Uncommon Descent: The Sudden Appearance of Homo sapians

Lucretius · Mar 14, 2005

Matthew. Without your belief in God in the first place, you wouldn't have even read Ross' essay OR called it "evidence". Science does not evidence anything that isn't falsifiable because falsifiability is a necessity for something to be called science.

Matthew777 · Mar 14, 2005

Then I must ask again, How is naturalism falsifiable?

notto · Mar 14, 2005

Matthew777 said:
Then I must ask again, How is naturalism falsifiable?

Naturalism as a philosophy isn't falsifiable. Claims on what can happen naturally are. Science isn't naturalism. It is the study of what we can observe to see happening and what its affects are. When we hypothesize these effects, it can be falsified because we can show that a natural phenomena didn't do something or we can discover another natural and observable explanation.

A good example of this is the falsification of spontaneous generation. It is a great example of how and why science works on natural mechanisms and with falsifiable hypothesis.

Lucretius · Mar 14, 2005

Matthew777 said:
Then I must ask again, How is naturalism falsifiable?

Philosophy of Science

Matthew777 · Mar 14, 2005

I am perfectly comfortable with a Darwinian view of the origin of the species, given that the available evidence supports such a conclusion and assuming that God intentionally made such a world possible.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

Lucretius · Mar 14, 2005

I thought you opposed evolution. I mean, every thread I have seen you make seems to be trying to say "Evolution is false!"

So you accept Common Descent?

Matthew777 · Mar 14, 2005

Lucretius said:
I thought you opposed evolution. I mean, every thread I have seen you make seems to be trying to say "Evolution is false!"

So you accept Common Descent?

I am not opposed to evolution, I am opposed to the materialistic connotations of the word and what certain materialists (i.e. Richard Dawkins) have attempted to pervert evolutionary theory into.
Science should never be a method for atheist evangelism.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

Lucretius · Mar 14, 2005

Matthew777 said:
I am not opposed to evolution, I am opposed to the materialistic connotations of the word and what certain materialists (i.e. Richard Dawkins) have attempted to pervert evolutionary theory into.
Science should never be a method for atheist evangelism.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/naturalism.html

Matthew777 · Mar 14, 2005

Dawkins, on the other hand, seems to be a fringe example. Other prominent evolutionists, even those who are atheistic, have insisted on the compatability of evolution and religious faith. Gould is one good example.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

Nathan Poe · Mar 14, 2005

Matthew777 said:
Science should never be a method for atheist evangelism.

Or any other evangelism, for that matter.

Matthew777 · Mar 14, 2005

Nathan Poe said:
Or any other evangelism, for that matter.

...which is why I became increasingly offended by "Scientific" Creationism.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

theFijian · Mar 15, 2005

Matthew777 said:
The lack of a naturalistic mechanism to account for it and the lack of a smooth fossil transition.

How smooth is smooth?

Nathan Poe · Mar 15, 2005

Matthew777 said:
This could be an example of rapid evolutionary change that only could have been guided by the providence of God.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

Except that "rapid evolutionary change" != "only guided by the providence of God."

Supposeing you're right about the effect; you're taking a giant leap assuming the cause.

Matthew777 · Mar 15, 2005

Nathan Poe said:
Except that "rapid evolutionary change" != "only guided by the providence of God."

Supposeing you're right about the effect; you're taking a giant leap assuming the cause.

All faith involves leap.

Nathan Poe · Mar 15, 2005

Matthew777 said:
All faith involves leap.

Science requires a tad more grounding.

Matthew777 · Mar 15, 2005

Reason can only tell us what is the most likely possibility. Then it is the responsibility of faith to take the leap.

Nathan Poe · Mar 15, 2005

Matthew777 said:
Reason can only tell us what is the most likely possibility. Then it is the responsibility of faith to take the leap.

Keirkegaard would agree.

personally, I'd like to at least be pretty sure there's water in the pool before cannonballing off the high-dive.

Matthew777 · Mar 15, 2005

Nathan Poe said:
Keirkegaard would agree.

He is, after all, one of my favorites.

For Philosophy of Religion, we wrote letters between conflicting theistic philosophers on the nature of faith.
I wrote letters between Kierkegaard and C.S. Lewis; the fideist vs. the evidentialist. My instructor enjoyed it.
I am somewhere in between.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

Uncommon Descent: The Sudden Appearance of Homo sapians

Senior Veteran

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

Legend

Senior Veteran

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

Senior Veteran

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

Senior Veteran

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

Well-Known Member

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

Well-Known Member

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

Well-Known Member

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency