Your Garage botysf16 Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc blink-182 Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer AllOrNothingS1 AllOrNothingS1 AllOrNothingS1  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro
Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Scientists Confront Creationism: Intelligent Design and Beyond

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 8926-8950 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 8:51:05 PM PDT
J. G. Lewis says:
D. Thomas:

There may be little scientific, or empirical, evidence to support the view that God created humanity directly, but this does not mean there is no evidence whatsoever. And, yes it is religious dogma, but who is to say that that is necessarily wrong? Mr. Thomas, you do not have to follow Pennock, of course, but are you not doing here what Dr. Pennock said that scientists should not generally be doing [?]: which is prejudging negatively on the issue of the supernatural. By the rules of Methodological Naturalism... you actually cannot say yeah or neah to any hypothesis of this sort - exactly what you are doing - but should merely disregard it (make no comment, no judgement). We will return to this issue at the end of the book, btw, and Dr. Robert Pennock's various definitions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll hold off on chapter 5 for next week, as I have some work for the town I need to do this week. But I'll be around!

- John

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 8:57:36 PM PDT
Re Lewis, 4-23 8:51 PM: "this does not mean there is no evidence whatsoever." Would you care to present some? So far, you have presented nothing.

"are you not doing here what Dr. Pennock said that scientists should not generally be doing [?]: which is prejudging negatively on the issue of the supernatural." No pre-judging is involved: I remind you, yet again, that there can be no evidence of any supernatural phenomenon. And, absent evidence, there is no reason to believe any of it.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 11:30:47 PM PDT
Jesus4us says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 11:44:06 PM PDT
Uh oh, eternal damnation again.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 7:45:32 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 24, 2012 7:51:04 AM PDT
J. G. Lewis says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Apr 24, 2012 8:05:26 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 24, 2012 8:06:11 AM PDT
J. G. Lewis says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 9:47:36 AM PDT
'probabilist says:
Ariex wrote:

> When a Christian uses his piety to gain wealth,
> there's something else going on.

Aye. Well said.

'prob

Posted on Apr 24, 2012 9:52:35 AM PDT
'probabilist says:
"duel" vs "dual"

,.-)

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 9:57:58 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 24, 2012 10:00:06 AM PDT
'probabilist says:
Hi, Irish -

You asked:

> What I don't understand is why,
> if John et al wouldn't or couldn't
> grasp their import the first time,
> you think they'll get it this time?

I don't think John et al _want_ to understand it.

What I sought to do was to demonstrate how firmly they are mired in their Creationistolatry.

All the best,

'prob

Posted on Apr 24, 2012 10:08:33 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 24, 2012 10:12:49 AM PDT
'probabilist says:
Ardent creationists seem to believe that they can discredit modern evolutionary biology by attacking Charles Darwin.

This seems to me to be rather like an attempt to put out a raging forest fire by dousing the strike-anywhere match that started it.

,.-)

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 10:30:26 AM PDT
Roeselare says:
a smart guy like you isn't an IDer, at least a little bit?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 10:57:08 AM PDT
'probabilist says:
,.-)

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 11:18:43 AM PDT
D. Thomas says:
But not you! You've already got all the answers.

Or so you think.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 12:03:40 PM PDT
D. Thomas says:
JGL: "There may be little scientific, or empirical, evidence to support the view that God created humanity directly, but this does not mean there is no evidence whatsoever."

What a strange sentence! That's like saying "Rocks are hard, but that doesn't mean that steel isn't harder." It's a meaningless formulation.

In fact, it is false to claim that there's "LITTLE" evidence that God created man directly, when, in reality, there is NO evidence whatsoever.

JGL: "And, yes it is religious dogma, but who is to say that that is necessarily wrong?"

Religious dogma, by definition, is not evidence. Dogma consists of articles of faith i.e., it is credal, not empirical.

That does not make dogma "wrong," but by the nature of theological claims, they are speculative and impossible to falsify; that is, they can neither be proved nor disproved.

It is not "necessarily wrong" to believe that all beings have eternal souls which are joined together in the great flow of eternal jibber jabber, but such theological claims cannot be empirically tested. They fall squarely in the realm of religious dogma.

The mere fact that a claim is made by a church or a theologian does not render it unassailable by science, i.e., empiricism. Assertions regarding biology (evolution) geology, cosmology and the like are solidly in the natural domain and are therefore subject to scientific scrutiny. The history of such claims being upheld by empirical observation is rather pathetic; every decade sees more such assertions fail to withstand empirical tests.

If you wish to take Dr. Pennock's speculations seriously, that's your privilege, but so far, you've presented no justification for doing so.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 12:12:49 PM PDT
mark says:
For whomever wears Big Boy Pants, or Big Girl....Petalpushers???...and are assumed to be capable of understanding, comes this:

1.) Given, end paragraph one, this thread, pg. 357, 4:51pm:
The Pennock dual model is a reasonable representation of today's theoretical biology.

1A.) The Pennock dual model is the scenerio whereby the explanation for life on Earth can be largely explained either by the theory of Creationism, or the theory of Evolution.
a.) Creationism is "...the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being..." (Scott, 2004)
b.) Evolution is "...any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations..." (Hall, 2008)
1B.) "theoretical biology" being an "understanding and analysis of the biosphere". {originally: biosphere is "...Earth's surface where life dwells", Suess, 1875)
1C.) Biosphere has been established as being the environment. (this thread, pg. 357)

Therefore, the Pennock dual model is a reasonable representation of the environment.

Negation:
From 1A.), Pennock's dual model says nothing about the environment, which means theoretical biology is an aberration of terminology. If theoretical biology is an aberration in terminology, then the dual model as a reasonable representation of today's theoretical biology is disproved.
From 1A.), The dual model, as stated in 1.), is not disproved.

2.) Given, ibid, paragraph 2:
Metaphysical/ontological naturalism is a theory of reality which states that there is nothing beyond the material physical universe, and all that has happened, or ever will, occurs within this Universe, purely through material mechanisms and forces.
Methodological Naturalism, which indeed does hold there may exist the supernatural.

2A.) Naturalism: "...is a species of philosophical monism according to which whatever exists or happens is natural in the sense of being susceptible to explanation through methods which are continuous from domain to domain of objects and events..." (Danto, Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
2B.) Metaphysics: "... a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world..." Geisler, 1999
2B2.) Metaphysical naturalism, also called "ontological naturalism", is a philosophical worldview and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations.
2C.) Ontology: "... As a first approximation, ontology is the study of what there is..." (Stanford School of Philosophy, 2004)
2C2)Ontological naturalism: Same as metaphysical naturalism.
2D.) Methodological naturalism: "...the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it ... science is not metaphysical and does not depend on the ultimate truth of any metaphysics for its success..." Schafersman, 1996)
2D2.) Methodological naturalism refers exclusively to the methodology of science used within the context of a philosophically naturalistic foundation.

Negation:
From 2A.), naturalism is an idea, meaning it is a conceptual rationality.
From 2B.) and 2C.), as the root words for metaphysical and ontological naturalism, it is shown that such naturalisms are philosophical in context, meaning they are a function of conceptual rationality.
From 2D.) As the root word for methodological naturalism, it is shown that such naturalism is the solitary naturalism that can claim a basis in a deterministic context, meaning it is an exclusive function of physical eventualities, predicated on an objective reality of a philosophical domain.
As stated, methodological naturalism does not weaken science's position in relation to other fields of inquiry, because it is the only type of naturalism that uses empirical science, as opposed to a priori philosophy, as justification, and, other fields of inquiry are not specified. Furthermore, because it is scientific inquiry, it by definition does preclude any investigation into the existence of the supernatural. Therefore, the assertion relative to methodological naturalism is disproved.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 12:26:57 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 24, 2012 12:28:27 PM PDT
D. Thomas says:
JGL: "To find evidence of the supernatural, in the natural world, is not easy, granted. One way they may appear is... the stated gaps."

I have no idea what you are trying to say. What is the "they" that "may appear"? What is a "stated gap"?

As I understand it, methodological naturalism merely acknowledges that the purview of science is the natural world, and that belief in the supernatural is a separate concern that doesn't come into play when one is doing science. Scientists can thus ply their trade without conflicting with theism.

But like I said, when religion starts making claims about cosmology, anthropology, biology, history and other aspects of the "material" universe, a clash seems inevitable.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 12:44:00 PM PDT
Ariex says:
J. G. Lewis says: "There may be little scientific, or empirical, evidence to support the view that God created humanity directly, but this does not mean there is no evidence whatsoever."

Ariex: Well, why not present the evidence? Or are you going to go with subjective experiences, feelings inside your own head as "evidence"?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 12:51:08 PM PDT
Ariex says:
J. G. Lewis says: "Another means, I would suggest an Almighty God to reveal Himself, would be in human history, therefore, historical evidence. At the present, I am viewing different videos concerning the Exodus, and Mt. Sinia -"

Ariex: (You mean Sinai?) Videos? Dramatic reenactments that require no mental effort other than soaking in the indoctrination? Archaeologists show very strong evidence that the Exodus/conquest was a myth, a folktale. But, hey, if you've got video of the event (taken by aliens, I would guess) then the media should be alerted to this earth-shattering news.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 12:53:18 PM PDT
Ariex says:
J. G. Lewis says: "Various others, also. Such as "The Case for a Creator", by Lee Strobel."

Ariex: Oh, goodie. Let's do Strobel's book next. I know how to carve a turkey.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 2:27:12 PM PDT
Re Lewis, 4:24 7:45 AM: "To find evidence of the supernatural, in the natural world, is not easy, granted." In fact, as I have shown, it is impossible even in principle.

Quoting Pennock: "science might adopt promising new methods and refine existing ones if doing so would provide better evidential warrant." Pennock is, of course, correct, but note particularly his demand for evidence. In science, now and forever, this is NOT NEGOTIABLE.

"I have presented all types of negative argumentation,..." Every bit of which, absent specific evidence, is worthless. As for the book, I have not read it, and do not intend to -- but if you can cite any evidential demonstration which it makes that either premise of evolution (there are only two) is wrong, then I will consider such demonstration.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 2:29:21 PM PDT
Re Lewis, 4-24 8:05 AM: I have read Stroebel's "The Case for Faith", and found it totally worthless. He quotes a number of "experts" in various fields, not a single one of which offers any evidence to support his suppositions.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 2:30:37 PM PDT
Re probabilist, 4-24 10:08 AM: Or urinating on the embers.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 2:31:22 PM PDT
Oh, the stench!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 2:36:05 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 24, 2012 2:37:10 PM PDT
RE D. Thomas, 4-24 12:03 PM: "It is not "necessarily wrong" to believe that all beings have eternal souls which are joined together in the great flow of eternal jibber jabber, but such theological claims cannot be empirically tested. They fall squarely in the realm of religious dogma." This is correct.

"The history of such claims being upheld by empirical observation is rather pathetic; every decade sees more such assertions fail to withstand empirical tests." This is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. Science is filling in the gaps on our knowledge, but the basic premises have not only remained valid for a century, but have been re-validated, over and over again.

"If you wish to take Dr. Pennock's speculations seriously, ..." Pennock's opinions are NOT speculations: they are solidly grounded in evidence. Perhaps you would do well to re-read his work -- or, perhaps, you simply are not able to understand why it is valid.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 3:38:12 PM PDT
D. Thomas says:
Agreed. Stroebel's work is utter rubbish. He even gives Christian apologetics a bad name, if such a thing is possible.
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Religion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
1552 17 days ago
Even if There Were a 'God,' No Human Could Know It 1036 1 minute ago
The Obama administration is a weird mix of the Nixon and Carter Administrations. Corruption and Incompetence. Thow in the Muslim Traitor Factor...and you're left with a Country that's Pretty Strong...to have survived this Left Wing Wacko Lawless Chaos. 1 4 minutes ago
What's happening with SSM in the post Prop 8 world? 3154 8 minutes ago
What would Christ say about Trump: evangelical hero, crackpot, or psychopath? 1150 9 minutes ago
The Universal Common Denominator Betwixt Religious and Non: CAKE 45 14 minutes ago
One-sentence Nonsense Deepities for Fun and Prophet 124 15 minutes ago
Why did those who are now atheists leave Christianity? 4336 27 minutes ago
Today in Muslim History 7729 30 minutes ago
Where exactly, is Heaven? 298 43 minutes ago
The Nature of God 169 45 minutes ago
keep one change one started 10 October 2014 6419 1 hour ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  161
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Sep 30, 2010
Latest post:  May 6, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 10 customers

Search Customer Discussions