Theistic evolution and the nature of God

[Mercy Shown]

Provide names, proofs, what establishments exactly, what power, whose money etc.

Also, define "today's" - Origenes? Darwin? Or something from this century? Theistic evolution is much more older than today's theories.

The establishment is found in academia. If you decide to question any of these current theories of origin, you will lose funding and have a hard time getting any funding in the future. It is not so much a formal conspiracy as it is groupthink. People will sit there and swallow theories as fact because a "majority of scientists concur." I am sorry, but that is not science. A scientist is not the fount of truth and his/her opinion is no better than a beggar's wish. Any true scientist knows that groupthink or group belief is not how we determine fact. It is by using the scientific method. True scientists are seekers of knowledge and not peddlers of opinion.

The flaws in the laws of origins start with existence itself, something that science cannot yet explain. Next would come the mythology of spontaneous generation out of nothing which is very similar to creation by fiat. The modern science of origins is as bogged down in its own hubris just as much as the cardinal's Earth-centric convictions about our galaxy were in their mythology. Life itself is simply assumed to be an output of the black box.

 

[trophy33]

The establishment is found in academia. If you decide to question any of these current theories of origin, you will lose funding and have a hard time getting any funding in the future. It is not so much a formal conspiracy as it is groupthink. People will sit there and swallow theories as fact because a "majority of scientists concur." I am sorry, but that is not science. A scientist is not the fount of truth and his/her opinion is no better than a beggar's wish. Any true scientist knows that groupthink or group belief is not how we determine fact. It is by using the scientific method. True scientists are seekers of knowledge and not peddlers of opinion.

The flaws in the laws of origins start with existence itself, something that science cannot yet explain. Next would come the mythology of spontaneous generation out of nothing which is very similar to creation by fiat. The modern science of origins is as bogged down in its own hubris just as much as the cardinal's Earth-centric convictions about our galaxy were in their mythology. Life itself is simply assumed to be an output of the black box.

What academia, what country? Everywhere? Japan? China? Singapore? Norway? Spain? Italy? Poland? Be specific.

 

[Mercy Shown]

What academia, what country? Everywhere? Japan? China? Singapore? Norway? Spain? Italy? Poland? Be specific.

academia

noun

1. the environment or community concerned with the pursuit of research, education, and scholarship.
   "he spent his working life in academia"

This includes the majority of universities and collages across the world.

 

[trophy33]

academia

noun

1. the environment or community concerned with the pursuit of research, education, and scholarship.
   "he spent his working life in academia"

This includes the majority of universities and collages across the world.

So you do not have anything specific, just some conspiratorial guesses how you imagine it to work. How many universities have you been to? How many scientific studies or experiments have you done and tried to publish and how many of them were rejected without valid reasons?

 

[Mercy Shown]

So you do not have anything specific, just some conspiratorial guesses how you imagine it to work. How many universities have you been to? How many scientific studies or experiments have you done and tried to publish and how many of them were rejected without valid reasons?

No, I have posited a position and it remains unrefuted. We are simply arguing the evidence of beliefs. It appears that the points I have made bring forth no counterarguments from you. I would have been very interested in your thoughts and reasoning that would refute my specific points. So much of origins and climate science is predicated on politics rather than hard science. As G.K. Chesterton wrote:

“Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought. Descartes said, “I think; therefore I am.” The philosophic evolutionist reverses and negatives the epigram. He says, “I am not; therefore I cannot think.”​

― G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

 

[trophy33]

No, I have posited a position and it remains unrefuted. We are simply arguing the evidence of beliefs. It appears that the points I have made bring forth no counterarguments from you. I would have been very interested in your thoughts and reasoning that would refute my specific points. So much of origins and climate science is predicated on politics rather than hard science. As G.K. Chesterton wrote:

“Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought. Descartes said, “I think; therefore I am.” The philosophic evolutionist reverses and negatives the epigram. He says, “I am not; therefore I cannot think.”​

― G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

If you cannot provide any specifics about the conspiracy behind today's science, then there is nothing real to talk about. Its just a story, imagination.

 

[trophy33]

Specific? The atmosphere has oxygen, nitrogen, helium, carbon, and pollution.
I have no names, authors, scientific papers or thesis, or any such 'scholarly' thing to know this or to prove this,
and we don't need any - it(science/society) in all is flagrant delectiable.

I do not know what you are trying to demonstrate or to say.

 

[Derf]

What academia, what country? Everywhere? Japan? China? Singapore? Norway? Spain? Italy? Poland? Be specific.

Dr. Fauci On GOP Criticism: ‘Attacks On Me, Quite Frankly, Are Attacks On Science’​

 

[trophy33]

Dr. Fauci On GOP Criticism: ‘Attacks On Me, Quite Frankly, Are Attacks On Science’​

I am not familiar with Dr. Fauci. What is the case about?

 

[Mercy Shown]

If you cannot provide any specifics about the conspiracy behind today's science, then there is nothing real to talk about. Its just a story, imagination.

The fact that you cannot rebut the argument is all I need. You decided to shift the focus from the flaws of evolution. I refuse to believe that you are ignorant of the facts in this case. There is no quicker way to get your funding cut than to mention ID or the likes. To pretend that that is not the case doesn't help your cause at all.

 

[trophy33]

The fact that you cannot rebut the argument is all I need. You decided to shift the focus from the flaws of evolution. I refuse to believe that you are ignorant of the facts in this case. There is no quicker way to get your funding cut than to mention ID or the likes. To pretend that that is not the case doesn't help your cause at all.

You provided no arguments, no examples and even no specifics, you just provided a very general conspiratorial thought. There is nothing to rebut or to accept.

What funding have you been trying to get or got cut, when you mentioned ID? Specifically - what institution, what country, names. Also, in what way have you mentioned ID? Did it look like a strong personal religious bias? What was the title of your study, design, goals? Be specific.

 

[Mercy Shown]

You provided no arguments, no examples and even no specifics, you just provided a very general conspiratorial thought. There is nothing to rebut or to accept.

What funding have you been trying to get or got cut, when you mentioned ID? Specifically - what institution, what country, names. Also, in what way have you mentioned ID? Did it look like a strong personal religious bias? What was the title of your study, design, goals? Be specific.

Eric Hedin, the associate professor of astronomy and physics at Ball State University was investigated in 2014 for allegedly teaching ID.

Professor Guillermo Gonzalez of Iowa State University professor who championed the theory of Intelligent Design has lost his final appeal to keep his job in Feb 2008

David Coppedge a proponent of intelligent design, who worked as a "team lead" on the Cassini mission exploring Saturn and its many moons lost His job with NASA

In 2000, Baylor removed intelligent design theorist William Dembski

Academic Persecution of Scientists and Scholars Researching Intelligent Design is a Dangerous and Growing Trend

For Immediate Release, Dec. 7, 2005 “There is a disturbing trend of scientists, teachers, and students coming under attack for expressing support in the theory of intelligent design…

www.discovery.org

How many more do you need? Of course, you didn't even need these I assume because you appear to be an intelligent person. This tactic is often employed by people who do not want to discuss the hard stuff. I can't be sure that that is what you were doing but I suspect it was.

Even though ID continues to be a pariah to modern "science" it is dismissed out of hand whereas evolution needs no scrutiny to be swallowed hook, line, and sinker. While there is no proof for either of these theories people like Dawkins can glibly postulate things like directed panspermia with a straight face and still enjoy the adoration of the "science" community. Apparently, Aliens are more probable than God.

You couldn't even get off the ground defending macroevolution if we put it under a microscope and looked at the details. The probability for spontaneous generation of life is for all practical purposes 0. To be precise it is one in 10 to the 89,900 power, which is still essentially zero.

 

[trophy33]

Eric Hedin, the associate professor of astronomy and physics at Ball State University was investigated in 2014 for allegedly teaching ID.

Professor Guillermo Gonzalez of Iowa State University professor who championed the theory of Intelligent Design has lost his final appeal to keep his job in Feb 2008

David Coppedge a proponent of intelligent design, who worked as a "team lead" on the Cassini mission exploring Saturn and its many moons lost His job with NASA

In 2000, Baylor removed intelligent design theorist William Dembski

Academic Persecution of Scientists and Scholars Researching Intelligent Design is a Dangerous and Growing Trend

For Immediate Release, Dec. 7, 2005 “There is a disturbing trend of scientists, teachers, and students coming under attack for expressing support in the theory of intelligent design…

www.discovery.org

How many more do you need? Of course, you didn't even need these I assume because you appear to be an intelligent person. This tactic is often employed by people who do not want to discuss the hard stuff. I can't be sure that that is what you were doing but I suspect it was.

Even though ID continues to be a pariah to modern "science" it is dismissed out of hand whereas evolution needs no scrutiny to be swallowed hook, line, and sinker. While there is no proof for either of these theories people like Dawkins can glibly postulate things like directed panspermia with a straight face and still enjoy the adoration of the "science" community. Apparently, Aliens are more probable than God.

You couldn't even get off the ground defending macroevolution if we put it under a microscope and looked at the details. The probability for spontaneous generation of life is for all practical purposes 0. To be precise it is one in 10 to the 89,900 power, which is still essentially zero.

I notice its all USA-based. You said its global, though? Do you have examples from France, Poland, Italy, Spain, Japan, Korea, Switzerland...?

Also, I noticed your examples have nothing to do with science as such. Its just names of people who did not accept the scientific theory in their jobs (like teachers). Its a normal thing, for example if you do not accept the classic theory about cancer, you will not be able to work in a classic cancer treatment institution. Official guidelines are official, their purpose is standardization. It needs scientific studies to change the guidelines. You cannot simply say you do not agree with them because of your religion and to continue to work in the area. I would not want this, as a customer/patient/tax payer.

I do not need to personally defend the theory of evolution, its an already accepted theory and unifying model making predictive sense in all scientific areas, so arguments for it are settled. As I do not need to defend that Earth is not flat, that there are other galaxies, that atoms exist etc. If you have problem with it, take it with science and prove it, arguing on forums will not change anything. For all our needs, this model works.

 

[Mercy Shown]

I notice its all USA-based. You said its global, though? Do you have examples from France, Poland, Italy, Spain, Japan, Korea, Switzerland...?

Also, I noticed your examples have nothing to do with science as such. Its just names of people who did not accept the scientific theory in their jobs (like teachers). Its a normal thing, for example if you do not accept the classic theory about cancer, you will not be able to work in a classic cancer treatment institution. Official guidelines are official, their purpose is standardization. It needs scientific studies to change the guidelines. You cannot simply say you do not agree with them because of your religion and to continue to work in the area. I would not want this, as a customer/patient/tax payer.

I do not need to personally defend the theory of evolution, its an already accepted theory and unifying model making predictive sense in all scientific areas, so arguments for it are settled. As I do not need to defend that Earth is not flat, that there are other galaxies, that atoms exist etc. If you have problem with it, take it with science and prove it, arguing on forums will not change anything. For all our needs, this model works.

Those who have the religion of evolution worship at its altar just as much as the most ardent religionists. When one is unwilling to answer the hard questions of evolution they simply accept it by faith. This would be no big deal if they did not then pretend to be on a higher road than other religionists.

Like most axiomatic belief systems it is easier to dodge the questions than it is to face them square on. I realize that there is no interest in engaging in a serious debate so we might as well drop it here since it is counter-productive to continue.

 

[trophy33]

I realize that there is no interest in engaging in a serious debate so we might as well drop it here since it is counter-productive to continue.

There is nothing to debate, evolution is an established and working model that makes sense in various scientific fields and allows us to explain our reality, to make predictions, to create effective evolution algorithms and similar.

Your "debating" here will change nothing, you must take it with science, do a science work and create something even better. Debate it inside science, not in theological forums. Evolution is not theology, its a scientific mechanism/theory.

In theological forums, you can debate its relation to theology or philosophy, to God, Scriptures...

 

[sfs]

Those who have the religion of evolution worship at its altar just as much as the most ardent religionists.

I completely agree. Or rather, I would if I'd ever encountered anyone who worships evolution. I've been working in genetics, including the genetics of evolution, for going on 25 years now and I've yet to meet anyone in the field who has anything remotely resembling a religious attitude toward it. In fact, many of use already have religions -- why would we worship evolution? Perhaps you should talk to actual scientists rather than getting your information about evolution from those attacking evolution. We use evolution because it works so well at explaining and predicting a vast array of data across multiple fields. Should anything better come along, we'll use that instead. Until it does (and no, intelligent design hasn't shown even the faintest hint of explanatory power), we'll keep using it.

If you want to start learning what scientists actually think and do, rather than just preaching about them, by all means let me know.

 

[Mercy Shown]

I completely agree. Or rather, I would if I'd ever encountered anyone who worships evolution. I've been working in genetics, including the genetics of evolution, for going on 25 years now and I've yet to meet anyone in the field who has anything remotely resembling a religious attitude toward it. In fact, many of use already have religions -- why would we worship evolution? Perhaps you should talk to actual scientists rather than getting your information about evolution from those attacking evolution. We use evolution because it works so well at explaining and predicting a vast array of data across multiple fields. Should anything better come along, we'll use that instead. Until it does (and no, intelligent design hasn't shown even the faintest hint of explanatory power), we'll keep using it.

If you want to start learning what scientists actually think and do, rather than just preaching about them, by all means let me know.

You seem unaware of the historic connection between evolution, nihilism and existentialism and the fact that these intertwined philosophies replaced God for countless people. Suffice it to say, it does not matter how long you have studied genetics, you still cannot coherently address the glaring problems evolution presents starting with existence itself and for all the bravado evolution still remains an axiomatic black box to be taken by faith, so, yes, it is a religion.

In fact, if your claims are correct and you have been involved with genetics it should cause you some reflection upon the claims that this complex language could even evolve.

 

[trophy33]

You seem unaware of the historic connection between evolution, nihilism and existentialism and the fact that these intertwined philosophies replaced God for countless people. Suffice it to say, it does not matter how long you have studied genetics, you still cannot coherently address the glaring problems evolution presents starting with existence itself and for all the bravado evolution still remains an axiomatic black box to be taken by faith, so, yes, it is a religion.

In fact, if your claims are correct and you have been involved with genetics it should cause you some reflection upon the claims that this complex language could even evolve.

You still seem to not understand that evolution is just a mechanism, like gravity or heliocentrism. It explains things, it predicts things, therefore it can be used in scientific work.

It does not say anything about God or theology. As complex genetics are perplexing, so is also gravity and other laws and constants.

The only conflict some Christians have problem with is that it does not support one specific way (the literal YEC) reading of Genesis. But you can read Genesis in other Christian ways.

 

[sfs]

You seem unaware of the historic connection between evolution, nihilism and existentialism and the fact that these intertwined philosophies replaced God for countless people.

I can't be aware of something that's patently not true. Nihilism and existentialism are philosophical positions, while evolution is a scientific model of the history of life. One can accept or reject the model independently of one's philosophical and religious stances. And I've yet to meet anyone -- certainly no scientist -- for whom evolution is a replacement for God in any meaningful sense.

Suffice it to say, it does not matter how long you have studied genetics, you still cannot coherently address the glaring problems evolution presents starting with existence itself

Well, no, that doesn't suffice to say, since what you've said seems to be a complete non sequitur. Since evolution is a theory describing and explaining the history of life on Earth, no, of course it cannot coherently address the 'problem' of existence, for the same reason that meteorology and the germ theory of disease don't coherently address the problem of existence: none of these fields attempt to address such problems. Where on earth did you get the idea that evolution had anything to say about existence?

or all the bravado evolution still remains an axiomatic black box to be taken by faith, so, yes, it is a religion.

This is a strong claim. It's one you have presented zero evidence for, and it's one that, to anyone actually familiar with evolutionary biology, is patently false. There is nothing axiomatic about evolution. It was initially proposed as an explanation for a wide range of empirical data, and it has been tested, confirmed, and refined based on such data. All of its processes can be and are studied in detail and modeled mathematically. So what do you mean by 'black box' here?

In short, your statements still seem to have next to nothing to do with the actual science done by evolutionary biologists. How many have you talked to? How much reading do you do in the scientific literature of the field?

In fact, if your claims are correct and you have been involved with genetics it should cause you some reflection upon the claims that this complex language could even evolve.

I have reflected on it, and I've yet to see any arguments against it. Do you have one? In any case, the history of life that we have access to -- and which is what we therefore study when it comes to evolution -- operates using a single genetic language and is little concerned with the origin of that language. If you could show tomorrow that the first ancestral cell, with all of its genetics, was directly created out of nothing, that would have virtually no effect on the study of evolution.

 

[Mercy Shown]

I can't be aware of something that's patently not true. Nihilism and existentialism are philosophical positions, while evolution is a scientific model of the history of life. One can accept or reject the model independently of one's philosophical and religious stances. And I've yet to meet anyone -- certainly no scientist -- for whom evolution is a replacement for God in any meaningful sense.

Well, no, that doesn't suffice to say, since what you've said seems to be a complete non sequitur. Since evolution is a theory describing and explaining the history of life on Earth, no, of course it cannot coherently address the 'problem' of existence, for the same reason that meteorology and the germ theory of disease don't coherently address the problem of existence: none of these fields attempt to address such problems. Where on earth did you get the idea that evolution had anything to say about existence?

This is a strong claim. It's one you have presented zero evidence for, and it's one that, to anyone actually familiar with evolutionary biology, is patently false. There is nothing axiomatic about evolution. It was initially proposed as an explanation for a wide range of empirical data, and it has been tested, confirmed, and refined based on such data. All of its processes can be and are studied in detail and modeled mathematically. So what do you mean by 'black box' here?

In short, your statements still seem to have next to nothing to do with the actual science done by evolutionary biologists. How many have you talked to? How much reading do you do in the scientific literature of the field?

I have reflected on it, and I've yet to see any arguments against it. Do you have one? In any case, the history of life that we have access to -- and which is what we therefore study when it comes to evolution -- operates using a single genetic language and is little concerned with the origin of that language. If you could show tomorrow that the first ancestral cell, with all of its genetics, was directly created out of nothing, that would have virtually no effect on the study of evolution.

Suffice it to say your response has proved my point. You miss the profoundly dystopian philosophies that the theory of evolution spawned. You have also failed to understand that evolution is a black box and it is taken by faith just like any other religion.

I would suggest a couple of books the first one being Darwin’s Black Box by Michael J. Behe. Well I do not fully agree with his conclusions I find him a fascinating writer and quite a thoughtful author.

I can provide you with quite a few resources concerning Darwin and philosophy but I won’t go to the trouble if you’re not really interested. I know a lot of times these debates are more about proving oneself right than it is about learning anything so if you’re not interested that’s OK we can drop it.