Study: understanding ToE = acceptance

[xianghua]

Actually, as I read Dr Sternberg, he says "Within this context one can accept all that is empirically valid in evolutionary biology, while not axiomatically dismissing the position that structures as well as their “real” instantiations have an intelligent cause." (RichardSternberg.org | Biography)

If your read the development of his thoughts (http://www.richardsternberg.com/pdf/sternintellbio08.pdf) you will find that Sternberg is NOT a proponent of "Intelligent Design" as described by some groups, but "that the universe emanates from Nous (mind). So in this sense my thinking is compatible with intelligent design broadly defined." Reading that paper will also open minds to the many diversities of thought within "evolution." As I read it, nowhere does he say he does not accept evlolution in broad terms, but that he has differences with many of the branches of evolution on how most scientists have chosen to describe the way it works. I don't find any explicit statement in the paper in which he ascribes design to God (as defined by any religion) - indeed he refers to philosophers who existed before Christ and outside the Judeo-Christian tradition. He is not kind in his remarks about Francis Collins' concept of god.

ok. by the way as a general note english isnt my native so i may not understand some of your words here and there but i think i got your idea.

 

[xianghua]

Dr Sternberg DOESN'T reject evolutionary biology - for example, he accepts deep evolutionary timescales of billions of years, common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation via reproductive isolation, and Mendelian genetic hereditary - he just holds an ID position that evolution is a process guided by a mind which layed down certain laws.

In his own words:

"... thus, my position assets that the cosmos is fundamentally intelligible in such a way that can be logically, mathematically and scientifically recognised to be such; and moreover - following Proclus - that the universe eminates from Nous (mind). So in this sense my thinking is compatible with intelligent design broadly defined."

From page 10 of 'How My Views on Evolution Evolved' by Dr RM Sternberg.

What's most telling is he still refers to himself as an Evolutionary Biologist.

thanks. by the way as a general note english isnt my native so i may not understand some of your words here and there. but i think i got your idea. even by watching a part of this video its clear that he doesnt realy believe in a natural evolution (if any):

 

[xianghua]

I have a question for you....when did truth depend on how many people believe or don't believe something? Does the same apply to religions? laws? professions? etc?

actually the majority of scientists believe in a designer (including most biologists). but the real issue here is the evidence. and evolution lack any evidence to support the claim that one creature can evolve into another one. its like saying that a car with small changes over time will evolve into a space shuttle.

 

[Monna]

that a car with small changes over time will evolve into a space shuttle.

Well, SAAB started as an airplane, and the original SAAB car was modelled on the cockpit of the airplane SAAB. The link was that they both had the same designer.

(SAAB no longer makes cars, though SAAB 9,3 is still produced in China. But SAAB still makes airplanes.)

 

[xianghua]

Well, SAAB started as an airplane, and the original SAAB car was modelled on the cockpit of the airplane SAAB. The link was that they both had the same designer.

(SAAB no longer makes cars, though SAAB 9,3 is still produced in China. But SAAB still makes airplanes.)

yep. the point is that they didnt evolved from each other.

 

[Rivga]

evolution lack any evidence to support the claim that one creature can evolve into another one

We started with a wolf and ended out with hundreds of breeds of dogs, ok humans speeded the process up by acting replacing natural selection. It is estimated that we have been doing this for around 16,000 to 32,000 years - and look at the changes. Is it so hard to extend that and see that another 16,000 years and the Dog will be unable to mate with a Wolf and thus be a new species.

Fossil evidence mapping the evolution of different animals, found in the regions of the world you'd expect and in the time frames you'd expect.

DNA mapping, you can look at DNA and actually see telltale signs of mutations, then give suggest what the animals ancestors would look like. And when they are able to test this what do you know they are right.

Patterns of animal moves link in with evolution, you don't find a Kangaroo ancestor in the UK otherwise evolution would have an issue explaining it.

There is more, much more, what shocks me though is that whilst you will not accept that evolution has met its burden of proof you require NO verifiable proof for God.

 

[Rivga]

actually the majority of scientists believe in a designer (including most biologists)

Do you have evidence to back that up, any statistics? Like these:

93 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, one of the most elite scientific organizations in the United States, do not believe in God.

The figures are more marked in the British Royal Society, where 96.8% identify themselves as having no belief in God.

Some of Ecklund's other findings about scientists self descriptions: - In the US which is one of the most religious.

• 47% of scientists affiliate themselves with some religion*
• 34% were atheist (12% of which also call themselves spiritual),
• 30% were agnostic.

*You'll note this is over 100%, the additional people are Culturally affiliated to a religion but still atheist/agnostic.

 

[Speedwell]

There is more, much more, what shocks me though is that whilst you will not accept that evolution has met its burden of proof you require NO verifiable proof for God.

Oh, but they do have verifiable proof. They have a book written by that divine personage word for word himself. And they verify that proof by the considerable number of fulfilled prophecies scattered through the book, as well as statements of scientific fact which only the divine author could have known at the time. Consequently, they believe themselves to have verifiable proof of their claims which is superior to that gathered by mere human scientists against them. That's what you're up against here.

 

[Rivga]

Oh, but they do have verifiable proof. They have a book written by that divine personage word for word himself. And they verify that proof by the considerable number of fulfilled prophecies scattered through the book, as well as statements of scientific fact which only the divine author could have known at the time. Consequently, they believe themselves to have verifiable proof of their claims which is superior to that gathered by mere human scientists against them. That's what you're up against here.

Thanks made me laugh, next time I am not drinking my tea whilst reading one of your posts.

 

[KWCrazy]

If one was told that alchemy was established science throughout high school, he would accept it as fact. If he went on to study alchemy in college he may come up with some pomposity like, "Those who reject alchemy do not understand alchemy." It would be the same with those who study any false paradigm.

Anyone who studies the Scriptures would likely agree that Jesus was a creationist. As evidence of this, He made multiple references to the early chapters of Genesis, and never refuted a word of it. So the question then is where do you put your faith; on the word of God or the theories of man? Realize, of course, that evolution cannot account for the origination of anything, only changes which occurred after life originated. The Bible not only details the how of creation, but the why as well.

Any who believes in evolution and the Scriptures has a complete understanding of neither. They are mutually exclusive. The Bible teaches us that sin and death came into the world through one man; Adam. Adam could not have been both formed from the dust by God and evolved from many almost-Adams. The more pompous among us consider the belief in creation as ignorance. The most ignorant of them pretend that rejection of evolution equals a rejection of all science.

Science tells us that Jesus could not have been resurrected. If you believe science in that regard you are not enlightened, only condemned.

 

[Rivga]

If one was told that alchemy was established science throughout high school, he would accept it as fact. If he went on to study alchemy in college he may come up with some pomposity like, "Those who reject alchemy do not understand alchemy." It would be the same with those who study any false paradigm.

Makes a nice statement on a forum but the truth is Alchemy was rejected by science. Started as a hypothesis and did not make it to a scientific theory before it was rejected as it did not meet its burden of proof.

Evolution by natural selection has met its burden of proof.

Hypothesis of God has not met its burden of proof,

Any who believes in evolution and the Scriptures has a complete understanding of neither. They are mutually exclusive

I agree with this, if you take scripture literally.

So Evolution has met its burden of proof, with what is described as overwhelming evidence. Scripture and evolution is mutually exclusive, do I need to go further?

 

[Speedwell]

Science tells us that Jesus could not have been resurrected. If you believe science in that regard you are not enlightened, only condemned.

Ah, the "dead guy" argument. Haven't heard that one in a while. The trouble is, the only way it works is if you assume that Jesus was a mere human. I know creationists have some strange theology, but surely you haven't gone that far?

 

[KWCrazy]

Evolution by natural selection has met its burden of proof.
Hypothesis of God has not met its burden of proof,?

Not to you.
Faith is the belief in things unproven. We are to come to God through faith.
If you reject God when He is unproven He will reject you when He is proven.
Who, then, is the fool; the one who resides with God in Heaven or the lost soul in Hell?

 

[KWCrazy]

Ah, the "dead guy" argument. Haven't heard that one in a while. The trouble is, the only way it works is if you assume that Jesus was a mere human. I know creationists have some strange theology, but surely you haven't gone that far?

So you're telling me you believe in the supernatural?
Science tells us that a man cannot return from the dead after 3 days. Do you believe in science, or in God in God, why would you not trust His word?

 

[Speedwell]

So you're telling me you believe in the supernatural?

I've always told you that.

Science tells us that a man cannot return from the dead after 3 days.

I expect they're right. An ordinary human man will likely not come back to life after three days dead. Is that who you think Jesus was, an ordinary human man?

Do you believe in science, or in God in God, why would you not trust His word?

I do. I just don't trust your interpretation of it.

 

[Skreeper]

Not to you.
Faith is the belief in things unproven. We are to come to God through faith.
If you reject God when He is unproven He will reject you when He is proven.
Who, then, is the fool; the one who resides with God in Heaven or the lost soul in Hell?

I'm looking forward to hell. All the cool people I wanna meet as well as my family are gonna be there. Why would I wanna be somewhere else?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Not to you.
Faith is the belief in things unproven. We are to come to God through faith.
If you reject God when He is unproven He will reject you when He is proven.
Who, then, is the fool; the one who resides with God in Heaven or the lost soul in Hell?

Why would God expect anyone to believe he exists on no sufficient evidence? Especially when there's thousands of religions in existence that have the same amount of evidence in their favour, I'm in very real danger of aligning and praying to the wrong God(s) with such a lack of foresight and expectation to make a choice without confirmation...

Surely a God worthy of worship would appreciate one's reservations rather than see one choose incorrectly and pray to some other Deity?

 

[razzelflabben]

actually the majority of scientists believe in a designer (including most biologists). but the real issue here is the evidence. and evolution lack any evidence to support the claim that one creature can evolve into another one. its like saying that a car with small changes over time will evolve into a space shuttle.

only thing is that when talking to evolutionists it is important to explain what you mean by that because they are not able to understand the difference between what is commonly referred to as macro and micro evolution.

 

[Jimmy D]

only thing is that when talking to evolutionists it is important to explain what you mean by that because they are not able to understand the difference between what is commonly referred to as macro and micro evolution.

Really? Sounds like made up nonsense to me, when did this occur?

 

[razzelflabben]

Really? Sounds like made up nonsense to me, when did this occur?

ah...it's a concept...a theory...an explanation of how we get from speciation to what we see today....you know the THEORY OF EVOLUTION vs. evolution...wait..I thought you all were educated on the theory of evolution and you don't know what it is? How is that possible?