MY Darwin Challenge.

[AV1611VET]

What role...? Depends.

Let's look at it logically. God could have created the universe in at least 2 ways. 1. A literal interpretation of Genesis or 2. An allegorical interpretation of the Bible. The similarity between the two ways is that, which ever one is true, assuming one is, they both are based on belief and in both cases God would have had an active role. The main point for Christians is that God created the universe. A phase comes to mind: God works in mysterious ways.

Then why are you challenging the statement that "creationism and science are de facto in opposition", when there was no science present at the time?

It's like saying, "Mike Tyson is fighting Bruce Lee," when those two were never in the ring together.

 

[atpollard]

Why does it matter so much that Darwin has to be shown to be right or wrong about anything he directly said about evolution?

If Darwin was wrong, then he will need be stripped of his alleged "immaculate conception" and right to speak "ex cathedra". Restoring only one "God-Man" to the world and ending "Darwin" as the ultimate "appeal to authority" to end all argument.

 

[Mountainmike]

Mike, just out of curiosity, what role did science play during the six-day period that God created the universe?

Science is an observer. It documents patterns in what happens.
Some of the patterns are useful.
It has little to say about why they happen in any fundamental way.
It does not play a role in the sense of why a horse is pulling a cart..
It comments on the nature of the movement of the horse and cart.
And what we may expect next time we see a horse pulling a cart!

Nature is what it is! we behold it!
And as christians we behold it as a work of God.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And he's in Aitch now.

He could very much be in Heaven right now, yes.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If Darwin was wrong, then he will need be stripped of his alleged "immaculate conception" and right to speak "ex cathedra". Restoring only one "God-Man" to the world and ending "Darwin" as the ultimate "appeal to authority" to end all argument.

Well that was certainly gibberish word-salad.

 

[Astrid]

Well that was certainly gibberish word-salad.

Maybe it meant discredit Darwin= discredit
ToE=glory to God.

 

[AV1611VET]

He could very much be in Heaven right now, yes.

And in my opinion (and Lady Hope's), he's in Heaven.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well that was certainly gibberish word-salad.

Methinks it is a bit of sarcasm.

 

[Frank Robert]

Then why are you challenging the statement that "creationism and science are de facto in opposition", when there was no science present at the time?

It's like saying, "Mike Tyson is fighting Bruce Lee," when those two were never in the ring together.

They are NOT in opposition. What is in opposition is that creationism should be taught in public schools as alternative for evolution. I think it is unlikely that the vast majority of Christian creationists are interested in such an outcome. It is a few extremely verbal organizations, namely, AIG RTB, DI, Uncommon Descent and maybe a few others who are deliberately causing problems. The old adage follow the money holds here.

You made a post yesterday which I agreed with about teaching about different religions and their views on creations. Many colleges offer a course in comparative religions so something similar has the potential of going a long way for HS students learning about different religions and denominations and how separation of state and religion protects ALL religions and religious freedom.

One of our most powerful linguistic tools is reframing* of what could be a negative outcome into a positive outcome.

*Reframing is a way of changing the way you look at something and, thus, changing your experience of it.

 

[Mountainmike]

I never claimed to be a scientist so instruct me.
What is the testable hypothesis for greysons out of body..., what predictions does it make and what evidence has been collected/found to support the hypothesis.

Which is precisely as I said to you:
science is limited in scope, the model is limited in what it can models The scientific method and model concern repeatable things. Science has a problem with "beings" so has serious problems with analysing conscious experience.

The evidencestands regardless, and some is inexplicable as the product of random chance. It does seem that conscious experience can extend beyond the brain. And that is a problem for the biochemical model of even what life "is". Which is then a problem for origin of life.

Educate yourself. First by reading science philosophy. Science before science highlights many important issues. You will struggle with deeper books on such as quantum reality but the issues are made even starker there. What is reality? There is truth outside the present concept of science which has limited itself to essentially what it can repeat and model - it has drifted from "scientia" knowledge.

Worse is the false philosophy of scientific realism built on the presumption of the model so generated is the universe rather than represents what it normally is observed to do, which then leads to denying the existence of anything that does not fit the model. A philosophical cart squarely in front of a horse. Even hawking with "model dependent reality" accepted the limits of models in the end and that they are not the universe itself.

Second read books like "after" greyson or "twin telepathy" playfair. The model of conscious experience as only a product of the brain is a problem for explaining all experience, much of which is clearly not invented, but does not "fit" the model either. As I pointed out - one twin remote sensing the death of another is not an experiment the scientific process can pursue.

 

[Mountainmike]

Gee. Do you really want to save me work? Naw! Can't be.
A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism
"A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" (or "Dissent from Darwinism") was a statement issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute."

In 2019 it reached 1000 signature. WoW 1000 in only 18 years. Go DI

In response: Project Steve {2003} is a list of scientists in which all signatories (1) support evolution, (2) oppose intelligent design, and (3) are named Steve or a variation of that name. As of September 27, 2018, 1432 Steves have signed the statement.

There are 6.9 million scientists and engineers employed in the US. I'll let you do the math as to the percentages.

I notice you still do not tackle my direct objections to your positions on intelligent design, irreducible complexity and the limitation of scope of science.

Science has problems with one off events, or the actions of beings that have a choice. They are not easily reducible to causal experimentation, and conscious experience falls outside the ability of scientific process to model it, and therefore outside the scientific model, but it is JUST as valid truth. My example of Greyson showed just that.

Lets leave your dodgy statistics alone, which seem as bad as your science.
A healthy percentage of scientists are theist. Which also means at some level creationist. There are many flavours of that.
Those minded NOT to get involved in a poll are probably most of them on all sides of the fence including me!

I have already said that creation is not an antonym for evolution or science.
So you can be creationist and at some level accept evolution and some or all of Darwin. Clearly you can make a dog with longer legs. So at some level all accept darwinism.

Dear old craig ventner (frankenstein) "created" a mycobacterium of restricted genes by intelligent design respecting the irreducible complexity needed to maintain the function so eliminated some useless genes. I think the man is a maniac, whose hubris could easily destroy the earth, so I have not read his papers, but the above is what I gleaned from a recent article.. So the idea that 1/ all organisms come from successive small change or 2/ no intelligent design was involved is a #fail. Dog breeders creating long ears are of course "intelligent design". So all these questions are nuanced.

It is also a question as to what a dissent of "darwinism" means.
Which aspect(s) did they object to?

If you STUDY darwin, have you? ( most quote his name without ever reading what he wrote) you will note his own view on origin of life was not definitive and indeed evolved over time.. There was clearly one example of life on which his theory failed : the first which he himself notes it as an exception as it clearly does not come from a previous life

He is even ambivalent as to whether life had one or many start points. Here is what he has to say in 1868 in "variations" a publication long after the "origin" - he said
"a few forms, or of only one form, having been originally created, instead of inumerable miraculous creations".
The last form of words might amuse you! Do you still believe in all of Darwinism now you know he STATED life was miraculous creation - not that I think he meant it like that.

Over a century on we are none the wiser about how, where, or when life happened. The minimum cell we know is still horrendously complex. Origin of species was an idea not a complete theory , on the basis of natural selection and progressive small change. It was as I said supplemented by later theories , hypotheses and pure speculation.

So accepting "darwinism" even with unexplained parts and flaws also leaves out the hardest part of the development of life. The path to the minimum cell we know. At best darwin only tries to account a part of the journey.

So what precisely were those scientists objecting to?
Who knows.
I dare say their objections were well founded.
Maybe they did not like that Darwin thought life was a "Miraculous creation"!!!!!!

 

[Frank Robert]

I notice you still do not tackle my direct objections to your positions on intelligent design, irreducible complexity and the limitation of scope of science.

I am not attacking anything. When you or any creationist provides a testable hypothesis on for intelligent design, irreducible complexity or limitations. etc it will then be available to analyze them and critique them and if they have value they will be treated accordingly. You are a scientist but you do not appear to recognize the ability of science to self correct.

I apologize for not reading further, but I really do not have the time or energy to deal with things that have been debated ad nauseam and always end up with the same result.

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[Frank Robert]

Which is precisely as I said to you:
science is limited in scope, the model is limited in what it can models The scientific method and model concern repeatable things. Science has a problem with "beings" so has serious problems with analysing conscious experience.

Thank you for admitting that there are no testable hypotheses. W/o testable hypotheses there is nothing to debate. Could an omni deity done it of course. I was brought up and educated by Catholics who believe that God provided the natural laws to the grunt work of evolution. Today, I am an agnostic but I still maintain respect for religions.

I have nothing against creationists religious beliefs, with the cravate that there are some very bad actors but there are bad actors in all religions. I will fight fro your right to those beliefs and to express them. But do not expect me or anyone else to take them seriously.

 

[Mountainmike]

I am not attacking anything. When you or any creationist provides a testable hypothesis on for intelligent design, irreducible complexity or limitations. etc it will then be available to analyze them and critique them and if they have value they will be treated accordingly. You are a scientist but you do not appear to recognize the ability of science to self correct.

I apologize for not reading further, but I really do not have the time or energy to deal with things that have been debated ad nauseam and always end up with the same result.

Aka you cannot answer.

The points I made were valid, as was my statement of the limitations of science.

The same result being agnostic / atheist scientific realists failing to grasp that science is a model of the universe, not the universe itself.

 

[Mountainmike]

Thank you for admitting that there are no testable hypotheses. W/o testable hypotheses there is nothing to debate. Could an omni deity done it of course. I was brought up and educated by Catholics who believe that God provided the natural laws to the grunt work of evolution. Today, I am an agnostic but I still maintain respect for religions.

I have nothing against creationists religious beliefs, with the cravate that there are some very bad actors but there are bad actors in all religions. I will fight fro your right to those beliefs and to express them. But do not expect me or anyone else to take them seriously.

Science 101.

Science comes from the word scientia which means knowledge.
Knowledge of the universe is what we observe of it through conscious experience.

In some aspects the patterns and causality are sufficient to model them. A hypothetical model can be validated, refined or rejected,

But The things we CANNOT model do not CEASE TO EXIST for lack of a model.
So the lack of a hypothesis is an irrelevance , it shows only how incomplete understanding is.

The religion that is scientific realism has promoted a model to the status of a reality, that it never earned and that has become a God for those who believe in it, as seemingly do you!

If you want to know what science is :

Start by accepting that nobody knows what gravity IS or why it exists, they only know what it is seen to DO. That is because it is an observation model. That doesn’t work very well in places.

Then by answering the question “ what Is ohms law” . I’ll wager you get it wrong. Most scientific realists do. Hint: it’s not an equation. And it hits at the fundamental of what science IS. Can you answer?

 

[Frank Robert]

Science 101.

Science comes from the word scientia which means knowledge.
Knowledge of the universe is what we observe of it through conscious experience.

That would make a nice trivia question.

Start by accepting that nobody knows what gravity IS or why it exists, they only know what it is seen to DO. That is because it is an observation model. That doesn’t work very well in places.

What a wonderful natural world the gods provided for us to explore.
I love Sean Carroll's Perposterous Universe where he hosts conversations with the world's most interesting thinkers. Science, society, philosophy, culture, arts, and ideas.

 

[Frank Robert]

Aka you cannot answer.

The points I made were valid, as was my statement of the limitations of science.

I made no claims to whether they were valid or not.

The same result being agnostic / atheist scientific realists failing to grasp that science is a model of the universe, not the universe itself.

With testing and valid observations a hypotheses becomes a model. Models are subject to be error which often spin more hypotheses and more testing. As I said previously, the gods provided us a wonderful world to explore. In my way of thinking only a mean deity would remove our desire for knowledge.

A few days ago I went for a medical test. The technician was a wonderful 81 year old woman. After the procedure she had a break and we got into a conversation. I have a few more years before I reach her years but I hope I am remain as curious, inquisitive and as full of life as she.

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[Frank Robert]

Which is precisely as I said to you:
science is limited in scope, the model is limited in what it can models The scientific method and model concern repeatable things. Science has a problem with "beings" so has serious problems with analysing conscious experience.

The evidencestands regardless, and some is inexplicable as the product of random chance. It does seem that conscious experience can extend beyond the brain. And that is a problem for the biochemical model of even what life "is". Which is then a problem for origin of life.

Educate yourself. First by reading science philosophy. Science before science highlights many important issues. You will struggle with deeper books on such as quantum reality but the issues are made even starker there. What is reality? There is truth outside the present concept of science which has limited itself to essentially what it can repeat and model - it has drifted from "scientia" knowledge.

Worse is the false philosophy of scientific realism built on the presumption of the model so generated is the universe rather than represents what it normally is observed to do, which then leads to denying the existence of anything that does not fit the model. A philosophical cart squarely in front of a horse. Even hawking with "model dependent reality" accepted the limits of models in the end and that they are not the universe itself.

Second read books like "after" greyson or "twin telepathy" playfair. The model of conscious experience as only a product of the brain is a problem for explaining all experience, much of which is clearly not invented, but does not "fit" the model either. As I pointed out - one twin remote sensing the death of another is not an experiment the scientific process can pursue.

The name Greyson was vaguely familiar to me so I looked him up. It was not who I originally thought but what I found interesting was my familiarity with his "potential NDE hypothesis" regrading the cultural aspects of NDEs. A few years ago I had a conversation about the very same aspects with a Catholic priest friend and I mentioned the very same thing. There are some good theories for such speculation but they don't appear to be universal. So more speculation, testing and observation. Life can be interesting even as we discuss death.