Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

[OldWiseGuy]

Then the question becomes, why are you conflating the two meanings of "design?"

Do you really believe that attributing order and function to natural causes rules out divine purpose and intention?

Or are you pursuing a political agenda?

I believe everything, all the laws and materials, in the universe was purposely designed by God, and that there are no 'natural' explanations for any of it. It's all supernatural.

 

[AV1611VET]

I believe everything, all the laws and materials, in the universe was purposely designed by God, and that there are no 'natural' explanations for any of it. It's all supernatural.

Good point.

 

[Speedwell]

I believe everything, all the laws and materials, in the universe was purposely designed by God, and that there are no 'natural' explanations for any of it. It's all supernatural.

So you believe that natural causality is an illusion? Mind you, I'm not criticizing, it's a respectable philosophical position.

 

[MasonP]

I believe everything, all the laws and materials, in the universe was purposely designed by God, and that there are no 'natural' explanations for any of it. It's all supernatural.

You are free to believe whatever you like no matter how foolish that belief, some people believe aliens have visited earth some even believe they are walking amongst us.

Does your God supervise the manufacture of these? according to you he must.

 

[MasonP]

So you believe that natural causality is an illusion? Mind you, I'm not criticizing, it's a respectable philosophical position.

No it's a deluded position to take considering he has absolutely nothing to go on, words alone can not cut it, that's why the brain must first be tampered with in order to make it believable.

 

[Speedwell]

No it's a deluded position to take considering he has absolutely nothing to go on, words alone can not cut it, that's why the brain must first be tampered with in order to make it believable.

Maybe so, but it is a persistent school of thought which goes at least as far back as the medieval Islamic philosophers: post hoc ergo propter hoc can never be known to be true.

 

[Gene2memE]

Thanks, that makes my case.

OWG, what you've done is about as dishonest a quote mine as I've ever seen.

I like you, I really do, but taking those words out of context like you did is pretty despicable. It's dishonest and disingenuous. A willful misrepresentation of both the spirit and the letter of what I wrote.

For shame.

Unfortunately, its just par for the course with creationists. This sort of thing is so prevalent in creationist literature and creationist circles generally that it makes me discount almost any quote they use out of hand. I know that makes me guilty of the genetic fallacy, but an accurate quote in a piece of work by a creationist is the exception, rather than the rule.

It seems to me that creationists read only that which agrees with their presupposition, and then are suddenly struck with an inability to comprehend the rest of the sentence, paragraph, passage, page or work.

If you're interested in honest discussion, how about addressing the substance of the post, rather than mendaciously quote mining.

 

[Gene2memE]

Gene2memE disagrees with you.

No, I agree with SpeedWell.

When you say "science presents simple answers that can't begin to address these complexities", you're putting forward an untruth.

I said the scientific method requires addressing only one problem at a time.

You take a complex problem, break it down into may simpler problems, address each of those problems via the scientific method, combine those answers into testable hypotheses and theories and then you have your complex answers.

The scientific method is distinct from science itself. One is a methodology operating under necessary limitations, the other is a multi-facted systemisation concerning the gathering, testing and understanding of knowledge about reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

The scientific method is distinct from science itself. One is a methodology operating under necessary limitations, the other is a multi-facted systemisation concerning the gathering, testing and understanding of knowledge about reality.

12

 

[Gene2memE]

AV: Is the process of science different from the concept of science? If so, then there is a distinction between the techiques (note the plural form) of science and the enterprise itself. Much in the same way that writing words on a page is not a book.

 

[Kylie]

Both are (may be) true.

Your diagram, maybe.
Goddidit, definitely.

And there is your problem.

You think the explanation which has actually been observed and which is available for you to observe is just a "maybe".

You think the explanation which has no supporting evidence and can't predict anything and is generally useless is a "definitely".

 

[Kylie]

Read the OP again. I didn't present an argument, just an observation, and of course an opinion.

I love science and all that it does. I jump ship when they conclude that this incredible living apparatus constructed itself by trial and error. I believe it was carefully planned and brought into being for a purpose by an outside force, aka God. So I agree with all the valid science that has ever been done. It's the 'causal' element that I disagree with.

Your personal beliefs are not the yardstick of reality.

 

[Kylie]

That Goddidit doesn't deny the veracity of the science (science is the study of creation), it's just a conclusion reached when all such diagrams are presented in their 'connectedness' at once and the observer is overwhelmed by the sheer impossibility that the whole thing constructed itself for no purpose other than simple survival.

I suspect that you are another one of those people who doesn't understand how science actually works...

 

[MasonP]

And there is your problem.

You think the explanation which has actually been observed and which is available for you to observe is just a "maybe".

You think the explanation which has no supporting evidence and can't predict anything and is generally useless is a "definitely".

This is the very reason religious people are said to be deluded.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No it's a deluded position to take considering he has absolutely nothing to go on, words alone can not cut it, that's why the brain must first be tampered with in order to make it believable.

My brain (mind) has been tampered with.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, I agree with SpeedWell.

When you say "science presents simple answers that can't begin to address these complexities", you're putting forward an untruth.

I said the scientific method requires addressing only one problem at a time.

You take a complex problem, break it down into may simpler problems, address each of those problems via the scientific method, combine those answers into testable hypotheses and theories and then you have your complex answers.

The scientific method is distinct from science itself. One is a methodology operating under necessary limitations, the other is a multi-facted systemisation concerning the gathering, testing and understanding of knowledge about reality.

For the purpose of this discussion I consider them one and the same.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

For the purpose of this discussion I consider them one and the same.

Lol! that's like considering the law and justice one and the same.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

OWG, what you've done is about as dishonest a quote mine as I've ever seen.

I like you, I really do, but taking those words out of context like you did is pretty despicable. It's dishonest and disingenuous. A willful misrepresentation of both the spirit and the letter of what I wrote.

For shame.

Unfortunately, its just par for the course with creationists. This sort of thing is so prevalent in creationist literature and creationist circles generally that it makes me discount almost any quote they use out of hand. I know that makes me guilty of the genetic fallacy, but an accurate quote in a piece of work by a creationist is the exception, rather than the rule.

It seems to me that creationists read only that which agrees with their presupposition, and then are suddenly struck with an inability to comprehend the rest of the sentence, paragraph, passage, page or work.

If you're interested in honest discussion, how about addressing the substance of the post, rather than mendaciously quote mining.

I stand by what I said, that science has not, and cannot, address the true complexity of the living world, and we who are not scientists are unable to even compose coherent questions about it.

There can be no 'honest' discussion because people, even (gasp) scientists, are so dishonest.

I'll resurrect my dirty lakes example once more. I received a flyer from yet another agency proclaiming to be about 'cleaning' up our lakes. This on top of dozens of other agencies and groups that have rolled up their sleeves on behalf of our lakes. Yet after years of efforts and millions spent on research the lakes remain in poor condition. So why are the lakes still dirty?

This is part of the unfathomable complexity I'm referring to. How does science explain why humans are unable to do something as simple as clean up a lake when it is their stated desire to do so?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I suspect that you are another one of those people who doesn't understand how science actually works...

Read my OP.

 

[durangodawood]

....There can be no 'honest' discussion because people, even (gasp) scientists, are so dishonest.....

So your end of the discussion is dishonest too?

Or are you the lone honest man in this world of deceit?