Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[SelfSim]

That's a lark.

That's why no university or college has to teach Bio-medical Ethics classes along with the various Bio-medical technical proficiencies, right?

The usual ones; and those who know, know what those are.


If only the "scientific method"..............however it parades itself in some mythical singular fashion..................was indeed that linear.

Or that honest.

I yield on the basis that I think we understand eachother .. but I'll be watching!

 

[AV1611VET]

My biggest concern arises from the growing numbers of people who seem to have lost the ability to assess the results of those tests for themselves. They remain vocal, and they seem to think others, (like me), are also incapable of conducting such tests whilst holding claims in obeyance.
Their respect for other humans is conditional upon their unwillingness to acquire the capability of performing simple tests that work .. for whatever reasons.

I often challenge people to run a particular passage or religious belief or non-belief through their scientific method.

Then I sit back and watch them shun said method like it's a plague.

 

[AV1611VET]

So put what the citation says to the test .. Even thought experiments can be designed with the goal of demonstraitng consistency with the method.

LOL

I have more thought-provoking challenge threads here than Carter has liver pills.

In fact, I think my magnum opus here is either my Apple Challenge or my Raisin Bread Challenge.

Unfortunately they get featured creeped (excessively challenged) until the person critiquing them ceases to be able to understand them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

LOL

I have more thought-provoking challenge threads here than Carter has liver pills.

In fact, I think my magnum opus here is either my Apple Challenge or my Raisin Bread Challenge.

Unfortunately they get featured creeped (excessively challenged) until the person critiquing them ceases to be able to understand them.

I'd like to come up with my own Raisin Bran Challenge, but I just don't seem to have the fiber in myself to do so. ... pah-tum!

 

[River Jordan]

FWIW: I consider myself forturnate to live in world where I can trust and respect people, whilst taking their claims onboard and cross check those.

My biggest concern arises from the growing numbers of people who seem to have lost the ability to assess the results of those tests for themselves. They remain vocal, and they seem to think others, (like me), are also incapable of conducting such tests whilst holding claims in obeyance.
Their respect for other humans is conditional upon their unwillingness to acquire the capability of performing simple tests that work .. for whatever reasons.

Or more likely IMO, their cross checks and tests are very different than yours and mine.

 

[River Jordan]

What is it about, then?

I explained my point several times during our conversation, so maybe go back and re-read it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I explained my point several times during our conversation, so maybe go back and re-read it?

We'll just have to agree to partially disagree on a few small details.

 

[SelfSim]

Or more likely IMO, their cross checks and tests are very different than yours and mine.

If you mean that, observably, their assessment of their results is deliberately constrained to superficiality, so as to favour the introduction of their ideological beliefs prematurely, then I'd agree that such assessments are predictably of little-to-no practical value and are more than likely to produce chaos.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you mean that, observably, their assessment of their results is deliberately constrained to superficiality, so as to favour the introduction of their ideological beliefs prematurely, then I'd agree that such assessments are predictably of little-to-no practical value and are more than likely to produce chaos.

Reminds me of Thalidomide.

 

[River Jordan]

If you mean that, observably, their assessment of their results is deliberately constrained to superficiality, so as to favour the introduction of their ideological beliefs prematurely, then I'd agree that such assessments are predictably of little-to-no practical value and are more than likely to produce chaos.

I mean their tests and checks will likely be very different than yours or mine, in terms of what they test/check against, what outcomes they will and won't accept, what info they will consider, etc.

 

[SelfSim]

I mean their tests and checks will likely be very different than yours or mine, in terms of what they test/check against, what outcomes they will and won't accept, what info they will consider, etc.

And, if so, then I'd say the basis behind all of that, has demonstrated track record of leading towards animosity and/or belligerance, due to the nature of that basis, (compared with a basis of tests specifically attuned to achieving consensus for the purpose of achieving practical outcomes). The arguments in this forum would be my evidence supporting my claim there.

I'm talking about beliefs here.
When beliefs go undistinguished as being just that, aka: nothing more than simply beliefs, suspension of disbelief is not possible and the capacity of holding claims in obeyance, during any testing process, is at least compromised, if not lost altogether.
Beliefs tend to be unconstrained, which makes for a poor test criteria, when compared with the alternative.

 

[River Jordan]

And, if so, then I'd say the basis behind all of that, has demonstrated track record of leading towards animosity and/or belligerance, due to the nature of that basis, (compared with a basis of tests specifically attuned to achieving consensus for the purpose of achieving practical outcomes). The arguments in this forum would be my evidence supporting my claim there.

That's likely another difference. The primary goal of their tests is to affirm their faith.

I'm talking about beliefs here.
When beliefs go undistinguished as being just that, aka: nothing more than simply beliefs, suspension of disbelief is not possible and the capacity of holding claims in obeyance, during any testing process, is at least compromised, if not lost altogether.
Beliefs tend to be unconstrained, which makes for a poor test criteria, when compared with the alternative.

That depends on what one's goal is. If the goal is to affirm one's faith, then a test that achieves that goal will probably seem valuable and useful.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And, if so, then I'd say the basis behind all of that, has demonstrated track record of leading towards animosity and/or belligerance, due to the nature of that basis, (compared with a basis of tests specifically attuned to achieving consensus for the purpose of achieving practical outcomes). The arguments in this forum would be my evidence supporting my claim there.

I'm talking about beliefs here.
When beliefs go undistinguished as being just that, aka: nothing more than simply beliefs, suspension of disbelief is not possible and the capacity of holding claims in obeyance, during any testing process, is at least compromised, if not lost altogether.
Beliefs tend to be unconstrained, which makes for a poor test criteria, when compared with the alternative.

I generally agree with what you're saying, but then we get into the whole mish-mash of having to figure out what a justified true belief is, or what it can be, in relation to any one epistemological position, and whether or not any particular form of justification can actually take a person all the way to a state of claiming bona-fide knowledge.

And since science doesn't have the last word on epistemology where Christianity is under scrutiny, then we're all sort of stuck with the overtures being played about the Problem of the Criterion where something like biblical belief and faith are the concern.

Just for the record, though, I'm not here implying that Darwin was a fraud just because his theory doesn't accord with the Bible.

No, I don't think he was fraudulent at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is this true, folks?

My take on Charles Darwin, for what it's worth, is that his life mirrored that of Nimrod, who started out as "a mighty hunter before the LORD."

But he left his calling and went and built an empire so evil the Antichrist will resurrect it during the Tribulation.

Darwin, whose calling was into the medical field, left his calling and helped promote a philosophy so evil, it will be used by the Antichrist during the Tribulation (demonstrating abiogenesis by giving life to an image).

On a better note, I do believe both Nimrod and Darwin are in Heaven.

 

[River Jordan]

My take on Charles Darwin, for what it's worth, is that his life mirrored that of Nimrod, who started out as "a mighty hunter before the LORD."

But he left his calling and went and built an empire so evil the Antichrist will resurrect it during the Tribulation.

Darwin, whose calling was into the medical field, left his calling and helped promote a philosophy so evil, it will be used by the Antichrist during the Tribulation (demonstrating abiogenesis by giving life to an image).

On a better note, I do believe both Nimrod and Darwin are in Heaven.

Natural selection is an evil empire? How weird (since it's something that's easy to see yourself).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My take on Charles Darwin, for what it's worth, is that his life mirrored that of Nimrod, who started out as "a mighty hunter before the LORD."

But he left his calling and went and built an empire so evil the Antichrist will resurrect it during the Tribulation.

Darwin, whose calling was into the medical field, left his calling and helped promote a philosophy so evil, it will be used by the Antichrist during the Tribulation (demonstrating abiogenesis by giving life to an image).

Wow. You and I definitely have some differences of eschatological interpretation. It's a good thing I'm not here to dispute them.

On a better note, I do believe both Nimrod and Darwin are in Heaven.

I sincerely hope you're right about that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Natural selection is an evil empire?

Cute.

Way to miss the point.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow. You and I definitely have some differences of eschatological interpretation. It's a good thing I'm not here to dispute them.

I was hoping you'd chime in here!

 

[River Jordan]

Cute.

Way to miss the point.

Since Darwin's primary contribution (along with Wallace) was the discovery of natural selection as a mechanism for species change (something that was already known), what else was one to take from your post?

 

[AV1611VET]

Since Darwin's primary contribution (along with Wallace) was the discovery of natural selection as a mechanism for species change (something that was already known), what else was one to take from your post?

That's like asking, "Since Nimrod's primary contribution was the building of a large empire, what went wrong?"

It could be -- (and this is just by way of example) -- that God had intended for Darwin to be the one to discover a cure for cancer.