Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

[justlookinla]

The common denominator in those threads is; you.

The common denominator is that each person have their personal views and post them.

 

[justlookinla]

It was I who brought Collins into the thread, mentioning that he was a devout Christian.

Remember that?

Now, lets look again at what Collin's says about Darwin's theory:

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.
Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

Let's look again at Collins' website "what we believe":

"We at BioLogos believe that God used the process of evolution to create all the life on earth today. While we accept the science of evolution, we emphatically reject evolutionism. Evolutionism is the atheistic worldview that says life developed without God and without purpose. Instead, we agree with Christians who adhere to Intelligent Design and Creationism that the God of the Bible created the universe and all life. Christians disagree, however, on how God created. Young Earth Creationists believe that God created just 6,000 to 10,000 years ago and disagree with much of mainstream science. Supporters of Intelligent Design accept more of evolutionary science, but argue that some features of life are best explained by direct intervention by an intelligent agent rather than by God’s regular way of working through natural processes. We at BioLogos agree with the modern scientific consensus on the age of the earth and evolutionary development of all species, seeing these as descriptions of how God created. The term BioLogos comes from the Greek words bios (life) and logos (word), referring to the opening of the Gospel of John. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made.”​

I love quoting Collins to Darwinists.

 

[bhsmte]

No it is not by definition unless you have a private version of the scientific method. Right now I don't think it is possible but in the future God may see fit to give us emphirical evidence for his existence. By the rules of science, room must be kept open for this.

I think he appears to be not unintelligent. The problem is that he does not understand evolution but continues to tell us what it means. First, how is it prejudice? Second, his question makes no sense. Just take one small part of it. He continues to insist that evolution and natural selection is random. He holds to this no matter what the evidence. He is not really asking a question but making statements he cannot and apparently does not care to back up.

At least for now, I am through trying to reach him. I suspect nothing will get through but I never give up hope.

I started out trying to discuss with him calmly and logically. I have become very frustrated at his imperviousness and I found myself getting quite aggravated. For that reason I am not going to try to get through for a while. But as I said , I never give up on anybody.

You can avoid reality but you can't escape it.


At first I tried very hard to respond fairly but after a while I saw that it is very unlikely that he will get off his hobby horse so to speak. He seems to be totally fixated on it to exclusion of all evidence. I wish it were other but it is what it is.

Dizredux

The prejudice claimed by theo is laughable and when one examines the posts of just, it becomes even more laughable.

IMO, the quandary here has little to do with whether a certain poster understands the TOE and has much more to do, with whether a certain poster will allow ANYTHING to circumvent his deeply held belief, which likely does not do well when reality is discussed.

So what is one to do? You build defense mechanisms; denial, confirmation bias and selective reasoning and we see all these in living color with the poster in question. If reality does not suit your belief well and you have so much invested in the belief you can't let it go, then you manufacture your own reality, which lines up better with your belief and you work overtime to convince yourself your manufactured reality is real.

From a psychology standpoint, we see this often on these boards.

 

[bhsmte]

Let's look again at Collins' website "what we believe":

"We at BioLogos believe that God used the process of evolution to create all the life on earth today. While we accept the science of evolution, we emphatically reject evolutionism. Evolutionism is the atheistic worldview that says life developed without God and without purpose. Instead, we agree with Christians who adhere to Intelligent Design and Creationism that the God of the Bible created the universe and all life. Christians disagree, however, on how God created. Young Earth Creationists believe that God created just 6,000 to 10,000 years ago and disagree with much of mainstream science. Supporters of Intelligent Design accept more of evolutionary science, but argue that some features of life are best explained by direct intervention by an intelligent agent rather than by God’s regular way of working through natural processes. We at BioLogos agree with the modern scientific consensus on the age of the earth and evolutionary development of all species, seeing these as descriptions of how God created. The term BioLogos comes from the Greek words bios (life) and logos (word), referring to the opening of the Gospel of John. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made.”
​

I love quoting Collins to Darwinists.

I don't see anywhere where Collin's has a problem with the TOE as it stands. Is he recommending God be inserted into the TOE anywhere? Being a scientist, he probably realizes science can't do that without empirical evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

I think he appears to be not unintelligent. The problem is that he does not understand evolution but continues to tell us what it means. First, how is it prejudice? Second, his question makes no sense. Just take one small part of it. He continues to insist that evolution and natural selection is random. He holds to this no matter what the evidence. He is not really asking a question but making statements he cannot and apparently does not care to back up.

1) I constantly post the definition of Darwinism, one which has no disagreement among those who embrace the guesses and suppositions which conclude that all life is the result of only, solely, completely a naturalistic process.

2) There is no evidence that Darwinist creationism is anything but creationism by an entirely naturalistic process.

At least for now, I am through trying to reach him. I suspect nothing will get through but I never give up hope.

I have hope that you will one day publicly proclaim Jesus Christ as creator. So far, you've reacted to those who oppose Darwinist creationism with mockery, ridicule and personal denigration.

I started out trying to discuss with him calmly and logically. I have become very frustrated at his imperviousness and I found myself getting quite aggravated.

It's not your fault that you began responding to individuals in a less than stellar manner, right? It's their fault.

For that reason I am not going to try to get through for a while. But as I said , I never give up on anybody.

You can avoid reality but you can't escape it.

Yes, I agree. And the reality is that Darwinist creationism is an inherently atheistic creationist view.

At first I tried very hard to respond fairly but after a while I saw that it is very unlikely that he will get off his hobby horse so to speak.

Yep, your behavior isn't your fault is it?

He seems to be totally fixated on it to exclusion of all evidence. I wish it were other but it is what it is.

You seem totally fixated on opposing those who oppose Darwinist creationism.

 

[justlookinla]

I don't see anywhere where Collin's has a problem with the TOE as it stands. Is he recommending God be inserted into the TOE anywhere? Being a scientist, he probably realizes science can't do that without empirical evidence.

He's pointing out that God is involved in creation. He's not supporting the Darwinist creationism teaching that all of life is solely, completely, totally by naturalistic processes.

Many others agree with that view also.....

Page 1 of many many pages......

 

[bhsmte]

The common denominator is that each person have their personal views and post them.

With you being the common denominator.

 

[bhsmte]

He's pointing out that God is involved in creation. He's not supporting the Darwinist creationism teaching that all of life is solely, completely, totally by naturalistic processes.

Many others agree with that view also.....

Page 1 of many many pages......

Excuse me, did Collins not state how powerful the evidence was to support Darwin's theory? And of course he doesn't support Darwin creationism, because it doesn't exist, that would be justlookinlaism, but he is sure impressed with Darwin's work.

Wow, that's a lot of scientists. I wonder how it compares to all the PHD biologists who know much more about evolution, then the several non-biologists on this list?

That's ok, only 99% of the biologists in the national academy of sciences agree with the TOE.

If you had heart disease, would you go to a dermatologist, or a cardiologist?

 

[justlookinla]

I don't see anywhere where Collin's has a problem with the TOE as it stands. Is he recommending God be inserted into the TOE anywhere? Being a scientist, he probably realizes science can't do that without empirical evidence.

You don't see a problem with Collins' view that more than naturalistic forces were involved in creation, as contrasted to Darwinist creationism which teaches that only naturalistic forces were involved in creation?

 

[justlookinla]

With you being the common denominator.

With your views also being the common denominator.

 

[justlookinla]

Excuse me, did Collins not state how powerful the evidence was to support Darwin's theory? And of course he doesn't support Darwin creationism, because it doesn't exist, that would be justlookinlaism, but he is sure impressed with Darwin's work.

Darwinist creationism by entirely naturalistic processes doesn't exist? Would you then please reveal what other processes are allowed in Darwinist creationism other than naturalistic processes? I've asked you that question several times now and you always ignore it.

Wow, that's a lot of scientists. I wonder how it compares to all the PHD biologists who know much more about evolution, then the several non-biologists on this list?

That's ok, only 99% of the biologists in the national academy of sciences agree with the TOE.

If you had heart disease, would you go to a dermatologist, or a cardiologist?

Personally, I'd first go to God. It's worked in the past.

 

[bhsmte]

You don't see a problem with Collins' view that more than naturalistic forces were involved in creation, as contrasted to Darwinist creationism which teaches that only naturalistic forces were involved in creation?

I see no problem with his view, none what so ever, as that is his personal belief. Everyone is entitled to their personal beliefs, they just aren't entitled to their own facts and Collin's knows this better than anyone.

Don't you think I knew Collins faith when I brought him into the thread? Do you see me disagreeing with other posters on this thread who are Christians who believe God was involved? No, I only take issue, when someone can't see reality and misrepresents, because they need to in order to protect a specific personal belief.

Collins also emphatically praises Darwin's work and discusses how strong the evidence is to support his theory and Collin's is quite aware of what the theory states, don't ya think?

 

[bhsmte]

With your views also being the common denominator.

You wish.

 

[justlookinla]

I see no problem with his view, none what so ever, as that is his personal belief. Everyone is entitled to their personal beliefs, they just aren't entitled to their own facts and Collin's knows this better than anyone.

Don't you think I knew Collins faith when I brought him into the thread? Do you see me disagreeing with other posters on this thread who are Christians who believe God was involved? No, I only take issue, when someone can't see reality and misrepresents, because they need to in order to protect a specific personal belief.

We all have specific personal beliefs. Because one will not accept your specific personal belief, you then turn to behavior which is not addressing the issue at hand, but is instead reflecting on the inadequacy, intelligence and confusion of one who doesn't agree with your personal belief.

If you have anything other than naturalistic forces involved in the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago, please post it.

Collins also emphatically praises Darwin's work and discusses how strong the evidence is to support his theory and Collin's is quite aware of what the theory states, don't ya think?

Reconcile Collins view of theistic evolution with the view that ONLY naturalistic processes (which is the cornerstone of Darwinist creationism) are responsible for the life we observe today.

You're not addressing the question I asked. Here it is again....

You don't see a problem with Collins' view that more than naturalistic forces were involved in creation, as contrasted to Darwinist creationism which teaches that only naturalistic forces were involved in creation?

 

[bhsmte]

We all have specific personal beliefs. Because one will not accept your specific personal belief, you then turn to behavior which is not addressing the issue at hand, but is instead reflecting on the inadequacy, intelligence and confusion of one who doesn't agree with your personal belief.

If you have anything other than naturalistic forces involved in the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago, please post it.



Reconcile Collins view of theistic evolution with the view that ONLY naturalistic processes (which is the cornerstone of Darwinist creationism) are responsible for the life we observe today.

You're not addressing the question I asked. Here it is again....

You don't see a problem with Collins' view that more than naturalistic forces were involved in creation, as contrasted to Darwinist creationism which teaches that only naturalistic forces were involved in creation?

I will say again, I have no issue with Collin's view, none what so ever, do you not understand this? Collin's view is his personal belief, that a God was involved in the process, why should I have a problem with Collin's personal belief?

And it appears you missed post 103 from last night, where I answered your question in regards to something other than natural processes.

As I stated, science only looks at natural processes and it just so happens, the theory works beautifully, with only natural processes included, which by the way, is all the evidence points to.

And I will say this once again for clarity; if one wants to add other elements to the TOE, such as; aliens from another planet and or some God, they are welcome to do so, for their own personal satisfaction.

You see, when I look at scientific theories, I rely on what the evidence shows to support the theory, and I don't look to add things to the theory for kicks. When I studied physiology in graduate school, I looked at the science and what the evidence showed and I likely would not have graduated, if I decided I wanted to alter the work, by adding random variables to scientific theories and or facts.

But, a guy like Collins, being a scientist, knows he has no objective evidence for a God to be added to the TOE, so he does this with his own personal faith.

Originally Posted by justlookinla

Nope, not what I asked. Once again.

If you can present evidence that Darwinism teaches there are other factors, other than naturalistic processes, which created humanity from a single life from from long long ago, it would be very interesting for you to present it.
​

Evolution looks at naturalistic processes, like any scientific theory.

If you need other processes to be involved in a scientific theory, go ahead and add them for your own personal satisfaction.

Do you understand that science looks at naturalistic processes? Yes or no?

 

[justlookinla]

I see no problem with his view, none what so ever, as that is his personal belief. Everyone is entitled to their personal beliefs, they just aren't entitled to their own facts and Collin's knows this better than anyone.

Would you then explain how supernatural processes, per Collins, are compatible with the view that ONLY natural processes created the complexity and variety of life which we observe today?

Don't you think I knew Collins faith when I brought him into the thread?

I don't know.

Do you see me disagreeing with other posters on this thread who are Christians who believe God was involved?

Depends on if they accept Darwinism or not.

No, I only take issue, when someone can't see reality and misrepresents, because they need to in order to protect a specific personal belief.

Wouldn't this apply to you also?

Collins also emphatically praises Darwin's work and discusses how strong the evidence is to support his theory and Collin's is quite aware of what the theory states, don't ya think?

Does the theory state that only natural processes created humanity? Yes, it does. Does Collins believe that only natural processes created humanity. No, he doesn't.

 

[bhsmte]

Would you then explain how supernatural processes, per Collins, are compatible with the view that ONLY natural processes created the complexity and variety of life which we observe today?

They are compatible, because that is his personal faith. When you have a proposed force, that is not falsifiable, you can add it to anything and it will be compatible. I could say aliens from another planet was the force behind evolution and no one could prove me wrong. I can say God made my team win on Saturday and no one could prove me wrong. I could say God made Obama win the election and no one could prove me wrong and on and on and on. Bottom line; add as needed.

But Collins is a scientist, which is why he has such support for Darwin's work, because he is doing science.

I don't know.



Depends on if they accept Darwinism or not.

Depends on if they acknowledge the overwhelming evidence to support scientific theories or not and whether they make claims, they can not substantiate.

Wouldn't this apply to you also?

If I ignore scientific evidence and reality, sure.



Does the theory state that only natural processes created humanity? Yes, it does. Does Collins believe that only natural processes created humanity. No, he doesn't.

Collins whole heartedly supports the theory. In fact he states; doing biology without evolution is like doing physics without math. So Collins himself fully supports what the theory states and the theory ONLY DEALS IN NATURAL PROCESSES. Collin's belief of God being behind it, is his personal faith and as I said above, God or other non falsifiable forces can be added to anything.

 

[justlookinla]

I will say again, I have no issue with Collin's view, none what so ever, do you not understand this? Collin's view is his personal belief, that a God was involved in the process, why should I have a problem with Collin's personal belief?

Then you accept his belief that supernatural processes were involved in the creation of the complex and varied life we observe today? If you have no problems with his view, that seems to be your position.

And it appears you missed post 103 from last night, where I answered your question in regards to something other than natural processes.

"Evolution looks at naturalistic processes, like any scientific theory.

If you need other processes to be involved in a scientific theory, go ahead and add them for your own personal satisfaction.

Do you understand that science looks at naturalistic processes? Yes or no?"​

That's not answering anything.

As I stated, science only looks at natural processes and it just so happens, the theory works beautifully, with only natural processes included, which by the way, is all the evidence points to.

Yes, I realize that's your view, your belief.

And I will say this once again for clarity; if one wants to add other elements to the TOE, such as; aliens from another planet and or some God, they are welcome to do so, for their own personal satisfaction.

Collins certainly added to the view that only natural processes are responsible for the complexity and variety of life we observe today.

You see, when I look at scientific theories, I rely on what the evidence shows to support the theory, and I don't look to add things to the theory for kicks. When I studied physiology in graduate school, I looked at the science and what the evidence showed and I likely would not have graduated, if I decided I wanted to alter the work, by adding random variables to scientific theories and or facts.

That has nothing to do with the various views of creationism, i.e, how humanity came into existence.

But, a guy like Collins, being a scientist, knows he has no objective evidence for a God to be added to the TOE, so he does this with his own personal faith.

Thereby rejecting the premise that only naturalistic forces were responsible for the creation of humanity.

Originally Posted by justlookinla

Nope, not what I asked. Once again.

If you can present evidence that Darwinism teaches there are other factors, other than naturalistic processes, which created humanity from a single life from from long long ago, it would be very interesting for you to present it.
​

Evolution looks at naturalistic processes, like any scientific theory.

If you need other processes to be involved in a scientific theory, go ahead and add them for your own personal satisfaction.

Do you understand that science looks at naturalistic processes? Yes or no?

Yes, I understand that science looks at naturalistic processes. I agree, there is science for naturalistic processes. There is no science however that humanity is the result solely, completely, totally by naturalistic processes.

 

[justlookinla]

Collins whole heartedly supports the theory. In fact he states; doing biology without evolution is like doing physics without math. So Collins himself fully supports what the theory states and the theory ONLY DEALS IN NATURAL PROCESSES. Collin's belief of God being behind it, is his personal faith.

Darwinist creationism teaches that ONLY naturalistic processes were involved in the creation of humanity. Collins rejects that, as do I.

How about you? Do you agree that humanity is the result of ONLY naturalistic processes?

 

[bhsmte]

Then you accept his belief that supernatural processes were involved in the creation of the complex and varied life we observe today? If you have no problems with his view, that seems to be your position.

If I don't believe the Christian God exists, it would be quite difficult for his view of God being behind evolution, to also be mine, don't ya think? But, I fully respect his desire to add a non-falsifiable factor for his own personal belief.

"Evolution looks at naturalistic processes, like any scientific theory.

If you need other processes to be involved in a scientific theory, go ahead and add them for your own personal satisfaction.

Do you understand that science looks at naturalistic processes? Yes or no?"
​

That's not answering anything.

Sure it does. Science only deals in natural factors and the theory works beautifully as is, so no non natural factors are needed to make the theory work. Quite simple really.

Yes, I realize that's your view, your belief.

That is what the objective evidence shows.

Collins certainly added to the view that only natural processes are responsible for the complexity and variety of life we observe today.

Yes he did.

That has nothing to do with the various views of creationism, i.e, how humanity came into existence.



Thereby rejecting the premise that only naturalistic forces were responsible for the creation of humanity.



Yes, I understand that science looks at naturalistic processes. I agree, there is science for naturalistic processes. There is no science however that humanity is the result solely, completely, totally by naturalistic processes.

There is the TOE, which Collins fully accepts, and it only speaks of natural processes. If you don't want to accept it, then don't.