Science Only Works in a Biblical Worldview- Evolution Cannot Account for Science

[HitchSlap]

Interesting verses. A quick google search I think gives some good additional understanding of the events. If you believe one is not covered or disagree i will take a closer look when i have time at your best single example.



https://carm.org/god-send-deceiving-spirit-1kings-22-22
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lyingghosts.php
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-lie
http://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/1_Kings_22.22.php
https://www.gotquestions.org/lying-spirit.html

I’m aware of the rationalization and special pleading required to accept ‘god doesn’t lie.’ I’m simply pointing out that your statement is wrong.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

I’m aware of the rationalization and special pleading required to accept ‘god doesn’t lie.’ I’m simply pointing out that your statement is wrong.

or you could read the articles and than show this is so and why.

 

[HitchSlap]

or you could read the articles and than show this is so and why.

Special pleading to justify a contradiction, is the “why.”

 

[pitabread]

The OP reads like a giant argument from incredulity supported by dubious assertions.

 

[HitchSlap]

It’s a PRATT fest thru & thru.

 

[sfs]

The OP reads like a giant argument from incredulity supported by dubious assertions.

It's been advanced as a serious philosophical argument, though, notably by Alvin Plantinga. This response to Plantinga is quite readable (and I see is by somebody I knew when he was a grad student.)

 

[USincognito]

If Evolution Were True
...

This is never a good sign.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's been advanced as a serious philosophical argument, though, notably by Alvin Plantinga. This response to Plantinga is quite readable (and I see is by somebody I knew when he was a grad student.)

Thanks for that link, it is a well-argued response.

My first thoughts are that Platinga's arguments oversimplify the situation - there are beliefs that are false and adaptive as well as beliefs that are true and adaptive, so the relationship between the reliability of our cognitive processes and adaptive success is not a simple one. I'd query the utility here of the definition of the reliability of our cognitive processes as relating to 'the likelihood of producing true beliefs in a particular context' - if false beliefs can be adaptive, then that kind of cognitive reliability is not of primary significance - in evolution, it doesn't matter whether your beliefs are true, simply that they lead to reproductive success.

We are now well aware that our cognitive processes, per se, are pretty unreliable in terms of producing true beliefs - but we have developed rational methodologies to make them far more reliable (emergent reliability?), e.g. critical thinking, the scientific method, etc., and it is the use of these methodologies that has led to the wider acceptance of naturalism and evolution. It also seems clear that an awareness of the ways our cognitive processes can be unreliable, and internalising the rational methodologies, can change the effective reliability of our cognitive processes and favour the production of demonstrably true beliefs.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

This is never a good sign.

The thought does scare many.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy."
-Charles Darwin


“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well informed people I know are religious believers. It inset just that I dont believe in god and naturally, hope there is no god, I dont want there to be a god, I dont wont the universe to be like that.
-Philosopher Thomas nagel the last word,oxford university press new york 1997 p 30

“I suppose the reason we why we lept at the orgin of species was that the idea of god interfered with our sexual mores-
-sir julien Huxley


“People dont believe lies because they have to, but because they want to”
-Malcolm Muggeridge

 

[sfs]

The thought does scare many.

When in doubt, invent psychological motivations for your opponents. Doesn't actually score any points, but it makes you feel better, no doubt.

Evolution -- specifically common descent -- is accepted by the vast majority of biologists, whether or not they believe in a creator God, because it explains and predicts an enormous range of data about the real world. Creationism doesn't. That's the reality.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

When in doubt, invent psychological motivations for your opponents. Doesn't actually score any points, but it makes you feel better, no doubt.

Evolution -- specifically common descent -- is accepted by the vast majority of biologists, whether or not they believe in a creator God, because it explains and predicts an enormous range of data about the real world. Creationism doesn't. That's the reality.

When in doubt, resort to logical fallacies for your opponents [majority opinion]. Doesn't actually score any points, but it makes you feel better, no doubt.



I am not here to "score point" in a creation vs evolution debate, future threads will do that. I will also address in depth your above argument when those proper threads come along.

“Simply put most people believe in evolution because most people believe in evolution. It is all they have ever been taught. If creation is ever mentioned it is ridiculed and unfairly catheterized, thus, evolution is assumed, not proved and creation is denied, not refuted”
-John Morris The Young earth

“He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.”
- Albert Einstein

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”
― Mark Twain

 

[sfs]

When in doubt, resort to logical fallacies for your opponents [majority opinion].

Try harder. That wasn't a logical fallacy.

 

[HitchSlap]

When in doubt, resort to logical fallacies for your opponents [majority opinion]. Doesn't actually score any points, but it makes you feel better, no doubt.



I am not here to "score point" in a creation vs evolution debate, future threads will do that. I will also address in depth your above argument when those proper threads come along.

“Simply put most people believe in evolution because most people believe in evolution. It is all they have ever been taught. If creation is ever mentioned it is ridiculed and unfairly catheterized, thus, evolution is assumed, not proved and creation is denied, not refuted”
-John Morris The Young earth

“He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.”
- Albert Einstein

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”
― Mark Twain

Faith is believing in something you know ain’t so.
-Mark Twain

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Faith is believing in something you know ain’t so.
-Mark Twain

Like evolution. Future threads coming on the subject. I was referring to a biblical faith.

 

[HitchSlap]

I was referring to a biblical faith.

Yeah, me too.

ToE is fact. Move along.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Yeah, me too.

ToE is fact. Move along.

Agreed, the issue is getting evolutionist to "move along" they would rather believe as they wish. Understandable, than they create the rules.

"We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of preexisting cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world; and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justly our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves; for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever.
"—-Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 244.

 

[HitchSlap]

Agreed, the issue is getting evolutionist to "move along" they would rather believe as they wish. Understandable, than they create the rules.

"We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of preexisting cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world; and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justly our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves; for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever.
"—-Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 244.

I’m really not interested in your silly prayers.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Relevant quote


“Either human intelligence owes its origin to mindless matter or there is a creator. Its strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second”
-John Lennox prof fellow of mathimaticks and philosophy of science oxford university 2009

 

[HitchSlap]

Relevant quote


“Either human intelligence owes its origin to mindless matter or there is a creator. Its strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second”
-John Lennox prof fellow of mathimaticks and philosophy of science oxford university 2009

John Lennox needs to read Sagan's Demon Haunted World. Would do him wonders and maybe his brain wouldn't freeze.

 

[pitabread]

Relevant quote

“Either human intelligence owes its origin to mindless matter or there is a creator. Its strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second”
-John Lennox prof fellow of mathimaticks and philosophy of science oxford university 2009

It's not so much a case of preference as simply personal intellectual honesty. I can't force myself to explicitly believe in a creator (especially one given to any specific human religion) any more than you could likely force yourself to disbelieve in one.