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

[Strathos]

Why do so many Christians feel that it's perfectly fine to lie about science and scientists? It's embarrassing.

 

[Job 33:6]

Why do so many Christians feel that it's perfectly fine to lie about science and scientists? It's embarrassing.

Its even more embarrassing when they lie to scientists about science. Its like a child telling you that they haven't soiled their pants, even when the smell is right in your face!

 

[USincognito]

I would disagree fully.

That's nice. But you're going to need to do more than merely disagree. You'll need to provide something of substance to substantiate why you disagree. And quotes aren't substance I'm a

>> -John D Morris and Frank J Sherwin The Fossil Record 2017 <<

Why would anyone care about the opinions of two ICR hacks?

>> John Morris The Young earth <<

Again, why would anyone care about John Morris' opinion? He's just spouting YEC propaganda

>> Albert Einstein
Mark Twain <<

Are you just posing random quotes? What purpose is that supposed to serve?

In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

Yes the majority do believe in evolution...

Please stop with the shtick. Those who accept evolution do so because of the evidence, not because of "belief". And to reiterate, the majority of scientists, you know, those best in the position to determine it's validity based on said evidence, accept it because of that evidence.

>> American Humanist Association, promotional brochure.
A co-developer of the Piltdown Man hoax, said this: <<

This is a lie.

"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”
-Popper, K., Unended Quest, Fontana, Collins, Glasgow, p. 151, 1976

Again, why do you think quotes are evidence?

 

[sfs]

“Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”
-Popper, K., Unended Quest, Fontana, Collins, Glasgow, p. 151, 1976

Here's a good example of why no one who knows what's going on takes this kind of quotation seriously. Three questions: 1) What does Popper mean by 'Darwinism' in this quotation? 2) The complete sentence hasn't been quoted. What does the rest of the sentence say? 3) What did Popper say about his own view on the identical subject two years later?

I'd bet quite a bit that you don't know the answer to any of those questions. Which would mean that you're just repeating something based on someone else's authority -- someone who happens to be highly deceptive in this case.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Here's a good example of why no one who knows what's going on takes this kind of quotation seriously. Three questions: 1) What does Popper mean by 'Darwinism' in this quotation? 2) The complete sentence hasn't been quoted. What does the rest of the sentence say? 3) What did Popper say about his own view on the identical subject two years later?

I'd bet quite a bit that you don't know the answer to any of those questions. Which would mean that you're just repeating something based on someone else's authority -- someone who happens to be highly deceptive in this case.

Yes - appropriately, the quote was originally cherry-picked by Duane Gish himself

The full explanation can be found here.

I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism <natural selection> is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme — a possible framework for testable scientific theories.

My bolding.

Also:

. . . I see in modern Darwinism the most successful explanation of the relevant facts. [Popper, 1957, p. 106; emphasis added]

There exists no law of evolution, only the historical fact that plants and animals change, or more precisely, that they have changed. [Popper, 1963b, p. 340; emphasis added]

I have always been extremely interested in the theory of evolution and very ready to accept evolution as a fact. [Popper, 1976, p. 167; emphasis added]

The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism. [Popper, 1978, p. 344; emphasis added]

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

This is, of course, complete bunkum.

Scientific advancement has been predicated on turning over old ideas. In fact this is one of the chief complaints from creationists about science: that it continually "changes". Yet at the same time they accuse science of rigid dogmatism.

Ironically it is creationist beliefs that were overturned in the quest of scientific advancement. Yet creationists would have unwind the last 200+ years of scientific knowledge to protect their religious beliefs from the pesky investigation of reality.

Science ultimately is about figuring out the best understanding of reality possible. What creationists fail to acknowledge is that the reason people do science is because science is useful. We turn scientific knowledge into application which in turn is used to derive benefits for humankind.

Evolution falls under that category as it has various applications in fields of applied biology (e.g. agriculture, medicine, conservation biology, and so on). When it comes to industry the idea of propagating evolutionary thought just for the sake of it makes no sense. The dollars and jobs at stake are based on producing results and gaining competitive advantage. Therefore, if evolution were as false as creationists kept claiming it was, the first place you'd hear about it would be industry.

Yet strangely not only do you not hear anything from industry, but you have companies even patent applications of evolutionary theory.

If creationists had a superior alternative to biology evolution, they should be deriving applications from it and selling it to industry. They could make more money in a day doing then a year of theme park and faux museum tourism.

"A common asumtion in western society is that darwinin revolution was based on the acumulation of scintfic evidence that eventually convinced the academic comunity, of the validity of the theory, in fact the overthrogh of creationism and its replacment by darwinism was largly acomplished by political and not scintfic means."
-Jerry Bergman The Dark Side of Charles Darwin Master Books 2011


It appears you did not read my post as that is just what I am saying. Science has overturned the old dogma of evolution and we need to get them to accept that. Not once has a creationist complained of science, but of evolution.


I would say no science need to be overturned, just naturalistic/materialist assumptions applied to science.

“evolutionist reject as a matter of printable not because of evidence “
-F.M harold 2001 the way of the cell molecules organisms and the order of life oxford university press new york new york


Science ultimately is about figuring out the best understanding of reality possible. What evolutionist fail to acknowledge is that the reason people do science is because science is useful. We turn scientific knowledge into application which in turn is used to derive benefits for humankind rather than to serve our religious beliefs and force them into a materialistic worldview.

“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.


you said

Evolution falls under that category as it has various applications in fields of applied biology (e.g. agriculture, medicine, conservation biology, and so on). When it comes to industry the idea of propagating evolutionary thought just for the sake of it makes no sense. The dollars and jobs at stake are based on producing results and gaining competitive advantage. Therefore, if evolution were as false as creationists kept claiming it was, the first place you'd hear about it would be industry

Yet strangely not only do you not hear anything from industry, but you have companies even patent applications of evolutionary theory

And here a definition of Darwinian evolution would help. I would really rather save this for a future thread.


I would add the major achievements in science were done by creationist from a creation worldview, and properly defined, evolution has hindered science [future threads] and dont nothing to help science.

Dr Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School states: ‘In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.’

“I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss."
-Philip S. Skell is Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. His research has included work on reactive

"The subject of evolution occupies a special, and paradoxical, place within biology as a whole. While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution', Most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. 'Evolution' would appear to be the indispensible unifying [ideological] idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one [in science]."
p. 1051WILKINS, Adam S. (2000) Intro (issue on Evolutionary Processes) pp. 1051-1052
BioEssays vol. 22 no.12 December

“Can you name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with a belief in molecules-to-man evolution?” questions asked mutiple times never responded to by bill nye the "scince" guy in debate with ken ham.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Sigh. Poster who incorrectly identifies the logical fallacy turns around an employs it himself.

Look, if you have anything at all to say about the science of evolution, say it. Cutting and pasting endless quotations accomplishes not a blessed thing except wasting a little electricity.

At this point, you've demonstrated no knowledge of the science and a hilariously distorted understanding of the motivations of actual scientists. Everything you've posted is you echoing what somebody else thinks about evolution. Have you ever talked to a single professional biologist in your life? Seriously -- why are you just parroting other people's ideas? Don't just tell biologists why they do and think what they do -- try asking a question for a change. You might learn something.

I think you misunderstood my post and thread. I will show evolution false and based on faith alone when the thread topic is relevant. I have multiple threads going on 4 forums this is my latest to join so has lowest priority and i am waiting for others to die down. Hopefully by next week i will have some more time.




If that is the case you should have a field day with my threads. Lucky for you.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

This ain't about politics kiddo. It's about protecting the integrity of scientific knowledge from those who would rather us unwind the last 250+ years of it.

Yet it is about politics.

"A common assumption in western society is that Darwinian revolution was based on the accumulation of scientific evidence that eventually convinced the academic community, of the validity of the theory, in fact the overthrow of creationism and its replacement by Darwinism was largely accomplished by political and not scientific means."
-Jerry Bergman The Dark Side of Charles Darwin Master Books 2011



This of course is well off topic and deserves its own thread but if liberals did not control education, evolution would be dead. They must steal tax money to indoctrinate in schools to keep the faith alive. Further i agree, this is about upholding the integrity of science from the materialist/naturalistic worldview witch has held in back for the past 250 years.

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."
—*L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).


"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . ."Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."
—*Pierre P. Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."
—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They’ve seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."
—*Colin Patterson, The Listener (senior paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London).


"Fundamental truths about evolution have so far eluded us all, and that uncritical acceptance of Darwinism may be counterproductive as well as expedient. Far from ignoring or ridiculing the ground-swell of opposition to Darwinism that is growing, for example, in the United States, we should welcome it as an opportunity to reexamine our sacred cow more closely."
—*B. Storehouse, "Introduction," in *Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 12.


"In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species], evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit with it. . To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all . . If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? . . I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."
—*H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980) [emphasis his].

"The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake."
—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1986), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor.]

doctrine of continuity [evolutionary theory] has always necessitated a retreat from pure empiricism [facts and scientific testing], and contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach."
—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 353.

 

[USincognito]

Why does he just keep posting quotes?

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Here's a good example of why no one who knows what's going on takes this kind of quotation seriously. Three questions: 1) What does Popper mean by 'Darwinism' in this quotation? 2) The complete sentence hasn't been quoted. What does the rest of the sentence say? 3) What did Popper say about his own view on the identical subject two years later?

I'd bet quite a bit that you don't know the answer to any of those questions. Which would mean that you're just repeating something based on someone else's authority -- someone who happens to be highly deceptive in this case.

From this point of view the question of the scientific status of Darwinian theory—in the widest sense, the theory of trial and error-elimination—becomes an interesting one. I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories.


Not sure what you think changes. Let me know. As for what he said 2 years later, indulge me.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yet it is about politics.

"A common assumption in western society is that Darwinian revolution was based on the accumulation of scientific evidence that eventually convinced the academic community, of the validity of the theory, in fact the overthrow of creationism and its replacement by Darwinism was largely accomplished by political and not scientific means."
-Jerry Bergman The Dark Side of Charles Darwin Master Books 2011



This of course is well off topic and deserves its own thread but if liberals did not control education, evolution would be dead. They must steal tax money to indoctrinate in schools to keep the faith alive. Further i agree, this is about upholding the integrity of science from the materialist/naturalistic worldview witch has held in back for the past 250 years.

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."
—*L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).


"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . ."Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."
—*Pierre P. Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."
—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They’ve seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."
—*Colin Patterson, The Listener (senior paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London).


"Fundamental truths about evolution have so far eluded us all, and that uncritical acceptance of Darwinism may be counterproductive as well as expedient. Far from ignoring or ridiculing the ground-swell of opposition to Darwinism that is growing, for example, in the United States, we should welcome it as an opportunity to reexamine our sacred cow more closely."
—*B. Storehouse, "Introduction," in *Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 12.


"In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species], evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit with it. . To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all . . If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? . . I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."
—*H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980) [emphasis his].

"The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake."
—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1986), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor.]

doctrine of continuity [evolutionary theory] has always necessitated a retreat from pure empiricism [facts and scientific testing], and contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach."
—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 353.

Your blatant dishonesty and misrepresentation of reality is laughable. Either you’re a troll, or twelve years old. Welcome to ignore.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Why does he just keep posting quotes?

to show i am not the only one who wished to save science from evolution.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Why do so many Christians feel that it's perfectly fine to lie about science and scientists? It's embarrassing.

Why do so many evolutionist feel that it's perfectly fine to lie about science and scientists? It's embarrassing. But it is the topic of my next thread.

 

[Tolworth John]

That doesn't answer my question. You only think you know something about reality because you believe your reason and your senses.

No it is because I believe the bible.

 

[pitabread]

It appears you did not read my post as that is just what I am saying.

You're right I didn't read your whole post because you keep flooding them with quote-spam. Try more concise posting.

Science has overturned the old dogma of evolution and we need to get them to accept that. Not once has a creationist complained of science, but of evolution.

Except that hasn't happened. The theory of evolution is foundational to modern biology.

The only people disputing that are doing so for religious, not scientific reasons. Young Earth creationists especially are disputing far more than just evolution. They are at odds with geology, physics, astronomy/cosmology, and even history/anthropology. And whole lot of human knowledge has to be flat out wrong for young Earthers to be correct.

 

[USincognito]

to show i am not the only one who wished to save science from evolution.

Spamming a bunch of quotes from Creationists or that have nothing to do with evolution does nothing but waste everyone's time.

Why do so many evolutionist feel that it's perfectly fine to lie about science and scientists?

What is it with some Creationists and their childish reflecting of verbiage?

It's embarrassing. But it is the topic of my next thread.

Little piece of advice, you're not bringing anything to the table we haven't seen a hundred times. None of us are waiting with baited breath for your next pearl of wisdom.

 

[pitabread]

This of course is well off topic and deserves its own thread but if liberals did not control education, evolution would be dead.

Translation: If creationists had their way we'd still be living in a medieval theocracy.

There are still counties that operate like that. You're welcome to move to one of them, but forget about trying to drag the rest of modern Western society down. You're too late.

 

[Strathos]

Why do so many evolutionist feel that it's perfectly fine to lie about science and scientists? It's embarrassing. But it is the topic of my next thread.

People have directly pointed out where you were citing false quotes, misattributed quotes, and quotes taken out of context. I have yet to see you do the same for any evidence presented by anyone else.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

You're right I didn't read your whole post because you keep flooding them with quote-spam. Try more concise posting.



Except that hasn't happened. The theory of evolution is foundational to modern biology.

The only people disputing that are doing so for religious, not scientific reasons. Young Earth creationists especially are disputing far more than just evolution. They are at odds with geology, physics, astronomy/cosmology, and even history/anthropology. And whole lot of human knowledge has to be flat out wrong for young Earthers to be correct.

Thanks for the suggestion. However i have one for you, dont respond to and make claims of posts you did not read.


Science has, but getting them to accept is not dependent on science. As i will show in future threads. Or... your definition of evolution is not Darwinian. This will also be on future threads. Much of what is referred to as "evolution" is not rejected by creationist, only common decent. But that will be a future thread.


The only people disputing that are doing so for religious, not scientific reasons. Evolutionist especially are disputing far more than just biology. They are at odds with geology, physics, astronomy/cosmology, and even history/anthropology. And whole lot of human knowledge has to be flat out wrong for evolutionist to be correct.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Spamming a bunch of quotes from Creationists or that have nothing to do with evolution do nothing but waste everyone's time.



What is it with some Creationists and their childish reflecting of verbiage?



Little piece of advice, you're not bringing anything to the table we haven't seen a hundred times. None of us are waiting with baited breath for your next pearl of wisdom.

I wish you had read them, few if any were creationist , some evolutionist admitting its harm to science and all were scientist who wished to save science from the religious faith and framework of evolutionist, an Honorable goal imo.


I do it often. When posts are made that are meaningless and baseless or can be shown true of their position, i just flip it. It actually saves time i have like 8 threads going a few more busy than this forum and time is money.


I am not surprised, you dont read my posts you respond to. But given some of the statements made by evolutionist, I am not so sure that is true.