Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

[justlookinla]

Every truth you touch.

You distort a scientific theory into saying things it has never said, for starters.

Are you going to address the scientific theory of evolution, or not? Are you capable of an adult conversation?

You're speaking in the meaningless gibberish of generalizations. Give a specific example.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh no, I can assure you I'm going to participate.

Since this is a sub-forum about creation and evolution, it would follow that the discussions would be about creation and evolution.

You refuse to discuss the scientific theory of evolution. How can you claim to be a participant when you refuse to address the science?

 

[bhsmte]

I disagree with Justlookinlaism, which is what they are referencing.

Of course, you can't deal with this topic honestly. You refuse to discuss the actual science, and instead distort the truth. Why is that?

Here is the deal, Collins believes in God, like some scientists do. He also fully embraces the TOE as stated and he makes that quite obvious. Just seems to think this cause some sort of problem, but it is a problem that is manufactured by justlookinlaism.

Collins, as others do, have a personal belief that a God is behind evolution and that is peachy. Anyone can add a non-falsifiable factor to be behind evolution and pick and choose your non-falsifiable factor at your whim.

One could state; aliens from another planet are behind evolution. Could anyone prove them wrong?

 

[bhsmte]

Oh no, I can assure you I'm going to participate.

Since this is a sub-forum about creation and evolution, it would follow that the discussions would be about creation and evolution.

Maybe not. What's your view on Alabama winning yet another national championship this year?

Will Alabama have your God on their side?

 

[justlookinla]

The idea of an accident presupposes that there is some kind of entity whose plan had failed at some point as opposed to no entity at all.

I disagree. The use of the term 'accident' is suggestive that the creation of humanity was just happenstance.

Even so, how is an accident necessarily a bad thing? Potato chips were an accident. Plenty of good people in the world were accidents.

It may or may not be a bad thing. It's how one would view their existence.

And if accidents are a bad thing, does that somehow make them an impossibility?

Accidents happen. A 'billion' accidents happened to create humanity, if we are to believe some views of life.

I never understood this whole "you believe it was all an accident" argument from any angle I've ever seen it played.

Ok.

 

[DerelictJunction]

The dissent from Darwin is questioning the view that all of life is completely, totally, only, solely by naturalistic means, which is a basic teaching of Darwinism.

However, that is not what the statement actually says. I also find it strange that Dr. Francis Collins is not listed as a signator of the document, especially since, according to you, he completely disagrees with the view that the development of "all of life is completely, totally, only, solely by naturalistic means". Why would he not sign it? Do you think he was overlooked when it was circulated to all the other scientists?
I mean, he was only led the Human Genome Project, and was presented little awards like the National Medal of Science and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, among others. So, I guess his standing in the scientific community could have resulted in the DI deciding not to ask him if he agreed with the statement.

 

[justlookinla]

You refuse to discuss the scientific theory of evolution. How can you claim to be a participant when you refuse to address the science?

I'm addressing the inherently atheistic creationist view which claims that humanity is entirely, solely, completely by naturalistic means. So for, nobody's given any scientific evidence for such a view. It's simply one of several creationist views which is based on faith.

If you have scientific evidence that humanity is the result of only, solely, completely, totally naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago, present it.

 

[justlookinla]

Here is the deal, Collins believes in God, like some scientists do. He also fully embraces the TOE as stated and he makes that quite obvious. Just seems to think this cause some sort of problem, but it is a problem that is manufactured by justlookinlaism.

Collins, as others do, have a personal belief that a God is behind evolution and that is peachy. Anyone can add a non-falsifiable factor to be behind evolution and pick and choose your non-falsifiable factor at your whim.

One could state; aliens from another planet are behind evolution. Could anyone prove them wrong?

Here's the real deal, from Collins' website.....

"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."​

This indicates that the view of humanity being the result of completely, totally, solely, only a naturalistic mechanism acting on a single life form from long long ago is rejected. They reject that inherently view of creationism, are as they put it "evolutionism".

One could claim that humanity is the result of only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic mechanisms if one wishes, but there is no evidence for such a view. It's based on faith.

 

[justlookinla]

Will Alabama have your God on their side?

Will Alabama have a team which members are random cosmic accidents?

 

[justlookinla]

Every time you use the phrase "atheistic Darwinist creationism" you are distorting the truth. You refuse to deal with the science, and instead fill the gap with name calling. You are acting like a child.

Atheistic Darwinist creationism is what's being taught in our schools today for the truth. There is no distorting of the truth in that statement, but a plain statement of truth.

 

[Delphiki]

I'm addressing the inherently atheistic creationist view which claims that humanity is entirely, solely, completely by naturalistic means. So for, nobody's given any scientific evidence for such a view. It's simply one of several creationist views which is based on faith.

If you have scientific evidence that humanity is the result of only, solely, completely, totally naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago, present it.

The only evidence that exists is only, solely, completely, and totally naturalistic, so there's no reason to wedge anything else in there if there's no reason to.

You don't just throw every possibly whack-job idea at a process you don't understand and eliminate them one by one until you are left with one. That could take an eternity, especially when you include mythological and supernatural explanations. Doing so is called making assumptions. And do you know what happens when you assume things?

I think that before you can begin to criticize science at all, you need to at least learn the basics of the scientific method.

 

[justlookinla]

However, that is not what the statement actually says. I also find it strange that Dr. Francis Collins is not listed as a signator of the document, especially since, according to you, he completely disagrees with the view that the development of "all of life is completely, totally, only, solely by naturalistic means".

No, according to his website he completely disagrees with the view that the creation of all life is completely, totally, only, solely by naturalistic forces....

"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."​

Why would he not sign it? Do you think he was overlooked when it was circulated to all the other scientists?

I don't know why he didn't sign it. Maybe by now he has, but it doesn't matter either way, his website presents his view of "evolutionism", i.e., the rejection of the view that humanity is the creation of an entirely naturalistic process.

I mean, he was only led the Human Genome Project, and was presented little awards like the National Medal of Science and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, among others.

Pretty impressive for a theistic creationist, isn't it?

So, I guess his standing in the scientific community could have resulted in the DI deciding not to ask him if he agreed with the statement.

I dunno.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Atheistic Darwinist creationism is what's being taught in our schools today for the truth. There is no distorting of the truth in that statement, but a plain statement of truth.

In order to not teach "atheistic" material, how should our schools teach evolution. Should they include a God or pantheon of gods in the material taught, even though the theory of evolution does not mention a God or pantheon of gods?
Should cosmology be taught differently since the current theory of how stars are created does not mention any God or gods?

How is this inclusion of gods to be performed without infringing upon some students freedom of religion?

 

[justlookinla]

In order to not teach "atheistic" material, how should our schools teach evolution.

It's not about teaching evolution, by all means teach evolution. Teach the lessons concerning 'Darwin's finches'. Teach the lessons concerning experiments with pepper moths. Show how medical science has advanced using evolutionary concepts. Those aren't the issues.

The issue is concerning teaching creationism, the view that all the variety of life we observe today is completely, totally, solely, only by naturalistic processes. That goes far far beyond the evolutionary teachings described above.

Should they include a God or pantheon of gods in the material taught, even though the theory of evolution does not mention a God or pantheon of gods?

No, they should not include a God or pantheon of gods, not at all. Neither should they teach that the only explanation, the only view allowed, the only process which created humanity is the process of natural forces acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Should cosmology be taught differently since the current theory of how stars are created does not mention any God or gods?

Does this address how humanity was created?

How is this inclusion of gods to be performed without infringing upon some students freedom of religion?

It's not about the inclusion of gods, it's about demanding that only one creationist viewpoint be taught.

 

[justlookinla]

No. It's not. It's all there is evidence for (except the part where it's accidental, that's your own invention as someone who is making a presupposition).

There is no evidence for the creationist view that humanity was created only, solely, completely and totally by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

 

[Split Rock]

There is no evidence for the creationist view that humanity was created only, solely, completely and totally by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Its actually funny to see a creationist go so far down the rabbit hole of "Parity at all costs" that he actually calls the theory of evolution "creationism."

Is there a public school science class that specifically teaches that humanity was created only, solely, completely and totally by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago?

Is there any evidence for the creationist view that humanity was created only, solely, completely and totally by a god blowing on dirt?

 

[bhsmte]

Will Alabama have a team which members are random cosmic accidents?

I don't know will they.

But again, will God be on Alabama's side?

 

[justlookinla]

I don't know will they.

But again, will God be on Alabama's side?

I don't know, will He?

 

[DerelictJunction]

No, according to his website he completely disagrees with the view that the creation of all life is completely, totally, only, solely by naturalistic forces....

"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."​

You did read 9 and 10, didn't you?

9. We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God.
10. We believe that God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth, but also as spiritual beings. God established a unique relationship with humanity by endowing us with his image and calling us to an elevated position within the created order.​

That kinda takes your claim that there is no evidence for common ancestry and blows it out of the water.

I don't know why he didn't sign it. Maybe by now he has, but it doesn't matter either way, his website presents his view of "evolutionism", i.e., the rejection of the view that humanity is the creation of an entirely naturalistic process.

He didn't sign it because he doesn't agree with the statement especially the purpose behind it. He is opposed to intelligent design as put forth by the intelligent design advocates.

From an interview by Tucker Carlson at Tucker Carlson - Francis Collins Transcipt (PBS)
Dr. Collins says "Science investigates the natural world. It is the way to investigate the natural world. But if god exists, god must be outside the natural world and so science really is silent in terms of answering that question. In that regard, athiests, who say there is no god. Where does god fit in to this, if you think evolution explains life forms including our own? I think it's fairly straightforward. I'm what's called a theistic evolutionist. I believe god had a purpose that involved you and me as individuals, people that he wished to have fellowship with. I believe that the way he decided to do that creative step utilized the mechanism of evolution. I don't think that requires god to step in and fill in these gaps in the development of the eye. I think evolution is self-sufficient. I think god is basically the mind that is behind it.

Looks like he believes evolution did it all after God started it up. It looks like he agrees with your definition of Darwinism and believes that is how humans came to be.

I dunno.

Yeah, we know.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't know, will He?

You know him. Ask him and let me know.