Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
gaynorvader wrote: »Evolution is different for different things and often drastic changes are only made in reaction to some change in the environment, and yes this can cause evolution to work comparatively quickly, but I'm not sure why this is an issue.
Really? Then perhaps you might follow the thread back by clicking on the poster and read the discussion above about castrophism and gradualism in relation to palaeontology and evolution?0 -
gaynorvader wrote: »Why is this relevant? Much of modern mathematics came from various Greeks whom believed in Apollo, Aphrodite, Helios, etc. Does this mean that their gods are real? Your point is ridiculous.
not really. It isn't a contradiction to believe in God and to also be a good scientist. Mathematics by the way is NOT science!There is nothing unscientific about theorising that God did it and then testing that theory to see if it's true. Unfortunately, it doesn't hold up.
now who is being ridiculous? You are suggesting a "verification principle" rather than a "falsification principle" . The logical positivists fell into this trap too. You cant scientifically prove god true.My main question however is why should creationist scientists be allowed have a different standard of evidence to other scientists? What or who gave them this "knowledge"? Because to me, it seems they read one book and took what it said as true without even considering the "facts" written in any other books to be true. Which is about as unscientific as you can get.
You would be referring to fundamentalist Biblical creationists here.
Mind you there are unshrinking believers in "science" as if it is like a coherent single fundamental book as well. Science isn't sufficient for society.0 -
Let us just adopt a terminology we all agree to shall we?
Ontology - how we know about it
Epistemology ~what we know
Empirisism ~ measuring things
There is no single "philosophy of science"
You are saying epistemology recapitulates ontology in an empirical sense.
Or that the very least that epistemology is ontologically determined.
Define "determined". Do you mean proven true. If so, no I'm not.This "philosophy of science" isn't necessarily true. in other words, when exposed to the principle you suggest you can't prove it, it is a philosophical axiom, a tautology.
The first bit is right, you can't prove it. But there are not assumed axioms. They aren't assumed true. The (mainstream) philosophy of science holds that nothing can be known to be true, so this would include the philosophy of science.
It is circular granted but logically consistent.
The (mainstream) philosophy of science states that nothing can be proven scientifically so that is not relevant.In otherwords that "you can't really know things unless you can support them scientifically" can't be proven scientifically !
Well I thought it was implied but I meant in the context of what we know.Well there an a myriad answers to that and the question betrays your positivist empiricist stance. For exmple one answer might be to say it might be necessary to use science to enable us to be confident of what we do not know.
CorrectBut this argument can be easily extended to any fundamentalist belief.
Yes it is. It isn't sufficient argument to demonstrate that belief in any God is a hindrance over any other fundamentalist belief. But then that wasn't the argument.It isn't a sufficient argument to demonstrate that belief in any God is a hindrance to scientific progress.the "God of the gaps " fallacy you can look up elsewher but again this isnt sufficient because history is also littered with non God connected failures to advance or develop because people were content with the syatem they had. e.g. shogun and not adopting the technological advance of the Gun.
You seem to misunderstand what is being argued here. It isn't that God is a much much worse science blocking belief than any other science blocking belief, or that only belief in God will block science, not belief in an infallible Emperor or oracle.What do you mean by "advance" or "develop" anyway? How can you deal with it without some value judgement which is not scientifically provable?
Nothing is scientifically provable. Perhaps you should rephrase that question.0 -
or perhaps you should have a look at this ....Nothing is scientifically provable. Perhaps you should rephrase that question.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-518637672896741579#
... and Ben Stein isn't a Christian ...
... and Ben Stein isn't a Creationist ... he is a Jew with a liberal outlook that believes in Academic FREEDOM!!!
... and please also bear in mind that none of the people featured in the Video are Creation Scientists ... ironically it is the Theistic Evolutionists whose careers are on the line ... Creation Scientists are lucky to be at one removed from all of this stuff!!!0 -
or perhaps you should have a look at this ....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-518637672896741579#
... and Ben Stein isn't a Christian ...
... and Ben Stein isn't a Creationist ... he is a Jew with a liberal outlook that believes in Academic FREEDOM!!!
... and please also bear in mind that none of the people featured in the Video are Creation Scientists ... ironically it is the Theistic Evolutionists whose careers are on the line ... Creation Scientists are lucky to be at one removed from all of this stuff!!!
Pretty pointless video.
It basically outlays a conspiracy theory against the scientific "establishment". It doesn't give any evidence for either sides arguement though. Not that I expected any, it's a leave your brain at the door type "documentary".
The disingenious editing of the Dawkins interview with Steins voiceover is particularly funny. Dawkins clearly doesn't believe in intelligent design and was illustrating a point showing the fallacy of it.0 -
Advertisement
-
It is quite clear, from the video, that Prof Dawkins was only speculating about an Intelligent Design 'signature' being left by an 'alien' advanced civilisation that could theoretically have seeded life on Earth (and not saying that he believes that Aliens exist or that this actually happened) ... however, his critical admission was that it is would be scientifically possible to detect an ID 'signature' within the genome of life, if, for example, it had been intelligently designed/manipulated/developed by an 'alien' intelligence.Pretty pointless video.
It basically outlays a conspiracy theory against the scientific "establishment". It doesn't give any evidence for either sides arguement though. Not that I expected any, it's a leave your brain at the door type "documentary".
The disingenious editing of the Dawkins interview with Steins voiceover is particularly funny. Dawkins clearly doesn't believe in intelligent design and was illustrating a point showing the fallacy of it.
The hypothesis of the ID movement is actually identical to what Prof Dawkins has said ... they believe that that life has been Intelligently Designed by 'alien intelligence(s) unknown' ... and that it is scientifically possible to detect the ID 'signature' of this design process.
In any event, the main thesis of the video is the fact that two competing hypothesies exist to explain the origin and development of life ... i.e. that 'an intelligence/intelligences unknown did it' or that 'blind spontaneous materialistic processes unknown did it' ... and one of these hypotheses (and it's proponents) are being actively suppressed by their fellow Evolutionists in contravention of the principles of Academic Freedom, to go wherever the evidence leads them.
The antagonism shown by some Evolutionists towards the first hypothesis shows that they are not leaving their Materialistic beliefs outside the doors of their labs ...
... while, ironically, the intense study by Creation Scientists (and ID Proponents) of both hypotheses ... proves that they are able to rise above their personal beliefs to assess all of the evidence and all of the facts objectively ... while many Materialists continue to remain in denial that any alternative hypothesis exists ... while threatening to sack any 'messenger' who points out that the ID hypothesis exists and has actually invalidated the Materialistic 'origins' hypothesis.
... BTW there is no (secret) conspiracy to suppress ID ... the threat of suppression is out there in the open and the active hostility can be clearly seen from even a casual look at this thread and the many pronouncements advocating the sacking / non-employment of conventionally qualified scientists who are ID proponents.0 -
It is quite clear, from the video, that Prof Dawkins was only speculating about an Intelligent Design 'signature' being left by an 'alien' advanced civilisation that could theoretically have seeded life on Earth (and not saying that he believes that Aliens exist or that this actually happened) ... however, his critical admission was that it is would be scientifically possible to detect an ID 'signature' within the genome of life, if, for example, it had been intelligently designed/manipulated/developed by an 'alien' intelligence.
The hypothesis of the ID movement is actually identical to what Prof Dawkins has said ... they believe that that life has been Intelligently Designed by 'alien intelligence(s) unknown' ... and that it is scientifically possible to detect the ID 'signature' of this design process.
In any event, the main thesis of the video is the fact that two competing hypothesies exist to explain the origin and development of life ... i.e. that 'an intelligence/intelligences unknown did it' or that 'blind spontaneous materialistic processes unknown did it' ... and one of these hypotheses (and it's proponents) are being actively suppressed by their fellow Evolutionists in contravention of the principles of Academic Freedom, to go wherever the evidence leads them.
The antagonism shown by some Evolutionists towards the first hypothesis shows that they are not leaving their Materialistic beliefs outside the doors of their labs ...
... while, ironically, the intense study by Creation Scientists (and ID Proponents) of both hypotheses ... proves that they are able to rise above their personal beliefs to assess all of the evidence and all of the facts objectively ... while many Materialists continue to remain in denial that any alternative hypothesis exists ... while threatening to sack any 'messenger' who points out that the ID hypothesis exists and has actually invalidated the Materialistic 'origins' hypothesis.
... BTW there is no (secret) conspiracy to suppress ID ... the threat of suppression is out there in the open and the active hostility can be clearly seen from even a casual look at this thread and the many pronouncements advocating the sacking / non-employment of conventionally qualified scientists who are ID proponents.
Look, the ID proponents and creationists (they're not by definition, scientists) have adduced no evidence of ID.
Have you got any?0 -
It is quite clear, from the video, that Prof Dawkins was only speculating about an Intelligent Design 'signature' being left by an 'alien' advanced civilisation that could theoretically have seeded life on Earth (and not saying that he believes that Aliens exist or that this actually happened) ... however, his critical admission was that it is would be scientifically possible to detect an ID 'signature' within the genome of life, if, for example, it had been intelligently designed/manipulated/developed by an 'alien' intelligence.
The hypothesis of the ID movement is actually identical to what Prof Dawkins has said ... they believe that that life has been Intelligently Designed by 'alien intelligence(s) unknown' ... and that it is scientifically possible to detect the ID 'signature' of this design process.
You conveniently left out the part where Dawkins says the aliens who have evolved from some form of Darwinian evolution. You've missed his point if you think he's agreeing with Intelligent Design.In any event, the main thesis of the video is the fact that two competing hypothesies exist to explain the origin and development of life ... i.e. that 'an intelligence/intelligences unknown did it' or that 'blind spontaneous materialistic processes unknown did it' ... and one of these hypotheses (and it's proponents) are being actively suppressed by their fellow Evolutionists in contravention of the principles of Academic Freedom, to go wherever the evidence leads them.
Okay, no evidence though?The antagonism shown by some Evolutionists towards the first hypothesis shows that they are not leaving their Materialistic beliefs outside the doors of their labs ...
... while, ironically, the intense study by Creation Scientists (and ID Proponents) of both hypotheses ... proves that they are able to rise above their personal beliefs to assess all of the evidence and all of the facts objectively ... while many Materialists continue to remain in denial that any alternative hypothesis exists ... while threatening to sack any 'messenger' who points out that the ID hypothesis exists and has actually invalidated the Materialistic 'origins' hypothesis.
... BTW there is no (secret) conspiracy to suppress ID ... the threat of suppression is out there in the open and the active hostility can be clearly seen from even a casual look at this thread and the many pronouncements advocating the sacking / non-employment of conventionally qualified scientists who are ID proponents.
I'm not sure if this is true but I certainly know their is plenty of resistance to Darwins theory also.0 -
I was merely pointing out that the segment of the video during which Prof Dawkins was interviewed was a fair representation of his views, including his belief that any 'alien' (if it existed) would be produced by some kind of Darwinian process.You conveniently left out the part where Dawkins says the aliens who have evolved from some form of Darwinian evolution. You've missed his point if you think he's agreeing with Intelligent Design.
The critical admission by Prof Dawkins was his statement that it could be scientifically possible to identify the 'signature' of a putative 'alien' intelligence, if such an intelligence did 'design' life on Earth ... and Ben Stein (fairly) pointed out, the obvious contradiction, that Prof Dawkins was prepared to accept that the 'signature' of a putative 'alien' could be scientifically detected in the Intelligent Design of life ... but such an 'alien' could not be God (in Prof Dawkin's materialistic opinion)!!!
Darwinian Evolution is a fact in the sense of natural selection acting on existing genetic diversity to produce genetic drift within populations is an accepted fact of science and common sense observation. Creation Scientists and ID Evolutionists also accept that Evolution (in this sense) is a fact.I'm not sure if this is true but I certainly know (there) is plenty of resistance to Darwins theory also.
However, Darwinian Evolution is completley defunct in the sense that it proports to explain the origins/production of the existing tightly specified functional genetic information (and its diversity) observed in living organisms.
In plain man's language, while Darwinian Evolution may explain the survival of the fittest ... it doesn't explain the arrival of the fittest!!!
... and that is where ID comes in (for both Evolutionists and Creationists).0 -
I was merely pointing out that the segment of the video during which Prof Dawkins was interviewed was a fair representation of his views, including his belief that any 'alien' (if it existed) would be produced by some kind of Darwinian process.
The critical admission by Prof Dawkins was his statement that it could be scientifically possible to identify the 'signature' of a putative 'alien' intelligence, if such an intelligence did 'design' life on Earth ... and Ben Stein (fairly) pointed out that Prof Dawkins was prepared to accept that the 'signature' of a putative 'alien' could be scientifically detected in the Intelligent Design of life ... but such an 'alien' could not be God (in Prof Dawkin's materialistic opinion)!!!
Yes it could be scientifically possible but there is no evidence at all for this alien designer. You've really missed his point and you can't see how disingenious editing is working to Ben Steins favour.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2488... Darwinian Evolution is a fact in the sense of natrural selection acting on existing tightly specified functional genetic information is an accepted fact of science and common sense observation.
Darwinian Evolution is completley defunct in the sense that it proports to explain the origins/production of the existing tightly specified functional genetic information in living organisms.
In plain man's language, while Darwinian Evolution may explain the survival of the fittest ... it doesn't explain the arrival of the fittest!!!
... and that is where ID comes in (for both Evolutionists and Creationists).
That documentary you linked to was ANTI DARWINIAN EVOLUTION. No two ways about it. Despite it being a fact they disagreed with it. Darwinian evolution that is, nothing to do with the beginning of life. You need to look up ID if you think it has no problem accepting Darwinian evolution.
I agree evolution doesn't explain how life originally rose nor does it claim to. That area is still open to debate and there are theories.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Oh no it doesn't.Genghiz Cohen wrote: »Yes it does.
... and we have been over this repeatedly on this thread.0 -
-
... if it is possible to scientifically identify the 'signature' of Intelligent Design in living creatures (like both yourself and Prof Dawkins have confirmed)...Yes it could be scientifically possible but there is no evidence at all for this alien designer. You've really missed his point and you can't see how disingenious editing is working to Ben Steins favour.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2488
... then you cannot legitimately stop ID scientists and Creation Scientists pursuing scientific research into identifying this signature ... and you also cannot describe eminent conventionally qualified scientists who pursue this research as 'non-scientists' ... nor can you (or the scientific establishment) legitimately deny ID and Creation Science the status of being conventional science disciplines.
The documentary primarily looked at the suppression of the academic freedom to openly pursue research into ID without destroying your career prospects within conventional science.That documentary you linked to was ANTI DARWINIAN EVOLUTION. No two ways about it. Despite it being a fact they disagreed with it. Darwinian evolution that is, nothing to do with the beginning of life. You need to look up ID if you think it has no problem accepting Darwinian evolution.
I agree evolution doesn't explain how life originally rose nor does it claim to. That area is still open to debate and there are theories.
It highlighted some sinister use of Darwinian Evolution (by the Nazis) ... but it equally highlighted the fact that Darwinian Evolution wasn't the only cause of this phenomenon.
Creation Scientists accept that while Nazism used evolution to justify some of their policies, it was a perverse and immoral use of evolution to do.
The fact that nature may be 'red in tooth and claw' doesn't justify people murdering other people ... and it is therefore unfair to blame Evolution for the rise of the Nazis.0 -
Scientific Fact: anyone who uses the term Darwinian Evolution doesn't understand evolutionary biology0
-
-
The auricular obstruction has been entirely on the Materialistic Evolutionist side of this debate!!!gaynorvader wrote: »And you stuck your fingers in your ears and sang at the top of your voice. Metaphorically speaking.0 -
... if it is possible to scientifically identify the 'signature' of Intelligent Design in living creatures (like both yourself and Prof Dawkins have confirmed)...
... then you cannot legitimately stop ID scientists and Creation Scientists pursuing scientific research into identifying this signature ... and you also cannot describe eminent conventionally qualified scientists who pursue this research as 'non-scientists' ... nor can you (or the scientific establishment) legitimately deny ID and Creation Science the status of being conventional science disciplines.
Who says they can't stop looking? They are free to do what they like. They are scientists in the same way people researching Russells Teapot are scientists. Until there is evidence for their theory, aside from attempting to pick holes in natural selection, they are on the same level.... The documentary primarily looked at the suppression of the academic freedom to openly pursue research into ID without destroying your career prospects within conventional science.
It highlighted some sinister use of Darwinian Evolution (by the Nazis) ... but it equally highlighted the fact that Darwinian Evolution wasn't the only cause of this phenomenon.
Creation Scientists accept that while Nazism used evolution to justify some of their policies, it was a perverse use of evolution to do.
The fact that nature may be 'red in tooth and claw' doesn't justify people murdering other people ... and it is therefore unfair to blame Evolution for the rise of the Nazis.
Okay, fine.
But the ideals of ID are in direct conflict with natural selection.
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
That is from the Discovery Institutes website.0 -
-
... I'll believe you when they restore all of the demoted and sacked ID Evolutionists to their jobs ... and when they stop calling for the wiping of Creationists (and by extension, Creation Scientists) from the face of the Earth!!!Who says they can't stop looking? They are free to do what they like. They are scientists in the same way people researching Russells Teapot are scientists. Until there is evidence for their theory, aside from attempting to pick holes in natural selection, they are on the same level.
... that would be the bit about Natural Selection / Evolution not explaining the arrival of the fittest!!!Okay, fine.
But the ideals of ID are in direct conflict with natural selection.
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
ID proponents and Creation Scientists have no issue with the existence of Natural Selection ... and it's ability to select from existing genetic diversity ... it is the origin of the gentic diversity, in the first place that ID proposes to explain ... and not it's selection!!!0 -
Advertisement
-
-
... I'll believe you when they restore all of the demoted and sacked ID Evolutionists to their jobs ... and when they stop calling for the wiping of Creationists (and by extension, Creation Scientists) from the face of the Earth!!!
... that would be the bit about Natural Selection / Evolution not explaining the arrival of the fittest!!!
ID proponents and Creation Scientists have no issue with the existence of Natural Selection ... and it's ability to select from existing genetic diversity ... it is the origin of the gentic diversity, in the first place that ID proposes to explain ... and not it's (natural) selection!!!
Oh right. And have these crack (pot) teams of "scientists" adduced any evidence to support their theory of intelligent design?0 -
... that would be the bit about Natural Selection / Evolution not explaining the arrival of the fittest!!!
ID proponents and Creation Scientists have no issue with the existence of Natural Selection ... and it's ability to select from existing genetic diversity ... it is the origin of the gentic diversity, in the first place that ID proposes to explain ... and not it's selection!!!
You're wrong I'm afraid, from the Discovery Institute:2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
Click here for video
It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article "Meanings of Evolution" by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas.0 -
I actually like Prof Dawkins, as a human being ... I find his writings to be witty and incisive (up to a point).Dawkins is a dick.
He is a very intelligent man ... and I think that he knows in his 'heart of hearts' that there is a God who Intelligently Designed him ... but he is operating under the mis-apprehension that the God who did so is some kind of 'meglomanical monster' (as he has stated in 'The God Delusion') ... when God is actually a loving and just God who loves him as a father ... and wants to Save him.0 -
I actually like Prof Dawkins, as a human being ... I find his writings to be witty and incisive (up to a point).
He is a very intelligent man ... and I think that he knows in his 'heart of hearts' that there is a God who Intelligently Designed him ... but he is operating under the mis-apprehension that the God who did so is some kind of 'meglomanical monster' ... when God actually loves him as a father ... and wants to Save him.
I think we can safely say that Dawkins in his "head of heads" believes no such thing.
You're operating under a delusion.0 -
Quote:You're wrong I'm afraid, from the Discovery Institute:
Like I have said (see the red bit above) ... ID proponents and Creation Scientists have no issue with the existence of Natural Selection ... and it's ability to select from existing genetic diversity ... it is the origin of the gentic diversity, in the first place that ID proposes to explain ... and not it's selection!!!2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article "Meanings of Evolution" by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas.
ID Proponents (and Creation Scientists) have no problem with Natural Selection as one explanation for the survival of the fittest ... it is when it is cited to explain the arrival of the fittest that we have questions about the vaidity of such claims!!!0 -
... here you go again, making unfounded prejudicial comments about eminent conventional scientists!!!Oh right. And have these crack (pot) teams of "scientists" adduced any evidence to support their theory of intelligent design?
The point about Academic Freedom is that ID scientists should have the freedom to pursue research into an area that even leading Materialists (like Prof Dawkins) admit that it is possible to reach scientifically valid conclusions upon.
All I am asking is to give ID a chance ... I'm not asking any Materialist to become an ID Proponent ... but if s/he would like to do research aimed at disproving any conclusions reached by ID Proponents then they should obviously also be free to do so.
However, the Materialists should not be free to metaphorically 'strangle' ID at its scientific birth!!!
... or to crassly sack/demote ID proponents in the ways that were described in Ben Stein's documentary!!!0 -
You're correct that we can endlessly speculate on what Prof Dawkins actually thinks ... but occasionally 'when the mask slip' ... we do get tantalising insights that indicate that Prof Dawkins may not be the 100% 'died in the wool' Atheist that he claims to be!!!I think we can safely say that Dawkins in his "head of heads" believes no such thing.
You're operating under a delusion.0 -
ID is a ludicrous idea. However people can believe whatever nonsense they like provided it doesn't interfere with their work.... here you go again, making unfounded prejudicial comments about eminent conventional scientists!!!
Name one. And please direct me to any peer reviewed, scientific articles they may have published that support ID theory.
The point about Academic Freedom is that ID scientists should have the freedom to pursue research into an area that even leading Materialists (like Prof Dawkins) admit that it is possible to reach scientifically valid conclusions upon.
It's possible to reach scientifically valid conclusions on anything, as long as the evidence actually exists.
All I am asking is to give ID a chance
2000 years not enough time?
... I'm not asking any Materialist to become an ID Proponent ...
You mean you're not asking anyone sensible to believe in the highly unlikely?
but if s/he would like to do research aimed at disproving any conclusions reached by ID Proponents then they should obviously also be free to do so
What conclusions?
However, the Materialists should not be free to metaphorically 'strangle' ID at its scientific birth!!!
What "scientific birth"? Indeed what science?
... or to crassly sack/demote ID proponents in the ways that were described in Ben Stein's documentary!!!0 -
Advertisement
-
You're correct that we can endlessly speculate on what Prof Dawkins actually thinks ... but occasionally 'when the mask slip' ... we do get tantalising insights that indicate that Prof Dawkins may not be the 100% 'died in the wool' Atheist that he claims to be!!!
Really? So all the books, interviews and correspondence are just a ruse? He's actually an ID nut-job? Seriously? I feel used.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement