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

[Tolkien R.R.J]

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.

I would say the biblical form of government is a constitutional republic. But that would be a future topic as well. I also say a medieval theocracy is much better than liberal socialist/communist government. I also see that as better than being lied to, that is what you get with evolutionist who impose a theocracy on science and wont allow anything to challenge it as they know they would lose the faithful.

“Absolute stranglehold materialistic atheism has on every thought that is allowed to be considered in the scientific and educational realms. This makes the American classroom one of the most censored, thought-controlled locations on the planet.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life 2017

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

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.

Please provide one example and I shall remove it. Beware, many posters admit to not reading my posts and not surprising, think i post quotes for reasons other than why i did. If you claim to be christian, you should follow this advice.

The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him Proverbs 18.17


Never believe as your told without testing it, otherwise we would all be evolutionist.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

This Thread has been getting off its topic and it is much my own fault. This thread is on how evolution cannot account for science and how it was a christian worldview that started science. I have many threads going so my time is limited on this forum as of now. So I will post only in regards to the topic of the op. I wish to do new threads on various subjects so i am trying to free up time.


Thanks for showing interest in many areas outside of the op and I look forward to getting to them as their own threads like each subject deserves.

 

[Strathos]

Please provide one example and I shall remove it. Beware, many posters admit to not reading my posts and not surprising, think i post quotes for reasons other than why i did. If you claim to be christian, you should follow this advice.

The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him Proverbs 18.17


Never believe as your told without testing it, otherwise we would all be evolutionist.

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ount-for-science.8074668/page-4#post-72990928

Right on the very last page, someone links to a quote mine you took out of context along with the original context.

 

[Jimmy D]

Please provide one example and I shall remove it. Beware, many posters admit to not reading my posts and not surprising, think i post quotes for reasons other than why i did.

It seems that you aren't a big fan of the Theory of Evolution, no one's forcing you to accept it though.

I am curious as to what are you proposing as an alternative? Anything? Anything but evilution?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why does he just keep posting quotes?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ tl;dr.

It's a Gish-gallop of other people's opinions...

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ount-for-science.8074668/page-4#post-72990928

Right on the very last page, someone links to a quote mine you took out of context along with the original context.

My apologies i missed that and thanks for posting it. But once more i am not sure they understood the purpose of the post. It was not to say popper rejected evolution, no most all my quotes are by evolutionist. I was referring to evolution as a mindset and way of interpreting evidence. However if he used evolution to mean natural selection, than I will remove the quote. Thanks. Removed.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This Thread has been getting off its topic and it is much my own fault. This thread is on how evolution cannot account for science and how it was a christian worldview that started science.

Science was flourishing long before Christians came on the scene.

But it doesn't really matter, since evolution can plausibly account for superstitious and supernatural beliefs, and social/cultural evolution can account for organised religion

 

[pitabread]

I also say a medieval theocracy is much better than liberal socialist/communist government.

You'd rather live in a country like Saudi Arabia instead of Norway?

I don't believe you.

I also see that as better than being lied to, that is what you get with evolutionist who impose a theocracy on science and wont allow anything to challenge it as they know they would lose the faithful.

Claiming that "evolutionists" are lying implies there is some sort of deliberate deception going on. But what is the incentive for biologists world-wide from different countries, cultures, and generations to all band together to formulate a fake scientific theory?

As I already said, if it really were a deception then industry is the first place you'd be hearing about it. After all, industry has zero incentive to propagate a fake scientific theory when they have a vested interest in the best understanding of biology.

The unfortunate reality for creationists is there is no great big scientific conspiracy. Just a bunch of scientific findings that creationists find unpalatable. Too bad.

 

[pitabread]

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.

If your future threads are anything like your current threads, then it will be nothing we haven't seen a hundred times before.

If you really want to impress, then try dealing with the reality of applied bio-sciences and modern evolutionary application. If you can address that with something more than just denialism then you'll be miles ahead of all the creationists that have come before you.

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.

Playing the shadow game is a school-yard tactic. If that's the level of discussion you want to engage in, have at it. But it just undermines anything you might be trying to get across.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Science was flourishing long before Christians came on the scene.

But it doesn't really matter, since evolution can plausibly account for superstitious and supernatural beliefs, and social/cultural evolution can account for organised religion

Please support. It was not science as it was not tested against nature.

"Aristotle, for example, observed widely and theorized extensively, but he did not test his theories against his observations so he was not a scientist. Alchemy and astrology were highly developed in China, Islamic regions, India and ancient Greece and Rome, but only in medieval Europe did these become the sciences of chemistry and astronomy. ‘It is the consensus among contemporary historians, philosophers and sociologists of science that real science arose only once: in Europe.’ The leading scientific figures in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were overwhelmingly devout Christians who believed it their duty to comprehend God’s handiwork (pp. 123, 126–127).

But what was the Christian difference? India, China, Persia, Greece and Rome all had venerable traditions of scholarship but why did only Christian Europe develop science? Stark’s answer is simple but profound—the Christian God was rational, responsive, dependable and omnipotent and the universe was his personal creation in which his divine nature was put on display for man’s benefit and instruction. Among the passages most commonly cited by medieval scholars was: ‘Thou has ordered all things in measure and number and weight.’1 Christians believed that science could be done and should be done."


see
https://www.amazon.com/Bearing-False-Witness-Debunking-Anti-Catholic/dp/1599474999



The question is if evolution can account for science.

 

[USincognito]

Playing the shadow game is a school-yard tactic. If that's the level of discussion you want to engage in, have at it. But it just undermines anything you might be trying to get across.

To me it's one step below "I know you are, but what am I" on the quality of argument scale.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

The full explanation can be found here.

My bolding.

Also:

Lamest excuse I have ever seen.

"The most direct rebuttal one can give to these charges is that Gish and other creationists really don't believe them! The underlying point of the above quotation is that evolution is unscientific because it is not falsifiable (testable), yet creationists are always producing arguments and "evidences" that they say refute evolution. Gish does it in the article quoted above. In spite of that obvious contradiction, the argument impresses laypeople and legislators. But it completely distorts what Popper calls the logic of scientific discovery."

It is not falsifiable, which is exactly why one can present evidences that show it to be false, yet the believers in the religion of evolution then reject the data which falsified it. One can not falsify a theory if those who follow the theory only accept "evidences" that might support it, but dismiss anything that falsifies it. It is not falsifiable in the sense that it can not be tested, but in that it's followers won't let it be falsified in their own minds....

 

[USincognito]

Germ theory of disease by Louis Pasteur, creationist (1822–1895), who disproved spontaneous generation, still an evolutionary belief.

There is no evidence that Pasteur was a Creationist and spontaneous generation is not, nor ever was an "evolutionary belief". The origin of life is a field of study as separate from evolution as the formation of the earth is from orogeny.

Do we really see evidence of a massive asteroid? I know some are told to believe that.

Yeah, the Chicxulub crater in the Gulf of Mexico just north of the Yucatan peninsula. There's also the worldwide layer of iridium is always found at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary.

That will be addressed in a future thread.

Either start these new threads or stop talking about them. You might think we're waiting with baited breath for your next PRATT fest and quote mine parade, but we're not that impressed so far.

To me i think an issue i have with you is you have to much faith, you believe anything your told, radiometric dating proves an old earth you believe, big ateriod, you believe, jesus is god you believe.

A tired and transparent tactic from the guy who keeps quoting people (aka appealing to authority) is if the quotes were evidence instead of citing, you know, actual evidence. We actually have looked at the evidence and it all points towards deep time and evolution.

I hope you learn some skepticism in the future.

A Creationist talking about skepticism is hilariously ironic.

 

[USincognito]

I believe this false on all accounts and follows from an atheistic evolutionary worldview as it does not allow for free will.

No such thing exists. Evolution is a function of biology and the theory of evolution described the diversity of life we see now and in the fossil record. There is no worldview.

Collages courses high school textbooks all teach evolution as though its true and offer no critical thinking towards it or an opposing view.

No, the textbooks present the evidence for evolution of which there is an overwhelming amount. It is only in Creationist fantasy land that said evidence doesn't exist. Further the raising critical thinking is quite humorous because anyone engaged in critical thinking would see Creationism for the poppycock it is.

You must be willing to question authority...

Oh my! The irony of this coming from a guy does nothing but spam quotes (aka appeals to authority) is delicious.

We are indoctrinated to believe in evolution.

Actually that's called education.

The schools are even allowed to lie in textbooks to get the students to believe in evolution so of course most will be evolutionist. Evolution is taught because of a court decision not because it has overwhelming support.

A hilarious claim from the liars at CMI. There are no "lies" in the textbooks. Sure some errors make their way in, but this oft made claim about lies never produces any real substance. And no. Evolution is taught because it is science as opposed to Creationism which is not science. That's what the court keeps finding.

Hundreds of teachers, professors and researchers have lost their jobs because they did not bow down to the sacred cow of evolution

A plain old lie. There are a handful and many of them lost their jobs for refusing to do their jobs (teach science).

The theory of evolution (is) a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." -D.M.S. Watson, "Adaptation," Nature, Vol. 123 p. 233

Another dishonest quote mine. This version doesn't even have the ellipsis.

Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or is supported by logically coherent arguments, but because it does fit all the facts of taxonomy, of paleontology, and of geographical distribution, and because no alternative explanation is credible.

The extreme difficulty of obtaining the necessary data for any quantitative estimation of the efficiency of natural selection makes it seem probable that this theory will be re-established, if it be so, by the collapse of alternative explanations which are more easily attacked by observation and experiment. If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.

It's also from 1926.

“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

I told you the other day this quote is fraudulent.
https://etb-creationism.blogspot.com/2012/03/lies-creationists-tell-julian-huxley.html

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."
—*L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of Species," p. xxii (1977 edition).

Another dishonest quote mine.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html#quote4.7

>> Would Matthews recant? He was happy to do so, and wrote me a strong letter about the misuse that he felt Creationists had made of his introduction. Reading between the lines, I got the strong impression that what motivated Matthews in his introduction was not the logic of evolutionary theory at all. He wanted to poke the late Sir Gavin de Beer in the eye. De Beer was a fanatical Darwinian, and Matthews was dressing him down for the undue strength of his feelings! [Ruse 1984, 323]

I wrote to Professor Ruse in an attempt to get a copy of Matthews's letter, but he replied that some things don't survive 20 years and a move to another country, Matthews's letter being one of them. However, in his narrative of the Arkansas trial, Ruse relates that at the end of his testimony: <<

>> We had covered just about everything under the sun, with the possible exception of L. Harrison Matthews' claims about the religious nature of Darwinism. When Williams [the assistant attorney general of Arkansas] saw the scathing letter that Matthews wrote to me about Creationism, he decided not to introduce Matthews into the testimony. [Ruse 1984, 334] <<

One has to wonder why Williams, defending a bill that would have introduced creationism into the Arkansas school system, wouldn't bring up a biologist who supposedly put creationism and evolution on an equal footing. There can be little doubt that Matthews' letter revealed that creationists had misrepresented him.​

Hundreds on the list

Hah! Dissent from Darwin is a joke. Most of the scientists are professional Creationists, the wording of the statement is so vague that many who were later contacted said they didn't agree with the intent the Disco Toot implied to signatories. And the NCSE tied both hands a foot behind it's back and still got more signatories for Project Steve.
https://ncse.com/project-steve​

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The question is if evolution can account for science.

It's a question that doesn't make sense. Evolution only refers to biology, specifically how species came about through the change of alleles via mutation.

 

[Jimmy D]

It is not falsifiable, which is exactly why one can present evidences that show it to be false

LOL

yet the believers in the religion of evolution then reject the data which falsified it.

What data? (Please don't mention the hybridization of finches, no one has disputed the Grant's research)

One can not falsify a theory if those who follow the theory only accept "evidences" that might support it, but dismiss anything that falsifies it.

Like what? Have you got some secret evidence you've been hiding all these years whilst you've been going on about huskies?

It is not falsifiable in the sense that it can not be tested, but in that it's followers won't let it be falsified in their own minds....

Violations of nested hierachies, out of place fossils, irreducible complexity just to name a few.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Please support. It was not science as it was not tested against nature.

Plenty of ancient cultures tested their hypotheses against nature - it's impossible to do astronomy and predict astronomical events without that, and medical success requires it. Astronomy and astrology may have been synonymous, but, for example, Hipparchus calculated the precession of Earth's axis over 100 years BC. Taking just two early scientific cultures - early Greek science was empirical and included astronomy, geography, zoology, anatomy, botany, mineralogy; science in the medieval Islamic world included chemistry, pharmacology, medicine, opthalmology, optics, zoology, botany, geography, cartography, physics, astronomy and cosmology.

" ‘It is the consensus among contemporary historians, philosophers and sociologists of science that real science arose only once: in Europe.’ ..."

Ah, I see - 'Real Science'™ is European, and Christian... But without any explanation of what is meant by 'real science', it could as well be circular argument, special pleading, or a 'No true Scotsman' fallacy.

The question is if evolution can account for science.

Not as directly as it can account for superstitious, supernatural, and religious beliefs, but it can plausibly account for the capabilities and motivations behind scientific endeavour.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Thank you for posting on the thread topic.

Plenty of ancient cultures tested their hypotheses against nature - it's impossible to do astronomy and predict astronomical events without that, and medical success requires it. Astronomy and astrology may have been synonymous, but, for example, Hipparchus calculated the precession of Earth's axis over 100 years BC. Taking just two early scientific cultures - early Greek science was empirical and included astronomy, geography, zoology, anatomy, botany, mineralogy; science in the medieval Islamic world included chemistry, pharmacology, medicine, opthalmology, optics, zoology, botany, geography, cartography, physics, astronomy and cosmology.

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

Astronomy and astrology were not one and the same by any means, still are not. I am not sure the Greeks were "scientific cultures" in the sence we use it today. And Stark has a great chapter on Islamic advancements, they came from Christians mostly byzantine who were under Islamic rule but allowed some levels of freedom to pursue their interests.

Ah, I see - 'Real Science'™ is European, and Christian... But without any explanation of what is meant by 'real science', it could as well be circular argument, special pleading, or a 'No true Scotsman' fallacy.

or empirical science as in observation/testing etc. He goes in depth in his book on it sorry. I get in trouble for big quotes.

Not as directly as it can account for superstitious, supernatural, and religious beliefs, but it can plausibly account for the capabilities and motivations behind scientific endeavour.

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

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It is not falsifiable, which is exactly why one can present evidences that show it to be false, yet the believers in the religion of evolution then reject the data which falsified it. One can not falsify a theory if those who follow the theory only accept "evidences" that might support it, but dismiss anything that falsifies it. It is not falsifiable in the sense that it can not be tested, but in that it's followers won't let it be falsified in their own minds....

Like all scientific theories, it's open to revision or falsification, but many instances of evolution by natural selection have been observed, so any falsification would only apply to particular aspects of the theory (e.g. common ancestry), not to the underlying principle. In other words, that evolution by natural selection occurs is factual observation, but the wider implications based on that are open to question and falsification.

Indeed, the theory is being revised and extended all the time as we discover more about the mechanisms and processes involved.