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

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I admit that I know little of ancient Greek. I am interested in the medical success you are referring to of the ancient Greeks and further how they invented astronomy, geography, zoology, anatomy, botany, mineralogy. Since they were pagan and often thought of material objects as beings and

"attributed many natural phenomena to motives, not to inanimate forces. Thus according to Aristotle, heavenly bodies moved in circles because of their affection for doing so, and objects fall to the ground "because of their innate love for the center of the world."
-- Rodney Stark bearing False Witness

There's plenty of information to be found online - Wikipedia is a reasonable starting point.

The way the ancient Greek scientists described their world was less important than the concepts they used - we may call the 'innate attraction' between masses 'gravity' but until Einstein we had little more explanation for it than did the ancient Greeks, albeit Newton and others had put it's effects on firmer mathematical ground.

Astronomy and astrology were not one and the same by any means, still are not.

In those times they were considered aspects of the same science - they were not seen as distinctly separate subjects. Similarly, for chemistry and alchemistry.

I am not sure the Greeks were "scientific cultures" in the

sence we use it today.

In what sense do we use it today? Science may only have been a small part of ancient Greek culture, but it was still recognisably science.

It cannot account for the world or the human mind to do science.

By 'evolution' I meant (the theory of) evolution by natural selection; obviously that isn't intended to account for the world(!), only the diversity of life on it, but it can plausibly account for the development of the human mind - including the capabilities and motivations that led us to develop science.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

There's plenty of information to be found online - Wikipedia is a reasonable starting point.

The way the ancient Greek scientists described their world was less important than the concepts they used - we may call the 'innate attraction' between masses 'gravity' but until Einstein we had little more explanation for it than did the ancient Greeks, albeit Newton and others had put it's effects on firmer mathematical ground.

In those times they were considered aspects of the same science - they were not seen as distinctly separate subjects. Similarly, for chemistry and alchemistry.

In what sense do we use it today? Science may only have been a small part of ancient Greek culture, but it was still recognisably science.

By 'evolution' I meant (the theory of) evolution by natural selection; obviously that isn't intended to account for the world(!), only the diversity of life on it, but it can plausibly account for the development of the human mind - including the capabilities and motivations that led us to develop
science.

I have a strong distrust of wiki i think for valid reasons. But do you have specific examples of the ancient Greeks doing empirical science in all the areas you mentioned?


Yes but that is because they were pagan astrologers, not modern astronomers.



Empirical science.



Ok we do define evolution seperatley. My definition in op reefers to atheistic Darwinian evolution.

 

[pitabread]

My definition in op reefers to atheistic Darwinian evolution.

There is no such thing as atheistic evolution any more than there is atheistic gravity, atheistic thermodynamics or atheistic botany.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

in this forums

I have a strong distrust of wiki i think for valid reasons. But do you have specific examples of the ancient Greeks doing empirical science in all the areas you mentioned?

Archimedes' treatise "Method" comes to mind - he described his use of empirical methods (using levers, balances, etc.) to find ways of calculating the areas and volumes of geometric figures. But probably one of the earliest philosopher scientists, Thales of Miletus, comes closest to the modern scientific approach.

It's probably fair to say most ancient Greek scientists used empirical methods to guide theoretical understanding in contrast to the more modern tendency to use theoretical methods to guide understanding of empirical results.

Yes but that is because they were pagan astrologers, not modern astronomers.

You're mistaken if you think mainstream religion and astrology don't go together - it's a major part of Hinduism (Vedic Astrology), it's been used in Buddhism from the start, and a significant number of Christians and even Islamists use it (those that don't think it's haram, claim that it is a gift from God).

But it's stating the obvious to say ancient astronomers were/are not modern astronomers, and their thinking was very different; nevertheless they were able to predict the movements of the moon and planets (epicycles worked, if clumsily) - including Earth's precession - and various celestial events.

Empirical science.

Ah - is that what is meant by 'real science'? It's worth remembering that modern science is the result of a thousand years or more of philosophical thought and cultural development; it would be asking a lot to expect modern-day empiricism in ancient science.

Ok we do define evolution seperatley. My definition in op reefers to atheistic Darwinian evolution.

Not sure how you come to that - I was referring to what is usually called Darwinian evolution in these forums; i.e. the 'Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection' originally described in Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species'; now much enhanced (in contemporary terms, it's the 'Extended Evolutionary Synthesis').

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There's plenty of information to be found online - Wikipedia is a reasonable starting point.

The way the ancient Greek scientists described their world was less important than the concepts they used - we may call the 'innate attraction' between masses 'gravity' but until Einstein we had little more explanation for it than did the ancient Greeks, albeit Newton and others had put it's effects on firmer mathematical ground.

We still don't know what it is anymore than we did then. Same with electric and magnetic fields. All we can do is describe how things behave in each of those three fields, but what they are is the biggest unknowns in science still.

 

[USincognito]

Ok we do define evolution seperatley. My definition in op reefers to atheistic Darwinian evolution.

In that case you are singularly and incorrectly defining evolution.

There is no such thing as atheistic evolution any more than there is atheistic gravity, atheistic thermodynamics or atheistic botany.

As pitabread notes, there is no "atheistic" adjective added to any field of science. This is another one of those asinine, and frankly childish attempts to smear science Creationists don't like akin to the whole "evolution is religion" trope. It's frankly idiotic or else they would need to consider plate tectonics and germ theory of disease to be religions as well.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

in this forumsArchimedes' treatise "Method" comes to mind - he described his use of empirical methods (using levers, balances, etc.) to find ways of calculating the areas and volumes of geometric figures. But probably one of the earliest philosopher scientists, Thales of Miletus, comes closest to the modern scientific approach.

It's probably fair to say most ancient Greek scientists used empirical methods to guide theoretical understanding in contrast to the more modern tendency to use theoretical methods to guide understanding of empirical results.

You're mistaken if you think mainstream religion and astrology don't go together - it's a major part of Hinduism (Vedic Astrology), it's been used in Buddhism from the start, and a significant number of Christians and even Islamists use it (those that don't think it's haram, claim that it is a gift from God).

But it's stating the obvious to say ancient astronomers were/are not modern astronomers, and their thinking was very different; nevertheless they were able to predict the movements of the moon and planets (epicycles worked, if clumsily) - including Earth's precession - and various celestial events.

Ah - is that what is meant by 'real science'? It's worth remembering that modern science is the result of a thousand years or more of philosophical thought and cultural development; it would be asking a lot to expect modern-day empiricism in ancient science.

Not sure how you come to that - I was referring to what is usually called Darwinian evolution in these forums; i.e. the 'Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection' originally described in Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species'; now much enhanced (in contemporary terms, it's the 'Extended Evolutionary Synthesis').

Very good and worth looking into. Thanks.




Well astrology is outlawed in the bible so its hard to argue it was used by Christians. But i never said astrology and "religion" never mixed, i said they were pagan astrologers. I said pagan astrology was not modern astronomy, as you agree i see.




I agree especially from a pagan worldview that often had a mythical view of nature.





Darwin's original title was "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." But darwin suggested that natural selection was the mechanism by witch new organism and new traits, could develop, of course we know this false today and i think he even gave up on it in The Descent of Man if i am not mistaken. He suggested all life shared a common ancestor, this of course is far different than simply natural selection. And this is what my op is about, common decent of all life forms.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

In that case you are singularly and incorrectly defining evolution.



As pitabread notes, there is no "atheistic" adjective added to any field of science. This is another one of those asinine, and frankly childish attempts to smear science Creationists don't like akin to the whole "evolution is religion" trope. It's frankly idiotic or else they would need to consider plate tectonics and germ theory of disease to be religions as well.

That is fine if you think so as I can quote textbooks leading evolutionist who will back me up. I will do so when it is the topic. I am referring to evolution as taught in government schools not as Christians who compromise the bible would, no offence.


Maybe materialistic, naturalistic would be better for you to accept than?

“Even if all of the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. “
-Todd, S. C. 1999. A view from Kansas on that evolution debate. Nature. 401 (6752): 423.

“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
-Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

 

[pitabread]

“Even if all of the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. “

This is misleading. In the context, the author is specifically talking about supernatural designers. It's not that science excludes a designer by itself. It's that science excludes a supernatural designer because the latter cannot be scientifically tested.

The reason is that it's impossible to formulate a testable hypothesis since the supernatural is not bound by the natural laws of the universe.

It's also worth pointing out more context for that quote which you have conveniently left out. This is why quote-mining is usually a poor method to support one's arguments:

"Most important, it should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolution, has not disproved God's existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably).

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism." https://www.nature.com/articles/46661​

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

This is misleading. In the context, the author is specifically talking about supernatural designers. It's not that science excludes a designer by itself. It's that science excludes a supernatural designer because the latter cannot be scientifically tested.

The reason is that it's impossible to formulate a testable hypothesis since the supernatural is not bound by the natural laws of the universe.

It's also worth pointing out more context for that quote which you have conveniently left out. This is why quote-mining is usually a poor method to support one's arguments:

"Most important, it should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolution, has not disproved God's existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably).

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism."​

Supernatural designers was all i had in mind as a christian and creationist. Curious, what other kind of designers of biological life did you have in mind? let me guess, atheistic "design" witch is to admit design but say nature created it.

“biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
-Richard Dawkins, R. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. London: WW Norton & Company, 1.


But i am not sure at all why the context changes the quote in your mind when i only quoted it to show naturalism rules in the minds of many and is often the only belief allowed.

 

[Brightmoon]

Getting a quote about science from a creationist organization is pretty much a guarantee that it will be misleading .

As an aside , thanks for the earworm Tolkien! Every time you piled on those quote mined quotes , that song Misled by Kool and the Gang started playing in my head

 

[pitabread]

Supernatural designers was all i had in mind as a christian and creationist. Curious, what other kind of designers of biological life did you have in mind? let me guess, atheistic "design" witch is to admit design but say nature created it.

Human beings for one. We've already genetically engineered organisms and are moving ever closer to engineering artificial lifeforms from scratch. Couple that with space travel and it's within the realm of possibility to "seed" a planet with artificially designed life.

In fact this is why NASA sterilizes the probes they send to other planets and moons to avoid biological contamination of those places.

But i am not sure at all why the context changes the quote in your mind when i only quoted it to show naturalism rules in the minds of many and is often the only belief allowed.

You're still misinterpreting that quote. The quote is specifically talking about science and what it cannot test. And it's impossible formulate a testable hypothesis about the supernatural. If you believe otherwise feel free to take up my challenge in this thread: How can we scientifically test the supernatural?

Insofar as beliefs go, anyone is free to believe whatever they want and the second sentence after the part you quoted makes that perfectly clear:

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism." https://www.nature.com/articles/46661​

Deliberately quote-mining and misinterpreting quotes is not helping you here. I'm guessing you never read the original article; see the above link.

“biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
-Richard Dawkins, R. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. London: WW Norton & Company, 1.

I'm going to wager you never read The Blind Watchmaker either.

 

[Nithavela]

But if*their*thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true?

Accidental does not equate untrue, so the premise of your threat collapses.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Sorry my fault once more I have strayed from the op. This will be my last reply not related to op, once more my fault sorry. Trying to make time for new threads on subjects people have brought up and to return to the age of the earth thread.

Human beings for one. We've already genetically engineered organisms and are moving ever closer to engineering artificial lifeforms from scratch. Couple that with space travel and it's within the realm of possibility to "seed" a planet with artificially designed life.

So are you suggesting that man created life originally? that would be allowed to be taught or even aliens [who evolved on another planet of course] no pc demands atheistic naturalism to be taught. I am not saying that they wont let you belive in a non biblical creator, only that they teach naturalism.

In fact this is why NASA sterilizes the probes they send to other planets and moons to avoid biological contamination of those places.

aren't i so happy to see tax money go to those whom believe in aliens. Once more they are against a biblical creator not a creator constant with naturalism [aliens who evolved]

You're still misinterpreting that quote. The quote is specifically talking about science and what it cannot test. And it's impossible formulate a testable hypothesis about the supernatural. If you believe otherwise feel free to take up my challenge in this thread: How can we scientifically test the supernatural?

I will be doing a thread on testing the Genesis account [not id or aliens] and it can be done in many ways and in fact as this thread and my other shows, evolutionist are aware of that. But your missing why i quoted it,

"excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism." "

So as stated "science" has been degraded to the religious worldview of naturalism.

Insofar as beliefs go, anyone is free to believe whatever they want and the second sentence after the part you quoted makes that perfectly clear:

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism." https://www.nature.com/articles/46661​

Deliberately quote-mining and misinterpreting quotes is not helping you here. I'm guessing you never read the original article; see the above link.

You have taken it to mean something other than i quoted it for. I am not saying they kick you out if you believe aliens created the world, i am saying that naturalism as a worldview dominated science and is the only worldview allowed. Thus the quote backs up my claim.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Accidental does not equate untrue, so the premise of your threat collapses.

But the point is their is no justification to believe or know they are thus thus science could not work. The fact we assume they are true and believe it is only based on biblical foundations.

 

[Nithavela]

But the point is their is no justification to believe or know they are thus thus science could not work. The fact we assume they are true and believe it is only based on biblical foundations.

What about evidence?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What about evidence?

What about it?

We both see fossils that never change across millions of years.

We both see the same species undergoing a variety of forms from mating. Wolf to pug for example.

I understand mating can’t be seen from a pile of bones. You ignore that.

They classify things a little different in the past where mating can’t be discerned as separate species, even though we understand variation in the species can be extreme. Wolf to pug....

I see merely variation in the same species as per observations of the natural world. Evidence supports my theory.

You see evolution of one species to another. Evidence does not support your theory without inserting missing ancestors at every branching. I need insert no missing ancestors, simply understand variation in the species can be extreme. Wolf to pug.

 

[sfs]

No it is because I believe the bible.

So tell me how you learned what was in the Bible without making any use of your reason or your senses.

 

[Job 33:6]

So tell me how you learned what was in the Bible without making any use of your reason or your senses.

Perhaps he didn't use his senses. Maybe he just sat in a room, isolated from the world in which his senses couldnt perceive information. Then he accepted what was taught to him by evangelists.

 

[sfs]

Then he accepted what was taught to him by evangelists.

How do you get information from evangelists without using your senses?