Seeing fossils without the Evolution goggles

[Speedwell]

Christians have adopted false evolutionary creation myths, the same way ancient Israel went after false gods all throughout their history. Think about how much easier it is to get along in modern society by professing belief in Evolution. Try making it in the academic or educational world if you publicly blaspheme Darwinian ideology. It's just always easier to flow with the trends of the world. None of this should surprise us.

Never mind. As long as they adhere to the tenets of the Nicene Creed all will be well.

 

[lifepsyop]

Methodological naturalism is the only way by which science can function. There is literally no other way to do science.

You don't need to tell me. It's your own ranks that are having trouble with that. Half of you guys are denying it, while the other half is trying to justify it.

The problem is that your "logical conclusions" isn't based on logic; it's based on conflation of ideas. That you keep conflating things is leading you to erroneous, not logical conclusions.

Oh, well 6 pages into this thread and I'm still waiting for someone to point out the error. It is mostly just chanting mantras of "Evolution is a fact!", or attempts to change the subject to Creationism.

Even methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism are two different albeit related things, but in the above post you appear to treat them as synonymous.

I'm conflating them? This is rich. Like your camp isn't always conflating the natural world with the belief in naturally-caused origins?

"We can only measure natural process, therefore all of reality originates from natural process."

Imposing metaphysics onto methodology is all evolutionists really know how to do.

 

[Speedwell]

"We can only measure natural process, therefore all of reality originates from natural process."

I don't know how it is now, but back in my day all of us science majors had to take a philosophy of science course in which we learned that your bogus quote is a lie.

If Pitabread wants an "error" to point out, I offer this one.

 

[SelfSim]

Methodological naturalism is the only way by which science can function. There is literally no other way to do science.

You don't need to tell me. It's your own ranks that are having trouble with that.

I think lifepsyop's criticism here is valid from his/her viewpoint.

The disrepency however is purely about the personal choice of philosophical orientation.
However, philosophies don't affect the scientific process .. they are put aside and treated with indifference. Evolution (as with the rest of science) also uses logical inference in drawing conclusions
The key issue is whether or not there is objective evidence for any 'going in' posit(s) before drawing any logically inferred conclusions. Evolution's evidence is objectively repeatable and independently verifiable, whereas ideologies are based on untestable beliefs. It doesn't make any difference whether 'Methodological naturalism' beliefs are held or not .. Evolution's testable predictions, drawn from observations of fossilized conclusions, will not change because of those beliefs .. even in the case where they just happen to reinforce them.

Half of you guys are denying it, while the other half is trying to justify it.

Different minds think differently .. so what?

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope ... science requires no assumed '-isms'.

What's this then?

Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values.

SOURCE

 

[Subduction Zone]

You want to look at history honestly?

Okay ... QED:

Some scientists say the coronavirus came from bats.

In a site I just came from, one poster pointed out that bats were considered a delicacy; and so some merchants began capturing and selling them on the food market.

It was then just a matter of time before diseased bats were eaten by people, and now we've got the virus.

But what intrigues me is one of academia's favorite targets of Biblical ridicule, namely:

Leviticus 11.19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

So while God placed the bat off-limits to human consumption, prompting academia to laugh at Him, guess Who knew what He was talking about all this time?

If you studied history you would see that violence has gone down over the years. Right now it is reported more than ever before which is why some are misled. But an honest look at history shows an ever increasing standard of living and lowering of violence. It is not correct to focus only on the exceptions. One must look at all of the data.


And I see that you are misinterpreting both the Bible and academia again. The Bible in that verse called the bat the same "kind" as various birds. This is a failure of you and your definition of "kind" again. It does not seem to agree with the Bible. Remember, false attacks of this sort are examples of breaking the Ninth Commandment. Christians should not regularly break that law.

And you keep ducking the question that shows how we know that you are wrong. How do you know that the Earth is not Flat?

 

[SelfSim]

What's this then? ..

That's what happens when science is turned into a religion.

You may see this happening here when discussing Evolution .. (I get that). I share that view, in some cases, and on some occasions. That does not mean that science's widely published and widely taught defining process, is based on any 'going-in' assumed beliefs .. (the latter never appears in that objectively stated process).

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's this then?


SOURCE

That article is about scientism. A mistake that no one on the evolution side has made here. Again, watch the false accusations. Did you not understand that scientism is applying science to conditions that really are beyond the scope of present day science? For example if one applied science to morals that would be "scientism". No one has done that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's what happens when science is turned into a religion.

You may see this happening here when discussing Evolution .. (I get that). I share that view, in some cases, and on some occasions. That does not mean that science's widely published and widely taught defining process, is based on any 'going-in' assumed beliefs .. (the latter never appears in that objectively stated process).

Edited.
Sorry, I should have read your whole post.

 

[pitabread]

You don't need to tell me. It's your own ranks that are having trouble with that. Half of you guys are denying it, while the other half is trying to justify it.

The only people I see taking issue with methodological naturalism are creationists.

Perhaps you are looking into a mirror?

Oh, well 6 pages into this thread and I'm still waiting for someone to point out the error.

For starters, your entire OP is pure supposition.

I'm conflating them?

Yes. Yes, you are. Repeatedly.

The fact you seem immune to recognizing and correcting your errors is on you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

LOL

I started to ask: "I assume you must have a college degree in something?"

But I decided to look at your profile first, and it reads:

"Educator--I teach literature and writing"

Go academia!

The antipathy towards the pursuit of research, education, and scholarship is understandable; sometimes it's jealousy, but often it's the fear of having one's precious myths and illusions exposed as such.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You don't need to tell me. It's your own ranks that are having trouble with that. Half of you guys are denying it, while the other half is trying to justify it.

No scientist can deny methodological naturalism, but metaphysical naturalism is optional.

... Like your camp isn't always conflating the natural world with the belief in naturally-caused origins?

"We can only measure natural process, therefore all of reality originates from natural process."

Imposing metaphysics onto methodology is all evolutionists really know how to do.

That's not how it works; the metaphysics is irrelevant. If we can find a natural explanation for the phenomena we observe, that is testable, has explanatory power (e.g. gives insight into & understanding of the phenomena), makes successful predictions, links or unifies disparate areas of knowledge, is conceptually and ontologically parsimonious, broadly coheres with our existing body of knowledge, and doesn't raise unanswerable questions - then we simply don't need supernatural or paranormal 'explanations' that typically have none of the features of a good explanation (as above).

So if we have a good explanation, i.e. an explanation that works (like the ToE), it makes no difference whether you believe the universe was created last Thursday complete with a fake history, or any other fanciful mythology or theological conceit, the theory still explains the observations.

Science makes no claims to truth, it's pragmatic; it says that the current theory is the best available explanation by the pragmatic criteria above, so whatever the underlying nature of reality, it behaves as if the theory is a good model of it.

 

[AV1611VET]

The antipathy towards the pursuit of research, education, and scholarship is understandable; sometimes it's jealousy, but often it's the fear of having one's precious myths and illusions exposed as such.

According to this "pursuit of research, education, and scholarship," is Genesis 1 a myth, or an illusion?

 

[Speedwell]

According to this "pursuit of research, education, and scholarship," is Genesis 1 a myth, or an illusion?

While you were gone the Mods issued a definitive ruling that describing or referring to the first two books of Genesis as "myth" is a violation.

 

[AV1611VET]

While you were gone the Mods issued a definitive ruling that describing or referring to the first two books of Genesis as "myth" is a violation.

Oh ... okay.

I'll withdraw the question.

 

[lifepsyop]

No scientist can deny methodological naturalism, but metaphysical naturalism is optional.

That's not how it works; the metaphysics is irrelevant.

Who do you think you're kidding? The Evolutionary worldview is constantly preached as the fundamental nature of reality as illuminated to us by "science", from the evolution of the cosmos itself, to the human mind. This metaphysical worldview permeates virtually every popular-science publication in the world. If you deny this, you may as well start arguing that the sky isn't blue.

*If* we can find a natural explanation for the phenomena we observe, that is testable, has explanatory power (e.g. gives insight into & understanding of the phenomena), makes successful predictions, links or unifies disparate areas of knowledge, is conceptually and ontologically parsimonious, broadly coheres with our existing body of knowledge, and doesn't raise unanswerable questions - then we simply don't need supernatural or paranormal 'explanations' that typically have none of the features of a good explanation (as above).

Demonstrably false. There is never any *if* ...
If there is no known natural explanation, then all it means is "science" is still working on finding it.

Even prior to the supposed "Big Bang" is now assumed to be a point in time where natural processes simply worked different than they do today. There is never any proposed limit to nature. It is an endless chain of propositions that are followed into the foundations of reality.

Francis Bacon referred to this as the search for the "secret motions" behind all things. It is that assumption of the almighty natural process that underlies all of reality.

That is the root of your mystical naturalist ideology that you've convinced yourself is a science.

So if we have a good explanation, i.e. an explanation that works (like the ToE), it makes no difference whether you believe the universe was created last Thursday complete with a fake history, or any other fanciful mythology or theological conceit, the theory still explains the observations.

it only "works" for you because it aligns with your ideology. See, you still believe that Evolution was arrived at scientifically.

Look at Abiogenesis... it is advanced with basically the same confidence as the ToE, despite its lack of an explanation that "works" ... Failing an explanation that "works", it is simply assumed that "science" is still working on finding the natural-cause explanation.

Your claim that science hinges on a "good explanation" is demonstrably false. The facts show that an underlying Evolutionary (natuarlistic) ideology is always rooted underneath different attempts at modeling an explanation.

It's always been that way. Charles Darwin's grandfather published romantic epics on the story of evolution of all animal life, before Charles was even born. The ideology has always driven everything.

Science makes no claims to truth, it's pragmatic; it says that the current theory is the best available explanation by the pragmatic criteria above, so whatever the underlying nature of reality, it behaves as if the theory is a good model of it.

Always amusing when evolutionists anthropomorphize "Science"

Everything you've wrote in this post is basically just tired, easily refuted propaganda to make your ideology seem more reasonable... make it seem like practitioners of Evolutionary ideology are all objective, skeptical people that are only following the data to the most likely conclusion. This is a laughably false and distorted view of reality.

Let's look at an example of "science" going on right now:

All the mainstream "health experts" encouraging severe lockdowns on states right now, clutching their pearls that any social gathering is going to kill grandma with COVID, that it's worth destroying national economies, and all sorts of other cruel restrictions... Then all of the same "experts" simultaneously looking the other way, or even cheering on mass city gatherings in which they are in political agreement. We can all see the hypocrisy with our own eyes. It's not even hidden anymore. I'd love to see someone try and deny this is happening. Let the liars identify themselves.

 

[Speedwell]

There is never any proposed limit to nature.

What else would you expect from a God of unlimited creative power?

It is that assumption of the almighty natural process that underlies all of reality.

Natural processes are reality. It is divine providence which underlies it.

Look at Abiogenesis... it is advanced with basically the same confidence as the ToE, despite its lack of an explanation that "works" ... Failing an explanation that "works", it is simply assumed that "science" is still working on finding the natural-cause explanation.

It's a good bet--God seems to like doing things that way.

Let's look at an example of "science" going on right now:

All the mainstream "health experts" encouraging severe lockdowns on states right now, clutching their pearls that any social gathering is going to kill grandma with COVID, that it's worth destroying national economies, and all sorts of other cruel restrictions... Then all of the same "experts" simultaneously looking the other way, or even cheering on mass city gatherings in which they are in political agreement. We can all see the hypocrisy with our own eyes. It's not even hidden anymore. I'd love to see someone try and deny this is happening. Let the liars identify themselves.

We could have guessed what your politics are without that offensive, fallacious and off-topic rant.

 

[lifepsyop]

We could have guessed what your politics are without that offensive, fallacious and off-topic rant.

The claim has been made repeatedly that these institutions are just doing good science and not imposing their ideologies onto their interpretations of reality.

Current events provide a good look under the hood of modern institutions and how ideologically driven they are.

If it was all about the "science", we wouldn't have such shameless self-contradiction on full display for everyone to see, where the scientific "experts" completely invert their stances based on political alignment of the social gatherings.

This behavior is fully documented.


Suddenly, Public Health Officials Say Social Justice Matters More Than Social Distance

"For months, public health experts have urged Americans to take every precaution to stop the spread of Covid-19—stay at home, steer clear of friends and extended family, and absolutely avoid large gatherings.


Now some of those experts are broadcasting a new message: It’s time to get out of the house and join the mass protests against racism.


“We should always evaluate the risks and benefits of efforts to control the virus,” Jennifer Nuzzo, a Johns Hopkins epidemiologist, tweeted on Tuesday. “In this moment the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus.” ...


It’s a message echoed by media outlets and some of the most prominent public health experts in America, like former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Tom Frieden, who loudly warned against efforts to rush reopening but is now supportive of mass protests. Their claim: If we don’t address racial inequality, it’ll be that much harder to fight Covid-19. There’s also evidence that the virus doesn’t spread easily outdoors, especially if people wear masks.

The experts maintain that their messages are consistent—that they were always flexible on Americans going outside, that they want protesters to take precautions and that they're prioritizing public health by demanding an urgent fix to systemic racism.

But their messages are also confounding to many who spent the spring strictly isolated on the advice of health officials, only to hear that the need might not be so absolute after all..."


I shouldn't even have to link this. We all witnessed this happen over the past few months.

But some people are so smitten by the myth of the objectivity of scientific institutions, they won't be able to admit what is now self evident.

If you can't admit to the overwhelming ideological bias driving supposedly "science"-based institutions... that you are witnessing right before your eyes, unconcealed and out in the open... what hope do you have of identifying such biases anywhere else?

 

[pitabread]

oh, nevermind

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

According to this "pursuit of research, education, and scholarship," is Genesis 1 a myth, or an illusion?

It's clearly not an illusion (although when taken literally it might fall into that category, or maybe self-delusion).