$50 to anyone who can prove to me evolution is a lie.

[Ben Reid]

Ben:

I would agree that undirected evolution is irreconcilabe with theism. But you are immediately begging the question by adding in this qualifier.

I'm not begging the question -- one would have to show why "undirected" necessarily negates theism. I believe I can show this, within reason.

Are you interested in a debate on this topic?

As a theory, whether evolution is directed or not is of no consequence.

It is if you want to explain the universe fully and not limit yourself to methodological naturalism. I am not obliged to accept any and every theory that science may propose. If I was to use Arikay's naive criteria above, I would have to.

True, scientists have to study it without reference to any supernatural guiding, since the studying of the natural, by definition, does not include the *super*natural.

Please, I'm not interested in another "science can't allow the supernatural" debate. I'm not asking that science demonstrate that God directed evolution.

The extent to which the supernatural may be involved is simply not part of their area of study. This does not equal a denial of a supernatural guiding, just an ignoring of it.

To one not overly fussed with restricting themselves to science in their quest for knowledge, theological or philosophical issues can not be treated independently of science.

Science is the study of the natural processes God originated, not how God originated them and definitely not how God over-rides them (which He does on occasion). What should be opposed is the philosophy of Naturalism, which many who believe in evolution also agree with. But not all, and they are not the same thing.

Thanks for the heads up.

(sorry, I'm being sarcastic, you just get a little tired of reading the same replies and almost the exact same wording.)

As for separation, it is very important to separate different scientific theories in a case like Hovind's offer. He is NOT saying prove evolution happens, he is saying "prove God has nothing to do with creation". The former, while not "provable", is definitely arguable beyond a reasonable doubt. The latter is, of course, not provable at all, no matter how true.

I repeat again: there is no reason why one could not expect that the full process from non-life to the diversity of life today be shown reasonably likely.

I'm not interested in defending Hovind and I agree that he should use a different word than evolution -- correct language is important.

 

[WinAce]

Since atheism is a faith, Hovind's money is safe.

Actually, atheism is a well-supported, falsifiable scientific theory that ties together a great number of observations into one coherent whole. It blows theism away in terms of explanatory and predictive power, not to mention parsimony, when faced with observations such as gratuitous suffering, among other things. </off-topic>

 

[Ben Reid]

It is imporant to separate methodological naturalism which is necessary for science from philosophical naturalism which seems to be what you are talking about. Creationists seem to be fond of conflating the two.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

What you seem fond of doing is repeating to me something I've already heard three times on this thread and assuming I'm a creationist.

 

[-Jae-]

Lol , you think trees turned into dogs! You are silly!

Now where do I collect my 50 bucks?

 

[Dayton]

Actually, atheism is a well-supported, falsifiable scientific theory that ties together a great number of observations into one coherent whole. It blows theism away in terms of explanatory and predictive power, not to mention parsimony, when faced with observations such as gratuitous suffering, among other things. </off-topic>

Atheism is a satanic lie, it is not science.

I believe in Creation. Period. No amount of evidence to the contrary will sway me. God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

 

[Ben Reid]

"If science does indeed properly explain the universe without any need for Divine intervention (and I don't believe it does) then theism is on shaky ground."

But it cant.

It can show that it could Possibly have happend without divine intervention, but it cant show that it did happen without divine intervention.

If undirected evolution, as taught by Darwin and still espoused today, is true, then we are left with Deism. You can't just say, "well, we'll assume it's undirected for the sake of science and then we can revert back to the assumption it is directed for the sake of religion." I don't segregate my knowledge and life up like that (no-one does.)

It either is undirected or it isn't. Science will not be able to "prove" either way -- I don't care. What I care about is what is more likely to be correct. If science can show that a undirected evolution is a high probability, then, I repeat, theism is on shaky ground.

 

[Arikay]

Science does not try to explain All of the universe. Only All of the universe that falls into its field. Philosophy, God, and his interactions are not in this field, thus science does not even bother to touch those aspects.

I'm not begging the question -- one would have to show why "undirected" necessarily negates theism. I believe I can show this, within reason.

Are you interested in a debate on this topic?



It is if you want to explain the universe fully and not limit yourself to methodological naturalism. I am not obliged to accept any and every theory that science may propose. If I was to use Arikay's naive criteria above, I would have to.



Please, I'm not interested in another "science can't allow the supernatural" debate. I'm not asking that science demonstrate that God directed evolution.



To one not overly fussed with restricting themselves to science in their quest for knowledge, theological or philosophical issues can not be treated independently of science.



Thanks for the heads up.

(sorry, I'm being sarcastic, you just get a little tired of reading the same replies and almost the exact same wording.)



I repeat again: there is no reason why one could not expect that the full process from non-life to the diversity of life today be shown reasonably likely.

I'm not interested in defending Hovind and I agree that he should use a different word than evolution -- correct language is important.

 

[Ben Reid]

Atheism is a satanic lie, it is not science.

I believe in Creation. Period. No amount of evidence to the contrary will sway me. God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

O boy. Well, that should be enough to provide this thread with another hundred replies or so.

 

[Ben Reid]

Science does not try to explain All of the universe. Only All of the universe that falls into its field. Philosophy, God, and his interactions are not in this field, thus science does not even bother to touch those aspects.

I give up with you. You are only capable of saying the same thing over and over.

 

[Arikay]

"If undirected evolution, as taught by Darwin and still espoused today, is true, then we are left with Deism."

Where was it taught by darwin? And can you show us that it is still taught today?

"What I care about is what is more likely to be correct. If science can show that a undirected evolution is a high probability, then, I repeat, theism is on shaky ground."

But science Cant show that atheism is more likely than theism.

Dayton:
I see you are still willing to put your interpretation of the bible above gods creation how kind of you to god.

If undirected evolution, as taught by Darwin and still espoused today, is true, then we are left with Deism. You can't just say, "well, we'll assume it's undirected for the sake of science and then we can revert back to the assumption it is directed for the sake of religion." I don't segregate my knowledge and life up like that (no-one does.)

It either is undirected or it isn't. Science will not be able to "prove" either way -- I don't care. What I care about is what is more likely to be correct. If science can show that a undirected evolution is a high probability, then, I repeat, theism is on shaky ground.

 

[Ben Reid]

Actually, atheism is a well-supported, falsifiable scientific theory that ties together a great number of observations into one coherent whole. It blows theism away in terms of explanatory and predictive power, not to mention parsimony, when faced with observations such as gratuitous suffering, among other things. </off-topic>

Yes, atheism has been falsified a long time ago -- the billions of religious experiences over history show that. It has absolutely zero predictive power if I am to accept the standard "lack of belief in God" definition. Add anything to that definition and you are no longer talking about atheism.

Parsimony-wise, it falls short on all sorts of issues, including consciousness and free-will. And their are perfectly logical explanations of the Problem of Evil within theism (such as process theology.)

These posts are fun.

 

[Arikay]

Yes, Im sorry I wont agree with you.

Lets try this.

Your right, if science could show that it more likely happend unguided, theism would be in danger. But right Now science Cant, so theism is Not in danger of science.

That better?

I give up with you. You are only capable of saying the same thing over and over.

 

[Vance]

Ben, look again at the first line that you quoted from me. I said undirected evolution necessarily negates theism. We are saying the same thing exactly on that point. The question you are begging is whether Hovind should be limiting his challenge to a proof regarding "undirected evolution".

And, personally, I don't limit myself to methodological naturalism since I am not a scientist. I can, and do, take into consideration the supernatural in determining what actually happened with creation. If I was a scientist, I would have to limit myself to methodological naturalism, since that is what science is: the study of the natural. Period. Of course, I would probably add some qualifier that I believe that there *was* a supernatural force at work in creation.

I just don't expect scientists to do the same. They do their part of studying the natural world, which is just one bit of the evidence I use to come to a conclusion.

In trial, I use scientists as expert witnesses all the time. They are useful in explaining the natural aspects of the case. But the jury decides based on the whole of the evidence.

 

[Ben Reid]

"If undirected evolution, as taught by Darwin and still espoused today, is true, then we are left with Deism."

Where was it taught by darwin? And can you show us that it is still taught today?

Yes, I can show this and will demonstrate it in my debate. I'm not willing to spend the time getting references for you right now.

 

[Arikay]

LoL I think WinAce was Joking.

 

[Ben Reid]

Yes, Im sorry I wont agree with you.

I don't care about agreement. I'm not interested in hearing the same things stated continuously though.

Lets try this.

Your right, if science could show that it more likely happend unguided, theism would be in danger. But right Now science Cant, so theism is Not in danger of science.

That better?

Yes. And I think many scientists would argue that there is a HIGH probability that evolution has no need for direction.

 

[Arikay]

Can you please, now. I am curious to know. And its also good to back up your claims.

Yes, I can show this and will demonstrate it in my debate. I'm not willing to spend the time getting references for you right now.

 

[Arikay]

They can argue it all they want, it wont change the fact that it is only their philosophy and not part of science.

Sorry but you seem to be mixing their opinion with their science.

 

[Ben Reid]

Ben, look again at the first line that you quoted from me. I said undirected evolution necessarily negates theism. We are saying the same thing exactly on that point. The question you are begging is whether Hovind should be limiting his challenge to a proof regarding "undirected evolution".

And, personally, I don't limit myself to methodological naturalism since I am not a scientist. I can, and do, take into consideration the supernatural in determining what actually happened with creation. If I was a scientist, I would have to limit myself to methodological naturalism, since that is what science is: the study of the natural. Period. Of course, I would probably add some qualifier that I believe that there *was* a supernatural force at work in creation.

I just don't expect scientists to do the same. They do their part of studying the natural world, which is just one bit of the evidence I use to come to a conclusion.[/quote]

And if Science makes a call on the directed vs undirected issue (i.e. the probability of it), which it has in the past, and continues to do so, then you can no longer keep science and theology/philosophy seperated.

In trial, I use scientists as expert witnesses all the time. They are useful in explaining the natural aspects of the case. But the jury decides based on the whole of the evidence.

Yes, that is a good analogy. And if the scientists say that the forensic evidence suggests that Bob did it and yet 10 eye witnesses know that Tom did it, then we have conflict. If we want to know what is true, repeating the "scientists only deal with the natural" line is not going to get us anywhere.

Apologies for my slightly terse tone tonight, you're posts have been well natured.

 

[Ben Reid]

Can you please, now. I am curious to know. And its also good to back up your claims.

Tell you what, to give you a feel for a similar stance to mine on this see URBILD's posts on this thread: http://pub18.ezboard.com/fhavetheol...religiousbelief.showMessage?topicID=307.topic