Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

Hans Blaster said:

I don't know who else we are all waiting to respond to our posts. (Though maybe AV wrote something I didn't see.)

Click to expand...

Ophiolite said:

I think the suggestion might be what we will supposedly discover following death.

Click to expand...

Hans Blaster said:

Nothing to do with evolution or creation. I grow weary of the Xians that reflexively tell others they'll "find stuff" out *after* death.

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

That's alright, Hans. I grow weary of atheists who reflexively tell others that they definitely won't "find stuff" out *after* death.

I guess the best part of this mutual disregard is that no one is required to care about it either way.

Click to expand...

BCP1928 said:

Of course we know we're going to "find stuff out." We're afraid of it. That's why we deny the Bible and its promise of punishment for our hedonistic lifestyle.

Click to expand...

BCP1928 said:

Of course we know we're going to "find stuff out." We're afraid of it. That's why we deny the Bible and its promise of punishment for our hedonistic lifestyle.

Click to expand...

Science and Religion, Methodology, and Humanism | National Center for Science Education

[In May 1998 Dr Eugenie C Scott, NCSE'S Executive Director, was awarded the American Humanist Association's 1998 "Isaac Asimov Science Award". What follows is excerpted from her acceptance speech. Ed.]

ncse.ngo

2PhiloVoid said:

That's alright, Hans. I grow weary of atheists who reflexively tell others that they definitely won't "find stuff" out *after* death.

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

I guess the best part of this mutual disregard is that no one is required to care about it either way.

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

That's alright, Hans. I grow weary of atheists who reflexively tell others that they definitely won't "find stuff" out *after* death.

I guess the best part of this mutual disregard is that no one is required to care about it either way.

Click to expand...

Hans Blaster said:

Perhaps as a philospher you'd appreciate my disdain for arguments from post-mortem consequences. (And I didn't say you *wouldn't* find out, only that I was tired of such claims made in irrelevant places. [looks at your tag line, sigh]

Do you know anything about ID creationism or their critiques of evolutionary theory?

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

@Mountainmike has been travelling for a fortnight.

Most of what is posted here is unscientific wishful thinking by ( for the most part illinformed ) atheists .
so hard to take interest in posting..

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

@Mountainmike has been travelling for a fortnight.
and am moving around for next four weeks

Most of what is posted here is unscientific wishful thinking by ( for the most part illinformed ) atheists .
so hard to take interest in posting.

I simply point out that my Views echo much mainstream science.
I was lambasted for saying that there is no valid hypothesus or theory for how the hideously complex minimum cell came to be, and that Darwinian small change does not account for the life forms we see. Science agrees with me. Or rather , I agree with science.

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

The context here was in our finding out the operative difference between God and evolution. Of course, originally I didn't include any inference about finding stuff out *after* death. That was added by conjecture as to what someone thought I must have meant.

My insinuation here is that I don't know why we would expect, here and now, to see any difference in natural history of the formative processes of the world, as if God somehow leaves behind 'fingerprints' on whatever He might deign to fiddle with. I mean, where Methodological Naturalism is applied to our scientific outlook, I've always tended to lean on Eugenie Scott's definition of it rather than on that of a few others:

“Because creationists explain natural phenomena by saying “God performed a miracle,” we tell them that they are not doing science. This is easy to understand. The flip side, though, is that if science is limited by methodological [naturalism] because of our inability to control an omnipotent power’s interference in nature, both “God did it” and “God didn’t do it” fail as scientific statements. Properly understood, the principle of methodological [naturalism] requires neutrality towards God; we cannot say, wearing our scientist hats, whether God does or does not act.”​

Science and Religion, Methodology, and Humanism | National Center for Science Education

[In May 1998 Dr Eugenie C Scott, NCSE'S Executive Director, was awarded the American Humanist Association's 1998 "Isaac Asimov Science Award". What follows is excerpted from her acceptance speech. Ed.]

ncse.ngo

Click to expand...

The IbanezerScrooge said:

The frustrations of atheists is both that we won't get the satisfaction of Christians "finding out" what actually happens after death and that we know Christians won't find out either to know how wrong they were about everything. 'cause there is no "after."

Click to expand...

BCP1928 said:

Excellent. She misses the point, though. The creation/evolution debate is about the Bible, not the existence of God or his creative acts. She'll just have to get used to being accused of denying the existence of God. It happens to all of us, whether we believe in God or not.

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

That was added by conjecture as to what someone thought I must have meant.

Click to expand...

Ophiolite said:

I am disappointed and almost offended that a philospher, for whom nuances of vocabulary should be important and semantics essential, egregiously misrepresented my words. There is a world of difference between what I "thought you must have meant" and "thought you might have meant". The former reeks of arrogance on my part, claiming to know your mind, the latter intended to suggest deferential uncertainty.

Deferential uncertainty is my superpower.

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

@Mountainmike has been travelling for a fortnight.
and am moving around countries for next four weeks

Most of what is posted here is unscientific wishful thinking by ( for the most part illinformed ) atheists .
so it is hard to take interest in posting.

I simply point out that my Views echo much mainstream science.

I was lambasted for saying that there is no valid hypothesus or theory for how the hideously complex minimum cell came to be, and that Darwinian small change does not account for the life forms we see. Science agrees with me. Or rather , I agree with science. Read the book. It documents all the main schools of thought.

Click to expand...

Hans Blaster said:

The interpretation of the bible, especially the translating of ideas derived from the bible into creationist pseudosciences like creation science or ID, more so than the bible itself is at issue.

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

It is disappointing, I know, especially when a philosopher like myself might not even have alluded to some specific person in the least, but rather to someone else. But it happens.

Language is a funny thing. It's almost protean.

Click to expand...