Do evolutionists silence the critics?

[Jerry Smith]

No, he's shown that there are more choices to why we are here than atheistic naturalism alone.

Sounds like a philosophy of religion class. What is he taught in science? Did you read my last post?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Apologist
I am sure you would agree with my disagreement on that statement wouldn't you?

No. From the polls I remember a narrow majority of scientists in america were christians. It does vary alot among fields, though. Some fields do not have a majority faith/non faith.

 

[kaotic]

Originally posted by Apologist
That is laughable to say the least.

I guess a *Christian* has a different definition in academia.

I guess it's only laughable to you but it has some truth behind it. Most scientists believe in god, or that there is a possibility that there is a god.

 

[Apologist]

Originally posted by seesaw
I guess it's only laughable to you but it has some truth behind it. Most scientists believe in god, or that there is a possibility that there is a god.

Well, first you make a dogmatic statement saying:

"Do you know that almost all scientists are Christians even the ones that are in the field of evolution?"

And now you say, "it has some truth behind it."

Believing in God or the possibility that there is a God does not make one a Christian. That was my point.

 

[kaotic]

Ahh... ok.

 

[Apologist]

Originally posted by seesaw
Ahh... ok.

And don't roll your eyes at me young man!

 

[Morat]

I think there are good points that negate against evolution but it seems that everything anyone writes on the subject is ostracised as not using the facts.

What do you suggest you call a spade, then?

First off, even falsifiying evolution would not make Creationism true, or prove God, or anything of that nature. Fallacy of the false dichotomy, especially such simple examples, do become somewhat mindnumbing.

For instance Dr. Michael Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box" is hailed as a great book showing the complexity of microbiological life, which points to a designer, but all I hear from the other side is negative statements.

See, I remember it being hailed as an example of what happens when you fail to do research. You see, it's really embarassing when you publish a book claiming that no evolutionary research has been done on Subject X, only to have a wealth of papers predating your book showing up.

And, of course, since the publication of the book, Behe himself has admitted that evolution builds IC systems just fine. He considers this a flaw in his theory (which is, basically, evolution can't build IC systems, therefore they were designed) for some reason.

When someone's book is, basically, "Evolution can't do X, therefore God exists and did it", pointing out that evolution can, and does, do X isn't negative. It's pointing out the blunt truth that the author should have known to begin with, had he researched his subject.

 

[Apologist]

Originally posted by Morat
What do you suggest you call a spade, then?



See, I remember it being hailed as an example of what happens when you fail to do research. You see, it's really embarassing when you publish a book claiming that no evolutionary research has been done on Subject X, only to have a wealth of papers predating your book showing up.

And, of course, since the publication of the book, Behe himself has admitted that evolution builds IC systems just fine. He considers this a flaw in his theory (which is, basically, evolution can't build IC systems, therefore they were designed) for some reason.

When someone's book is, basically, "Evolution can't do X, therefore God exists and did it", pointing out that evolution can, and does, do X isn't negative. It's pointing out the blunt truth that the author should have known to begin with, had he researched his subject.

As I said several days ago, this is why I refuse to get caught up in this debate as it is a stalemate argument. You people can debate all you want, I frankly have better things to do.

 

[Jerry Smith]

In chess, it is considered poor form, when there is a forced mate in only two moves, to refuse to play your turn and to tell your opponent, "well, this is obviously going to be a draw."

I don't know if that applies to scientific debate or not.

 

[Apologist]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
In chess, it is considered poor form, when there is a forced mate in only two moves, to refuse to play your turn and to tell your opponent, "well, this is obviously going to be a draw."

I don't know if that applies to scientific debate or not.

That may well be, but I wasn't referring to the discussion between others and myself. Us laymen who are not schooled in biological sciences and physics must rely on data from those who write on the subject, so therin lies the difficulty. We read what an evolutionist says and then read what a creationist says and they both are in opposition. So we basically have to base our decision on who we believe according to who we feel we can trust more. I for one trust the proponents of the Intelligent Design argument including, Philip Johnson, Michael Behe, Michael Denton, William Dembski, Walter Bradley and Bruce Gordon. You may disagree with their arguments as some do, but I for one think they make good arguments.

Take care

Mike

 

[Risen Tree]

Originally posted by seesaw
Do you know that almost all scientists are Christians even the ones that are in the field of evolution?

This was too good to miss.  Are you for real, seesaw?

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by lucaspa
Then give us an example.  I too am a scientist and peer-review papers.  Sometimes I savagely critique them for failings in logic and data.  One I rejected because a 2 minute PubMed search showed that there were 15 papers already on the subject that the authors hadn't mentioned.

However, I have never either ignored or mocked a paper.  If I haven't got a strong scientific reason to reject the paper, then it gets accepted.  And many times I have successfully answered criticisms by peer-reviewers and gotten my papers published as a result.

So, please be specific.  One scientist to another. Have you seen any papers "ignored" or "mocked"?  What was the subject?  Have you reviewed any papers based on creationism? 

I would like to hear lambslove's reply to this.

Where are you, lambslove?

 

[Stormy]

Originally posted by Rising Tree
This was too good to miss. Are you for real, seesaw?

Seesaw: Do not let this person and his mockery change your thoughts that you can indeed be a Christian and a Scientist.

Here is something for you to read...

Scientist and God

I am sure that if you do a search you will come up with even more insightful articles.

You can have it all! God loves the Scientist.

The following is a quote by Pope John Paul...

Science and faith are both gifts of God....The light of reason,which makes science possible,and the light of Revelation, which makes faith possible, emanate from a single source.

 

[Stormy]

Originally posted by Apologist
Well, first you make a dogmatic statement saying:

"Do you know that almost all scientists are Christians even the ones that are in the field of evolution?"

And now you say, "it has some truth behind it."

Believing in God or the possibility that there is a God does not make one a Christian. That was my point.

Believing in God or the possibility that there is a God could indeed become the first step into Christianity. That is unless some person who credits himself to be an apologist .... turns the seeker off!

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Rising Tree
This was too good to miss.  Are you for real, seesaw?

Yes, for real.  At least half the evolutionary biologists in history were Christians -- starting with Darwin.  Go to www.asa.org for an organization of evangelical Christian scientists and see that they accept evolution. Also check out the Society of Ordained Scientists and find the same thing.

The original quote by Seesaw was "Do you know that almost all scientists are Christians even the ones that are in the field of evolution?"

My personal experience over 5 universities in the USA is that about 90% of scientists attend church, synagogue, or mosque.  Most scientists in the world come from Western Europe, the US, or Latin America, where the predominant religion is Christianity.  So Seesaw may have exaggerated slightly when he said "almost all" but if the statement were "the majority of scientists are theists even the ones in the field of evolution" he would be on uncontestable ground.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by TheBear
I would like to hear lambslove's reply to this.

Where are you, lambslove?

A question I echo. Suddenly Lambslove disappeared. I didn't even get a private message discussing the issue. Maybe on holiday traveling.

BTW, I just finished 2 more peer-reviews.  I put both of them as "accepted with major revisions".  Both had claims that they couldn't support but their main hypothesis was supported.  I gave detailed descriptions of the flaws and didn't ignore either.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Apologist
Here is the problem with theistic evolution:

If God used evolution to create everything then the first 3 chapters of Genesis are figurative and not literal. If the account in Genesis is not literal then Jesus was wrong when he referred to the first man and woman and even quoted from Genesis. If Jesus was wrong then he could not be God and therefore his sacrifice on the cross would be worthless.

Remember, Jesus -- according to orthodox Christian theology -- was totally human.  Therefore he had only the knowledge available to humans. And humans, at that time, thought that the creation story of Genesis 2 was literal.  Jesus also stated in a parable that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. We now know that this was also an error.  Does this invalidate the theological message of the parable?  The important question would be: does Jesus' error about Adam invalidate his theological message?

All it shows is that orthodox theology has some support -- Jesus was fully human -- and therefore was limited to the knowledge of the humans around him.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Apologist
I don't believe in evolution and I have read both sides of the argument.

I feel it is a waste of our time to go on and on over a subject that will most likely never be resolved since both sides have compelling arguments.

When you say you've "read both sides of the argument" have you read Origin of the Species or any evolutionary biology textbook? Have you gone to PubMed and done a literature search using "evolution" and looked at the scientific papers? Until you have done these, you have not read about evolution.

As to "compelling arguments" you are forgetting that science does falsify.  And creationism is falsified. Completely. Absolutely.  Each species (or "kind") was not specially created in its present form.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Apologist
My answer was aimed at the statement posted that said:

"Do you know that almost all scientists are Christians even the ones that are in the field of evolution?"

I am sure you would agree with my disagreement on that statement wouldn't you?

Nope.  The statement, while exaggerated a little, is basically accurate. Remember, Darwin was a Christian when he wrote Origin.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by JesusServant
How on earth could you prove that or even make that statement?  

You test the statement by the means you determine any opinion on a subject.  You conduct surveys of scientists on their beliefs or look through the writings of scientists to where they state their beliefs.

Now, your statement "That's like me saying all evolution theory believing scientists are being controlled by satan."  is very different. Apples and oranges.  You aren't talking about the personal belief of scientists but about them being indetectably controlled by an outside force -- satan.  Your hypothesis is probably not falsifiable because any possible evidence against it can be explained away by "that's what satan wants to happen".  However, Seesaw's statement can be falsified simply by having scientists state that their personal belief is not Christianity.