad might suggest.

:salute:

I think you have hit on another aspect of the Dunning Kruger effect in society. Many people who are incompetent, overestimate their competence. Especially in regard to understanding and subsequently explaining scientific ideas and theories when they feel they are armed with the Bible (God's word).
 

Hedshaker

New member
I think you have hit on another aspect of the Dunning Kruger effect in society. Many people who are incompetent, overestimate their competence. Especially in regard to understanding and subsequently explaining scientific ideas and theories when they feel they are armed with the Bible (God's word).

It's that inability to accept that some things are not yet known I always find curious. Personally I embrace the not knowing. It's the mystery coupled with burning curiosity that drives us, IMO.

Horses for courses I guess.
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Sure, it's a work in progress and will probably always be so, and sometimes it goes wrong. It's subject human error and fraud, like anything else. But guess what method is used to sort the wheat from the chaff? Theology? Religion? Think again.

(Edit): That's not to say we should give up on common sense and intuition altogether, far from it. Common sense has served me well. But when it comes to deeper understanding it just isn't enough.
Science, though not perfect and still in its infancy, is by far the most successful human endeavour to date when it comes to progress and the gain of new knowledge. In just my lifetime there has been an explosion of both. It is elegantly self correcting and you can be sure it ain't going away any time soon.

If you think your presuppositions and cherished beliefs are more important then have it. It's your mind.

phi·los·o·phy [fi-los-uh-fee]
noun, plural phi·los·o·phies.

1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

2. any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.

3. a particular system of thought based on such study or investigation: the philosophy of Spinoza.

4. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.

String theory, bounce theory, theory of multi-universes and mini-universes, etc., are not empirically knowable and require faith just as the existence of God requires faith and becomes a philosophy or a natural theology.

--Dave
 

gcthomas

New member
Dave, the philosophy of science has had no discernable effect on the progress of science. At most it attempts to describe the operation of science as it is done or attempt to find an idealised version.

The theories you mentioned will only be accepted as reliable by scientists when there compelling theoretical or empirical reasons. For that reason they are not 'believed' yet. Inflationary cosmology, OTOH, IS empirically tested and therefore somewhat trusted.
 

Hedshaker

New member
1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

2. any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.

3. a particular system of thought based on such study or investigation: the philosophy of Spinoza.

4. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.

I've already touched on the philosophy of science with noguru above. No one is suggesting we ditch philosophy altogether, nor could we even if we wanted to. Nor should we discard common sense and intuition. They have their place, no mistake. We would be lost without them. But bare philosophy and gut feeling intuition alone, devoid of empirical evidence are not the right tools for the job at hand. We already have a tried and tested method for this which has already shown greater success than any other method to date. I'm going to have to push you on this Dave.... do you agree with that or not?

If not then what do you suggest?

For more see gcthomas's post above.

String theory, bounce theory, theory of multi-universes and mini-universes, etc., are not empirically knowable and require faith just as the existence of God requires faith and becomes a philosophy or a natural theology.

I don't remember mentioning any of those ideas but since you bring them up let's be clear. They are all (apart from inflation theory I think) hypotheses rather than faith based beliefs, which is where they differ from god-concepts which deals with absolute truths.... supposedly. The only philosophy that comes remotely anywhere near the notion of "natural theology" IMO would be Metaphysical naturalism simply because of the term Metaphysical in its description.

I have to say though Dave, the strangest creatures known to man must surly be presuppositionalists. They burn their bridges behind them. They bury themselves in their apologetics until they are totally under the spell of their religion. If it wasn't so sad it would be a fascinating phenomenon to behold.
 
Last edited:

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Dave, the philosophy of science has had no discernable effect on the progress of science. At most it attempts to describe the operation of science as it is done or attempt to find an idealised version.

The theories you mentioned will only be accepted as reliable by scientists when there compelling theoretical or empirical reasons. For that reason they are not 'believed' yet. Inflationary cosmology, OTOH, IS empirically tested and therefore somewhat trusted.

Just wanted to make sure we agree that science and philosophy are not totally unrelated.

--Dave
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I've already touched on the philosophy of science with noguru above. No one is suggesting we ditch philosophy altogether, nor could we even if we wanted to. Nor should we discard common sense and intuition. They have their place, no mistake. We would be lost without them. But bare philosophy and gut feeling intuition alone, devoid of empirical evidence are not the right tools for the job at hand. We already have a tried and tested method for this which has already shown greater success than any other method to date. I'm going to have to push you on this Dave.... do you agree with that or not?

If not then what do you suggest?

For more see gcthomas's post above.

I don't remember mentioning any of those ideas but since you bring them up let's be clear. They are all (apart from inflation theory I think) hypotheses rather than faith based beliefs, which is where they differ from god-concepts which deals with absolute truths.... supposedly. The only philosophy that comes remotely anywhere near the notion of "natural theology" IMO would be Metaphysical naturalism simply because of the term Metaphysical in its description.

I have to say though Dave, the strangest creatures known to man must surly be presuppositionalists. They burn their bridges behind them. They bury themselves in their apologetics until they are totally under the spell of their religion. If it wasn't so sad it would be a fascinating phenomenon to behold.

Faith is not just a religious word, nor does it deal only with God. To say you believe in inflation theory is to say you have faith that it's true. Faith is not without it's reasons. We exercise faith because we are "finite" not because we are religious.

All world views are pre-suppositional. I can't "empirically" prove that God exists. I can't prove there is no God nor that everything is God. I can't prove that there is life after death. I can't prove that we reincarnate or that we cease to exist.

To say all that exists is nature is as much a presupposition as saying all that exists is God. To say there are multi-universes or only one universe...you get the point?

Science has it's apologetics as well as religion. Cosmic microwave background is used in defense or support of inflation theory.

"Metaphysical naturalism, also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and scientific materialism is a strong belief in naturalism, a worldview with a philosophical aspect which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modeling. In contrast, methodological naturalism is an assumption of naturalism as a methodology of science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation.

Metaphysical naturalism holds that all properties related to consciousness and the mind are reducible to, or supervene upon, nature. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions."--Wiki​

--Dave
 

noguru

Well-known member
Faith is not just a religious word, nor does it deal only with God. To say you believe in inflation theory is to say you have faith that it's true. Faith is not without it's reasons. We exercise faith because we are "finite" not because we are religious.

All world views are pre-suppositional. I can't "empirically" prove that God exists. I can't prove there is no God nor that everything is God. I can't prove that there is life after death. I can't prove that we reincarnate or that we cease to exist.

To say all that exists is nature is as much a presupposition as saying all that exists is God. To say there are multi-universes or only one universe...you get the point?

Science has it's apologetics as well as religion. Cosmic microwave background is used in defense or support of inflation theory.

"Metaphysical naturalism, also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and scientific materialism is a strong belief in naturalism, a worldview with a philosophical aspect which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modeling. In contrast, methodological naturalism is an assumption of naturalism as a methodology of science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation.

Metaphysical naturalism holds that all properties related to consciousness and the mind are reducible to, or supervene upon, nature. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions."--Wiki​

--Dave

Dave, I think it would be more accurate to use the word "confidence", rather than "faith", in regard to the naturalistic methodology used in science.
 

6days

New member
Just wanted to make sure we agree that science and philosophy are not totally unrelated.
--Dave
Evolutionism and philosophy are joined at the hips... and admitted by some of its adherents.
Michael Ruse: "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, …- 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"

Under intense pressure from atheists, Ruse did try back peddle a bit but still says some atheists are religious.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/michael-ruse/is-darwinism-a-religion_b_904828.html

Or who would say something like "It is in the mind and hearts of our children that the battle will be won". Wow... Christians should have that philosophy but that is the philosophy of an evolutionist.
http://pnrj.xanga.com/709441435/what-i-learned-from-the-creation-museum/
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Dear noguru,

I believe Faith is something we have when we believe in something we can't yet see. That is what we can have in God and Heaven. Just like the wind that we can't see, we can feel it goes somewhere, and we believe in it even though we can't see it. Jesus said, "Blessed are those who believe without having seen."

Believing in Someone I Can't See Is No Problem For Me,

Michael
 

gcthomas

New member
Dave, I think it would be more accurate to use the word "confidence", rather than "faith", in regard to the naturalistic methodology used in science.

Agreed. There is too much word mangling going on here. Why try to make lots of words mean the same thing when the argument is clearer when there is some nuance to be had? (Oh, I think I just answered my own question.)
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
There you go, gcthomas!! How are you doing? Oh, that takes me off-topic? Anything new? I've been hospitalized two days a week ago for pneumonia, and it doesn't seem to want to go away. I hate to go back into the hospital. Don't know what I'll do yet. They've already tried prednisone and antibiotics. Don't know much more that they can do for me.

Looking forward to hearing how you are doing?

Michael
 

Hedshaker

New member
Faith is not just a religious word, nor does it deal only with God. To say you believe in inflation theory is to say you have faith that it's true. Faith is not without it's reasons. We exercise faith because we are "finite" not because we are religious.

All world views are pre-suppositional. I can't "empirically" prove that God exists. I can't prove there is no God nor that everything is God. I can't prove that there is life after death. I can't prove that we reincarnate or that we cease to exist.

To say all that exists is nature is as much a presupposition as saying all that exists is God. To say there are multi-universes or only one universe...you get the point?

Science has it's apologetics as well as religion. Cosmic microwave background is used in defense or support of inflation theory.

"Metaphysical naturalism, also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and scientific materialism is a strong belief in naturalism, a worldview with a philosophical aspect which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modeling. In contrast, methodological naturalism is an assumption of naturalism as a methodology of science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation.

Metaphysical naturalism holds that all properties related to consciousness and the mind are reducible to, or supervene upon, nature. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions."--Wiki​

--Dave

Well done Dave to deliberately miss the point. Much easier to steer the discussion into familiar territory about world views and faith than directly answer questions and actually address the issues. Such is the pitfalls of trying to debate those who swim the murky waters of Christian apologetics.

It's pointless.
 

alwight

New member
Evolutionism and philosophy are joined at the hips... and admitted by some of its adherents.
Michael Ruse: "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, …- 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"

Under intense pressure from atheists, Ruse did try back peddle a bit but still says some atheists are religious.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/michael-ruse/is-darwinism-a-religion_b_904828.html

Or who would say something like "It is in the mind and hearts of our children that the battle will be won". Wow... Christians should have that philosophy but that is the philosophy of an evolutionist.
http://pnrj.xanga.com/709441435/what-i-learned-from-the-creation-museum/
Religionists often like to paint the ToE as "just a belief" or "just a theory", "just like my religion", but is it really?
However the ToE simply offers a secular, naturalistic explanation that involves no supposed supernatural elements, while based on physical facts.
It promises no salvation or hope for eternal life, it is just an explanation that if wrong would be seen to not match the evidence.
There is no associated credo, doctrine or dogma to adhere to. No point in devoting your life to the ToE, it is simply a naturalistic explanation, take it or leave it, no faith required.

I really can't see why or what use it would be to think of the ToE as a philosophy or religion, unless it was more about wanting to justify a possibly irrational, un-evidenced and un-falsifiable religious faith.
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Dave, I think it would be more accurate to use the word "confidence", rather than "faith", in regard to the naturalistic methodology used in science.

faith [feyth]
noun

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

Confidence and faith are the same thing.

--Dave
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Well done Dave to deliberately miss the point. Much easier to steer the discussion into familiar territory about world views and faith than directly answer questions and actually address the issues. Such is the pitfalls of trying to debate those who swim the murky waters of Christian apologetics.

It's pointless.

That atheists don't want to admit they exercise faith and presume nothing is both laughable and sad.

When you wake up and honestly admit that not "actually" knowing how the universe began or how it could be eternal, and not "actually" knowing how life began means you have to have "faith" then you'll rational.

Until you see the foolishness of "science of evolution is fact", you will continue to be irrational.

--Dave
 

noguru

Well-known member
faith [feyth]
noun

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

Confidence and faith are the same thing.

--Dave

Dave you are being deceitful again. Words have a vague penumbra of meaning surrounding them. Sometimes the words overlap with this vague penumbra for certain contexts. But one has to pay careful attention to context and the various meanings for words. You either fail to pay attention or purposely want to mislead. Here are the definitions I found for faith, strangely (though maybe not surprisingly) you did not include them:

1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2
(1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Why are you still trying to deceive others when the reality is quite clear?

I ask you to look at the highlighted meaning and consider how that applies to faith in God, but not confidence in science. If you continue with this attempt at deceit I will certainly lose more confidence in your judgement. And that is already pretty low. Claiming belief in God does not resolve that problem.
 
Last edited:

noguru

Well-known member
That atheists don't want to admit they exercise faith and presume nothing is both laughable and sad.

When you wake up and honestly admit that not "actually" knowing how the universe began or how it could be eternal, and not "actually" knowing how life began means you have to have "faith" then you'll rational.

Until you see the foolishness of "science of evolution is fact", you will continue to be irrational.

--Dave

Your view of this is what is faulty. As much as I try to explain how you are inaccurate, you continue with the misrepresentations. That is no way to build confidence from others in your words.
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Religionists often like to paint the ToE as "just a belief" or "just a theory", "just like my religion", but is it really?
However the ToE simply offers a secular, naturalistic explanation that involves no supposed supernatural elements, while based on physical facts.
It promises no salvation or hope for eternal life, it is just an explanation that if wrong would be seen to not match the evidence.
There is no associated credo, doctrine or dogma to adhere to. No point in devoting your life to the ToE, it is simply a naturalistic explanation, take it or leave it, no faith required.

I really can't see why or what use it would be to think of the ToE as a philosophy or religion, unless it was more about wanting to justify a possibly irrational, un-evidenced and un-falsifiable religious faith.

And evolution is an un-seen, un-falsifiable science in which the ability to explain everything naturalistically (accept the origin of life, the universe, and rational thought) is seen as proof despite the fact that the fossil record shows stasis and sudden appearance of species.

--Dave
 

noguru

Well-known member
And evolution is an un-seen, un-falsifiable science in which the ability to explain everything naturalistically (accept the origin of life, the universe, and rational thought) is seen as proof

Would you like to falsify the naturalistic methodology, Dave?

despite the fact that the fossil record shows stasis and sudden appearance of species.

--Dave

We have addressed PE and the fossil record many times, you ought to refrain from using arguments that have already been shown to be faulty. It only reflects on you and leads to less confidence in your analysis when you use knowingly faulty arguments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top