Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[PsychoSarah]

Maybe I am wrong, but I see many posts in a different light, than simply adding a super natural component to the TOE.

Perhaps it is a result of her only talking about what she disagrees with most of the time?

 

[Dizredux]

Honestly, I think she is relatively ok with the TOE. All she does is add a "guiding force" component.

I agree. Her main problem seems to be a need to "prove" the existance and impact of the designer.

I agree that there is a designer (religious faith) but I feel that, at least right now, that cannot be demonstrated and has to be taken on faith alone.

That works for me but others may have different mileage (this forum is a very good example of that.) but since I am just exploring the issues and not really trying to convince anyone, it is not a problem to me unless dishonesty comes into play.

Dizredux

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once, we have been through this *many* times with Just. You cannot provide evidence that intelligent design is not a factor, you cannot provide evidence that an intelligent design is a factor. Currently, ID is a religious belief and not a matter of science as there is no empirical evidence for ID.

The other thing, and what we had to try to explain to Just with no success, is that science does not propose this. As has been asked so many times, show any scientific paper or publication that makes the claim the an intelligent designer does not exist. There are some individuals pushing this but it their private opinion just as the assertion that an intelligent designer is involved is a personal opinion.

ID as it is presented by the Discovery Institute is primarily a religious issue and not an empirical one. The same for your idea that the appearance of design implies the fact of design, it doesn't. The appearance of design may imply the possibility of design but it could also simply be how an observer who is hardwired to detect pattern and design perceives the phenomenon and as such many things can look designed but are not.

In otherwords, the appearance of design means the appearance of design to an observer and nothing more.

Dizredux

Really?

1. Loudmouth claims that for one to accept ToE one must accept that the biodiversity of life is the product of only a naturalistic process and is sufficient to explain all life on earth.

Sorry, but if you want to buy into that it is your choice but evolution is a label and that label is devised to explain the processes we see in life. It does not necessitate the belief that one accept only natural causes are the reason behind life on earth.

2. The measurements are not some sort of pattern or something we don't understand. We do understand and the extreme precision of those measurements are mathematical and necessary to our universe and life.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I agree. Her main problem seems to be a need to "prove" the existance and impact of the designer.

I agree that there is a designer (religious faith) but I feel that, at least right now, that cannot be demonstrated and has to be taken on faith alone.

That works for me but others may have different mileage (this forum is a very good example of that.) but since I am just exploring the issues and not really trying to convince anyone, it is not a problem to me unless dishonesty comes into play.

Dizredux

No Diz, I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I am trying to show that there is evidence to support the existence of God. Evolution as a process that is unguided and unplanned is a position I disagree with in the area of evolution period.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution as a process that is unguided and unplanned is a position I disagree with in the area of evolution period.

Can you please provide evidence that evolution is unguided and unplanned?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Really?

1. Loudmouth claims that for one to accept ToE one must accept that the biodiversity of life is the product of only a naturalistic process and is sufficient to explain all life on earth.

Sorry, but if you want to buy into that it is your choice but evolution is a label and that label is devised to explain the processes we see in life. It does not necessitate the belief that one accept only natural causes are the reason behind life on earth.

2. The measurements are not some sort of pattern or something we don't understand. We do understand and the extreme precision of those measurements are mathematical and necessary to our universe and life.

On the second point, you'd be surprised at what certain components of our universe aren't technically necessary for life.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Perhaps it is a result of her only talking about what she disagrees with most of the time?

I sincerely wish that everyone could be so fair minded and honest as you are on here. We disagree on many things but you are always respectful and fair. Thank you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Really?

1. Loudmouth claims that for one to accept ToE one must accept that the biodiversity of life is the product of only a naturalistic process and is sufficient to explain all life on earth.

I have also stated that God could be a part of those naturalistic processes. That is what you keep ignoring.

You are the one trying to remove God from nature. Not I.

Sorry, but if you want to buy into that it is your choice but evolution is a label and that label is devised to explain the processes we see in life. It does not necessitate the belief that one accept only natural causes are the reason behind life on earth.

Again, you are making the false assumption that nature = no God.

2. The measurements are not some sort of pattern or something we don't understand. We do understand and the extreme precision of those measurements are mathematical and necessary to our universe and life.

We are talking about evolution, not the Big Bang.

 

[Dizredux]

Originally Posted by Dizredux View Post

Once, we have been through this *many* times with Just. You cannot provide evidence that intelligent design is not a factor, you cannot provide evidence that an intelligent design is a factor. Currently, ID is a religious belief and not a matter of science as there is no empirical evidence for ID.

The other thing, and what we had to try to explain to Just with no success, is that science does not propose this. As has been asked so many times, show any scientific paper or publication that makes the claim the an intelligent designer does not exist. There are some individuals pushing this but it their private opinion just as the assertion that an intelligent designer is involved is a personal opinion.

ID as it is presented by the Discovery Institute is primarily a religious issue and not an empirical one. The same for your idea that the appearance of design implies the fact of design, it doesn't. The appearance of design may imply the possibility of design but it could also simply be how an observer who is hardwired to detect pattern and design perceives the phenomenon and as such many things can look designed but are not.

In otherwords, the appearance of design means the appearance of design to an observer and nothing more.

Dizredux

Really?

1. Loudmouth claims that for one to accept ToE one must accept that the biodiversity of life is the product of only a naturalistic process and is sufficient to explain all life on earth.

I don't see LM as saying the anyone must accept the product of *only* a naturalistic process. I do agree that the naturalist process are sufficient to explain life as we know it at least right now. That does not mean that God cannot be involved but it very much looks like he uses natural processes to do his work.

Sorry, but if you want to buy into that it is your choice but evolution is a label and that label is devised to explain the processes we see in life. It does not necessitate the belief that one accept only natural causes are the reason behind life on earth.

Who in a scientific setting has indicated that evolution necessitates the belief of *only* natural causes are involved?

2. The measurements are not some sort of pattern or something we don't understand. We do understand and the extreme precision of those measurements are mathematical and necessary to our universe and life.

That is as you see it and that is fine but many others do not see it this way. For myself, I feel God made us well adapted to our environment and not that our environment was adapted to insure our existence.

Dizredux

 

[PsychoSarah]

I sincerely wish that everyone could be so fair minded and honest as you are on here. We disagree on many things but you are always respectful and fair. Thank you.

I just try to establish a connection with people through what I have in common with them rather than view this as a war of words. Even some of the people I disagree with most in matters of evolution have similar positions as myself in other topics. I can disagree with or even hate a position a person has without in turn feeling that way about the person who has it so long as I establish some amount of agreement.

Remember when we first talked? We weren't truly rude, but we weren't as civil as we are now

 

[Dizredux]

No Diz, I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I am trying to show that there is evidence to support the existence of God. Evolution as a process that is unguided and unplanned is a position I disagree with in the area of evolution period.

Right now, there is no scientific evidence to either rule in or rule out the existance of God.

Again, who is saying in a scientific setting where it is proposed that evolution is unguided or unplanned? I have seen discussions where it is proposed that evolution appears to be unplanned and unguided. Note the term "appears". That is not much different from proposing that the appearance of design implies that evolution is guided and planned by God.

As much as you wish it to be true, that logic of your stance on appearance of design meaning the existence of design does not work. What does work is the idea that the appearance of design indicates the possibility of actual design at play but it could just as easily turn out that no actual design is involved.

So I agree with you that the appearance of design implies the possibility of design and is supportive of that possibility but it does not imply design as fact or even close.

Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

I do agree that the naturalist process are sufficient to explain life as we know it at least right now. That does not mean that God cannot be involved but it very much looks like he uses natural processes to do his work.

I agree with this 100%.

What about you Oncedeceived?

 

[bhsmte]

I agree with this 100%.

What about you Oncedeceived?

And I agree with it 200%. Which means, I really, really agree with it.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is also strange to see someone who pushes the fine tuning argument so hard to then knock the legs out from under that argument. If you are going to require God to countervene natural processes in order to produce the life we see, then that directly contradicts the idea that the universe was finely tuned to produce us. One one had you are saying that God got everything just right so it would all unfold on its own as he saw fit, and then turn around and have God micromanaging and fixing everything along the way.

It makes no sense.

 

[paul becke]

And I repeat, if you believe the current Theory of Evolution is pseudoscience then I have a bridge in good shape to sell you...half price...today and today only.

Dizredux

I like your sales pitch. (Not so much the snake oil) Pity you couldn't get: 'Buy one, get one free' in, though. It always creases me up, after I saw an American cartoon of a tall American bible salesman, complete with solar topi, offering to a robe-clad, urban-hatted Iraqi peasant, sitting on the ground, two bibles for the price of one, and when he declined, shooting him.

 

[bhsmte]

I like your sales pitch. (Not so much the snake oil) Pity you couldn't get: 'Buy one, get one free' in, though. It always creases me up, after I saw an American cartoon of a tall American bible salesman, complete with solar topi, offering to a robe-clad, urban-hatted Iraqi peasant, sitting on the ground, two bibles for the price of one, and when he declined, shooting him.

Cool story. Have any others?

 

[paul becke]

I agree with this 100%.

What about you Oncedeceived?

If you both agree that the natural processes are sufficient to explain life as we know it, you must know a lot more than atheist scientists, who admit they can't explain the origin of life, all of whose attempts to prove abiogenesis having resulted in complete failure.

 

[paul becke]

Cool story. Have any others?

Many, many, many. (Reminds me of the Writing on the Wall...)

 

[bhsmte]

If you both agree that the natural processes are sufficient to explain life as we know it, you must know a lot more than atheist scientists, who admit they can't explain the origin of life, all of whose attempts to prove abiogenesis having resulted in complete failure.

Problem is this thread isn't about origins of life, but I understand your need to muddy the waters.

 

[bhsmte]

Many, many, many. (Reminds me of the Writing on the Wall...)

I have no question that you believe that.