Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

[Jonathan Gress]

I have to say, people bringing up Stalin's seminary education as evidence that he was not really an atheist is one of the stupidest canards in modern anti-Christian polemics.

Or in Orthodoxy's Stalin cultists.

 

[minasoliman]

I see what you are saying but I disagree. Christians have been suppressing knowledge and science since they came to power. After the lynching of hypatia and the burning of the library of Alexandria in 391 AD, no advances in science were made until the 1400.  Sure some monks preserved Aristotle and Plato but the destruction those monks caused were much greater, burning down temples and numerous libraries like the school of Athens.
I am sure the the Church would love to take credit for the foundations of the scientific method but it was Greek pagans who actually did.

In my experience I have never met a Christian who really liked science and many were very ignorant of history as well.

There's a reason why Trisagion says "atheists hate history".  There is a lot of misrepresentation of the history here.

Not very relevant since I am not an atheist, I in fact would say that it is Christians who hate history and try to deny it, however I have never met an atheist doing so.

Joe Stalin certainly fits the bill.

There are Christians who think lying about history or science will help the faith just there are atheists and pagans who think it will help whatever their pet ideology is.

Oh you mean the former seminar student? What was his view on history?

Dawkins was an altar boy.  I guess that makes him a very devout Christian.

 

[RobS]

There was a time I enjoyed rebutting anti-evolutionist stances, but I've come to peace that it's OK now. Instead of arguing about evolution we should first get clear on what science is and does (including scientific theories). Then it won't be such a bogeyman to those Christians that feel threatened it will upend the narrative they so desperately cling to as truth.

I'd rather read a really good defense on a deep poetic interpretation of Genesis than turning it "literally" which would baffle me.

 

[Asteriktos]

Which do you think will happen first: a unified philosophy of science, or a unified interpretation of Genesis? I'm not expecting either one any time soon, tbh...  8)

 

[RobS]

Which do you think will happen first: a unified philosophy of science, or a unified interpretation of Genesis? I'm not expecting either one any time soon, tbh...  8)

What do you mean by this?

The only time philosophy is ever used is to question methodological naturalism (which is what defines science), as it should since its not making predictions about observable facts within the observable universe. Rather philosophy asks more fundamental questions, such as why do/should we care, etc. Science can't answer those types of questions and doesn't need to.

I encourage you to read this wiki:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism

Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic; which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.

However, this assumption of naturalism need not extend beyond an assumption of methodology. This is what separates methodological naturalism from philosophical naturalism - the former is merely a tool and makes no truth claim; while the latter makes the philosophical - essentially atheistic - claim that only natural causes exist.

This is precisely my view on science. Philosophical naturalism is really bad philosophy.

 

[Asteriktos]

There are many disagreements about how Science should be done, what methods used, its purpose, what conclusions we can draw, what conclusions we should draw, whether we can ever be certain of something, what its limits are or should be, how and to what extent it interacts and informs other areas of thought/investigation, how open the theory and processes are to modification, etc.

wiki gives an overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

a book suggested by a college science professor who used to post here:

What Is This Thing Called Science?, by Alan F. Chalmers

and I found this book to be a good companion text (as it was intended to be):

Science And Its Fabrication, by Alan Chalmers

 

[minasoliman]

I take a nuance on this philosophy of science.  We assume a spirit of consistency among all material phenomenon.  We cannot measure "consistency". To atheists, consistency is merely the material laws of science which can be mathematically expressed.  For me, is the language and glory of God.  For one to even speak of philosophy of anything proves to us we study the material world at a "supra-material" level, for lack of a better word.  At that point, this is when the spiritual becomes obvious to me.

 

[RobS]

There are many disagreements about how Science should be done, what methods used, its purpose, what conclusions we can draw, what conclusions we should draw, whether we can ever be certain of something, what its limits are or should be, how and to what extent it interacts and informs other areas of thought/investigation, how open the theory and processes are to modification, etc.

Most of the questions you're asking aren't scientific questions, but epistemology, or the philosophy of science (as you cited), or the political control of science. They're all valid questions. They just can't be answered by science.

Even the ones that seem to pertain to the profession of science are not really scientific questions, but something like best practices, or other rules professionals in a domain might impose upon themselves for all sorts of reasons (uniformity, making review easier, comes to mind).

As to my perspective, the validity and applicability of methodological naturals cannot be questioned by science because it is science.

 

[ilyazhito]

About the poll at the beginning, how is it possible to believe in the Old Testament both metaphorically and literally. It seems that both beliefs exclude each other, but it might also depend on how one defines "days". So how does that work?

 

[Asteriktos]

About the poll at the beginning, how is it possible to believe in the Old Testament both metaphorically and literally. It seems that both beliefs exclude each other, but it might also depend on how one defines "days". So how does that work?

I have yet to come across a Father who didn't take it both 'metaphorically' and 'literally' (if we are going to combine a dozen different interpretive approaches or more down into two options), but then I am assuming that 'the account of Genesis' means the first 3-4 chapters, and not any particular verse or word that can be isolated and haggled over in an attempt to define. To use an example I've mentioned before--the 'garments of skin.' They could be literal clothes to cover them since they now had changing ideas about certain parts on the other person; they could be literal coverings (skin) to prepare them for a life of hardship/problems they wouldn't have faced in Eden; they could be a symbol of things that had come upon humanity when they were expelled from Eden (pooping, sex, death, drugs, rock n roll): the good, the bad, or the good and bad; it could be taken as foreshadowing the coming of Christ ("in the flesh"); and so on. And most of the literal interpretations have non-literal levels of communication/insight, and vice versa.

 

[ativan]

We assume a spirit of consistency among all material phenomenon.

That's biggest problem of today's scientism. In real science one cannot assume anything. Today's scientism takes assumption of "everything should be explained within materialistic framework" and proclaims this assumption for axiom. Now, within this context if you encounter an evidence (or a phenomenon or whatever) that absolutely cannot be explained within materialistic framework then you don't have much choices. You can either totally deny existence of this phenomenon that are real (examples of which are multiple in today's scientism) or give most ridiculous explanation based on materialism (examples of which are also many). This materialistic restrictions on our world is not going to lead any further. When we assume that everything can be explained by materialism it's just an assumption. Thus every true scientist should ask himself questions: Is my materialistic assumption true? Can i prove it that it is true? Did I prove it? If i did not prove it, then how true that  science i have learned could be? The reality is we have not proven materialistic worldwide to be true. This approach is absolutely restrictive and can't create real science.

Same is true for assuming consistency among all material phenomenon. Did we prove it? What if this assumption is false?

We have studied the world and all we find is wonders. Any normal logic dictates us that if we want to study this amazing world we have to be open to any explanation that would lead us to even more wonders. If materialistic explanation was enough it would have been accepted. But not only are these materialistic explanations not enough but also they many times are silly and we clearly need something beyond materialism. In this i see atheism as a worst religion who has put up this dogma of "nothing beyond materialism exists" and has caught millions of minds. Funny thing is this same conscious mind who accepts this dogma can't explain its own consciousness (something most real for every conscious mind), can't explain why it is conscious of its own existence or why it is conscious of its own feelings and so on. It is very clear that our consciousness is not materialistic and can't be.

All these bad scientism is characteristic feature of one of the theories of today's sientism called "Neo-Darwinism".

 

[RobS]

Welcome back Ativan, glad you are posting again. I'll get back to you later tonight if I can to sharpen your points. I think we fundamentally agree, but how we get there is where differ.

More later, but I just want to make a preliminary remark in that all scientists conduct their research within a framework of natural causes with no attempts to appeal to the supernatural. That's why they must assume all causes are empirical and naturalistic.

The questions you are raising are philosophical, which isn't the concern for scientists. Science cannot understand itself.

 

[seekeroftruth777]

Just a quick question why would Orthodoxy conform their theology, Christology, Biblical views, etc. to the Scientific worldview? sorry but Modernism, Post Modernism, Moral Relativism Darwinism, Futurism, Atheism, Malthuism, Rationalism (and it flip sided twin brother Fundamentalism), Evolution, Survival of the fittest, Dialectic Materialism, Racial Eugenics and everything else related to Scientific Ideas and consensus that came out of the middle ages to the Enlightenment then to the counterculture up to even today has had a negative effect on the Western Churches just look the Anglicans/Episcopalians (how that Reason working out), the Lutherans, The Catholic Church, The Methodists, etc. do we want to go down that same road as the Western Churches? however I chose option #3 every Orthodox church I ever attended made it clear that Scripture a mixture or allegory, Literalism, Symbolism, History, and Metaphors and that it is the Church and not our own private interpretations that interprets scripture.

 

[ativan]

The biblical doctrine (see Psalm 93:1, 96:10) of geocentrism that was promulgated the RCC is clearly contradicted by empirical reality, and now the RCC has apologized for its persecution of Galileo, and it even has an astronomical laboratory.  Evolution, or more specifically common descent, is a similar instance of a conflict between the "Teachings of the Church" and reality.

Strictly speaking any motion is relative. Consequently saying that geocentrism is false statement of reality and heliocentrism is true is wrong in itself.

Evolution, or more specifically common descent, is a similar instance of a conflict between the "Teachings of the Church" and reality.

You have given a definition of scientific method from American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed. Base on this definition of science how is "Evolution, or more specifically common descent" reality? And what you mean in evolution and common descent?

The RCC and the mainline Protestants have accepted common descent as true, and I think that this is more productive than further defiance in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

What RRC says does not matter. RRC is not a scientific entity. Neither is it Church of Christ but Church of evil. I'm talking about RRC itself and not ordinary Christians who are blinded by those clergy. At any rate, since you state there's overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution i doubt you understand Neo-Darwinism.

 

[Asteriktos]

Welcome back Ativan, glad you are posting again. I'll get back to you later tonight if I can to sharpen your points. I think we fundamentally agree, but how we get there is where differ.

More later, but I just want to make a preliminary remark in that all scientists conduct their research within a framework of natural causes with no attempts to appeal to the supernatural. That's why they must assume all causes are empirical and naturalistic.

The questions you are raising are philosophical, which isn't the concern for scientists. Science cannot understand itself.

I'm not sure I understand why you place such importance on separating philosophy and science, and calling attention to their separation. No science could be done without a thousand bricks of philosophy acting as a foundation. Perhaps half these bricks are beliefs and assumptions so common that we don't even think about them as philosophical, we just take them for granted without thinking of them at all. That science should work on curing cancer. Why? What if you believe as Christian scientists do? The overwhelming majority hold to a very different belief about such matters though, so that position is simply ushered right in and past the line and bouncer. Another is that we should try to test and confirm data. Why? For verification? Yet as journal articles multiply we end up with situations where there are a bazillion claims being made, and on a great many of them you can find conflicting data, competing hypotheses/ideas, and contradictory conclusions. So why not wait until we reach critical masses and then do experiments? As opposed to the 'publish or perish' system, where getting into some graduate programs takes into account if and how much you've published, getting tenure often makes a good publishing history a requirement, and so on? It's a philosophical position. The who do science and those who set the course of it prefer one method over all the other options. They prefer to let a bazillion articles be published in ten thousand journals, half of which might be completely fraud, and a large portion of the other half being largely useless or even harmful. Of course it's hard to change now--mid stream--but it's still a philosophical brick.

There are others that are perhaps still controversial among a larger group. Once the group reaches 'big enough to lobby the government, or bug us' status they usually can get some kind of acknowledgement. Animal rights, for example. Is it right to experiment on animals? Mammals? Rats vs. fish vs. cockroaches vs. chimpanzees? We can't use chimpanzees to test out new drugs to be used in death penalty cases? Why not? Well can we still kill single-celled organisms? Where is the line drawn, and why? Or another line of questioning: is it ok to do experiments that are not seriously harmful (death or vegetablizing), but not ones that will effectively end the life? Is it ok to do dangerous experiments on humans? If sometimes, when? Only if they are terminal? As long as they give their consent? Never, if it has a more than 10% chance of killing them? Who decides, and how? Is there a non-philosophical, scientific way to figure this stuff out? One of the common criticisms of sola scripture is that there is not table of contents included by God from the start. Well, is there a list of oks and not oks from the start with science? Does some non-philosophical experiment demonstrate why cadavers are now allowed to be used for all manner of scientific investigation, including (fittingly but morbidly) observations about the effects of weather patterns, wild animal involvement, and the like on dead human bodies, such as how fast they decompose in this or that condition.

Why spend billions on going to space? Searching for this and that? What direction? Why talk of humans going to Mars? What are the arguments between scientists about? Specifically the ones that are competing for the grants that make most of the experimenting feasible? There are arguments about which would yield the most data, which would give the most accurate results, and so on. But the great majority of them are straight up philosophy. Let's focus on mining random objects in the solar system because there's money in them there thingers. No, we should focus on learning how to keep one of them from slamming into earth and destroying the planet; in fact, we should be doing this urgently. Nah, the chances of that happening are miniscule; it is my opinion that the chances are so small that we should focus on other, more productive things instead, like how to protect astronauts from the negative effects of being in space. What? Humans shouldn't even be in space! And so on and so on, in just that one area.

Before, during and after science does science, it must also do philosophy. Or, scientists must know and do philosophy as a part of the scientific method, and it's in many cases more integral and foundational than the would-be factual, naturalistic, non-philosophical stuff. I don't know what you'll think of this, or if I have completely misunderstood your point. Anyway, I hope I didn't write this for nothing. Oh wait...  Har har, couldn't resist.

 

[ativan]

Welcome back Ativan, glad you are posting again.

Thank you.

More later, but I just want to make a preliminary remark in that all scientists conduct their research within a framework of natural causes with no attempts to appeal to the supernatural. That's why they must assume all causes are empirical and naturalistic.

It's all right to assume natural causes for certain phenomena and work within this framework. But we have to understand that such assumption is very limited and can only lead to limited discoveries. If we want to assume this we have to know that many other questions will be unanswered and materialistic science should not be involved to research such questions. Materialistic theories of origin of universe, origin of life and its diversity and so on are impossible to come up with. In such cases science should restrict its search only to very limited area of reality.

The questions you are raising are philosophical, which isn't the concern for scientists. Science cannot understand itself.

I do not think that those questions are philosophical alone and does not pertain to science. If science is about the search of truth in reality then to whatever this search leads we should accept it. Let's assume that we are investigating a phenomenon which in no way can be explained by naturalistic explanation. What do we do next? Do we say, this phenomenon was an illusion? Do we say, let's wait for centuries and materialistic explanation will spring into existence? Or do we dispose our false assumption and try to go beyond it?

 

[RobS]

@Ativan

Science isn't in search of truth and has nothing to say about it. So you have a confusion between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, which the later makes a truth claim that only natural causes exist which you and I both would reject, but I suspect for different reasons.

You misconstrue what I meant about the required assumption of scientists. Of course it's limited, that's the point. Scientists aren't concerned with truth, but only with useful predictions. That's it. Science isn't getting closer to some sort of "ultimate reality" here and really has no intention to do so.

So I think you have a misunderstanding between what science does and philosophy. The two should not be mixed, and when it does it becomes both bad science and bad philosophy.

EDIT: Just saw Justin's lengthy post, OK give me some time for a proper response.

 

[ativan]

@Ativan

Science isn't in search of truth and has nothing to say about it...

Scientists aren't concerned with truth, but only with useful predictions. That's it. Science isn't getting closer to some sort of "ultimate reality" here and really has no intention to do so.

Basically, you are saying it does not matter what theories we have to explain observable phenomena as long as these theories makes useful predictions. Let's take very concrete example. I want to ask a question how life came into existence and what caused diversity of life. Are these questions scientific ones? If they are not then Neo-Darwinism is not science since it tries to answer questions beyond science. So, we have to assume that these questions are scientific ones since we have (or at least scientists claim they do) theories about it. Today's theory which claims to have answers to these questions is Neo-Darwinian theory. This theory claims that all life form arouse from common ancestor by random mutations and natural selection. Within the context what you have just said it does not really matter if diversity of life is caused by random mutations and natural selection as long as Neo-Darwinism makes useful predictions, am i right?

 

[minasoliman]

Tbh...the posts are way too long to care anymore lol

I think I explained enough in this thread my reasons.  I don't appreciate it that I'm accused of believing in "scientism" though.  My use of the consistency argument was actually a refutation of scientism, to show that the one true "consistent" Logos created the cosmos with His character of consistency. 

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Welcome back Ativan, glad you are posting again.

 

[TheTrisagion]

Tbh...the posts are way too long to care anymore lol

I think I explained enough in this thread my reasons.  I don't appreciate it that I'm accused of believing in "scientism" though.  My use of the consistency argument was actually a refutation of scientism, to show that the one true "consistent" Logos created the cosmos with His character of consistency.

Don't worry, mina, I'm in the same camp you are. Except I am a Chalcedonian scientism follower. 

 

[RobS]

Welcome back Ativan, glad you are posting again. I'll get back to you later tonight if I can to sharpen your points. I think we fundamentally agree, but how we get there is where differ.

More later, but I just want to make a preliminary remark in that all scientists conduct their research within a framework of natural causes with no attempts to appeal to the supernatural. That's why they must assume all causes are empirical and naturalistic.

The questions you are raising are philosophical, which isn't the concern for scientists. Science cannot understand itself.

I'm not sure I understand why you place such importance on separating philosophy and science, and calling attention to their separation. No science could be done without a thousand bricks of philosophy acting as a foundation. Perhaps half these bricks are beliefs and assumptions so common that we don't even think about them as philosophical, we just take them for granted without thinking of them at all. That science should work on curing cancer. Why? What if you believe as Christian scientists do? The overwhelming majority hold to a very different belief about such matters though, so that position is simply ushered right in and past the line and bouncer. Another is that we should try to test and confirm data. Why? For verification? Yet as journal articles multiply we end up with situations where there are a bazillion claims being made, and on a great many of them you can find conflicting data, competing hypotheses/ideas, and contradictory conclusions. So why not wait until we reach critical masses and then do experiments? As opposed to the 'publish or perish' system, where getting into some graduate programs takes into account if and how much you've published, getting tenure often makes a good publishing history a requirement, and so on? It's a philosophical position. The who do science and those who set the course of it prefer one method over all the other options. They prefer to let a bazillion articles be published in ten thousand journals, half of which might be completely fraud, and a large portion of the other half being largely useless or even harmful. Of course it's hard to change now--mid stream--but it's still a philosophical brick.

There are others that are perhaps still controversial among a larger group. Once the group reaches 'big enough to lobby the government, or bug us' status they usually can get some kind of acknowledgement. Animal rights, for example. Is it right to experiment on animals? Mammals? Rats vs. fish vs. cockroaches vs. chimpanzees? We can't use chimpanzees to test out new drugs to be used in death penalty cases? Why not? Well can we still kill single-celled organisms? Where is the line drawn, and why? Or another line of questioning: is it ok to do experiments that are not seriously harmful (death or vegetablizing), but not ones that will effectively end the life? Is it ok to do dangerous experiments on humans? If sometimes, when? Only if they are terminal? As long as they give their consent? Never, if it has a more than 10% chance of killing them? Who decides, and how? Is there a non-philosophical, scientific way to figure this stuff out? One of the common criticisms of sola scripture is that there is not table of contents included by God from the start. Well, is there a list of oks and not oks from the start with science? Does some non-philosophical experiment demonstrate why cadavers are now allowed to be used for all manner of scientific investigation, including (fittingly but morbidly) observations about the effects of weather patterns, wild animal involvement, and the like on dead human bodies, such as how fast they decompose in this or that condition.

Why spend billions on going to space? Searching for this and that? What direction? Why talk of humans going to Mars? What are the arguments between scientists about? Specifically the ones that are competing for the grants that make most of the experimenting feasible? There are arguments about which would yield the most data, which would give the most accurate results, and so on. But the great majority of them are straight up philosophy. Let's focus on mining random objects in the solar system because there's money in them there thingers. No, we should focus on learning how to keep one of them from slamming into earth and destroying the planet; in fact, we should be doing this urgently. Nah, the chances of that happening are miniscule; it is my opinion that the chances are so small that we should focus on other, more productive things instead, like how to protect astronauts from the negative effects of being in space. What? Humans shouldn't even be in space! And so on and so on, in just that one area.

Before, during and after science does science, it must also do philosophy. Or, scientists must know and do philosophy as a part of the scientific method, and it's in many cases more integral and foundational than the would-be factual, naturalistic, non-philosophical stuff. I don't know what you'll think of this, or if I have completely misunderstood your point. Anyway, I hope I didn't write this for nothing. Oh wait...  Har har, couldn't resist.

I think this confirms my position, rather than opposes it.

The questions you raise aren't scientific and can't be answered by science. All science can do is apply methodological naturalism to facts that need explaining. It can't get outside that system and ask whether it should do so in any particular case or at any particular cost.

Those types of questions are answered the usual way: politics, morality, philosophy. These cannot limit themselves to methodological naturalism and be a valid inquiry.

So you seem to be saying that science is embedded in a nonscientific system of power and discourse. Yes, but that embeddedness is exactly what science can't inquire into.

 

[ativan]

Nothing

Is the question of "life's origin and diversity" a scientific question or not?

 

[ativan]

I don't appreciate it that I'm accused of believing in "scientism" though.  My use of the consistency argument was actually a refutation of scientism, to show that the one true "consistent" Logos created the cosmos with His character of consistency.

Do you know Logos? Have had revelation about this? How did you get to that conclusion? If you coming from Orthodox viewpoint then you are wrong. If you coming from science viewpoint than you you are wrong again.

 

[RobS]

Basically, you are saying it does not matter what theories we have to explain observable phenomena as long as these theories makes useful predictions. Let's take very concrete example. I want to ask a question how life came into existence and what caused diversity of life. Are these questions scientific ones? If they are not then Neo-Darwinism is not science since it tries to answer questions beyond science. So, we have to assume that these questions are scientific ones since we have (or at least scientists claim they do) theories about it. Today's theory which claims to have answers to these questions is Neo-Darwinian theory. This theory claims that all life form arouse from common ancestor by random mutations and natural selection. Within the context what you have just said it does not really matter if diversity of life is caused by random mutations and natural selection as long as Neo-Darwinism makes useful predictions, am i right?

OK hold on for a second.

You need to understand first and foremost that science is a method. All it does is look for the causes of things that which call for an explanation in the material universe. It does by not consult clerics, or oralces, or anything else to explain.

There is no denying that science has worked remarkably well in what it does, that is make useful predictions.

Because I must repeat myself once more, science is limited only in finding explanations within the material world. So, ativan, relax and rejoice! You shouldn't feel threatened at all by science that's going to erode the ground of your faith. Science is not the least concerned about exploring the mysteries of God. That's why we have priests and theologians, but I don't expect them to have the skill to fill my dental caries or engineer stable bridges.

Now as to your query regarding the diversity of organic life, well that's the thing Ativan, we never lacked explanations. We have plenty of mythic and folk accounts to explain the diversity, but those were not useful predictions. So that is why we use science, because we can produce better crops. And the theory of evolution does give us useful predictions above any other explanation that we have because it lies in methodological naturalism.

And you are also not using the word "random" in how its understood in biology. It basically means that the causes of mutations are itself natural and lack directional properties. So there was nobody planning or guiding any of this. There is no teleology to account for it. And why they occur are due to a plethora of well researched reasons that are able to measure it at a certain rate. Which that rate, by the way, is consistent with how its determined that the theory of evolution is valid. So we can verify the predictions that concords with the theory.

That doesn't mean we can't come across an observable fact that requires an explanation, like a human skull found inside of a T-Rex skeleton, which might put the validity of the theory in jeopardy. I won't hold my breath on that ever happening.

Anyway, science is called upon to explain facts. The theory of evolution does it very nicely and its doing it exactly as its supposed to do, that is an explanation of the factual organic forms we experience.

There simply is no other competing theory that comes close, and is pretty much as valid as quantum theory.

If you can provide us with a single observable fact that upends the entire theory, I will make sure I get you nominated for a Nobel. But, again, not holding my breath. The theory has been tested for a very long time now and we haven't uncovered a single fact that has been able to contradict it. Not a single one. Every single scientific discovery after Darwin has completely supported it. And really if it wasn't a valid theory, we would have plenty of observable facts to demonstrate it but we don't and my guess is we never will.

 

[minasoliman]

I don't appreciate it that I'm accused of believing in "scientism" though.  My use of the consistency argument was actually a refutation of scientism, to show that the one true "consistent" Logos created the cosmos with His character of consistency.

Do you know Logos?

Yes, but not as much as He knows me.  Every Sunday I get to know the Logos even more through His life giving body and blood.

 

[RobS]

Nothing

Is the question of "life's origin and diversity" a scientific question or not?

I pretty much answered this indirectly in my post above, if you feel I didn't I suppose I could elaborate further..

You know ativan, evolutionary biology doesn't actually attempt to explain the origin of life, just what occurred after that which came into being.

That's not to say it doesn't have a naturalistic theory on the origins, but even biologists admit is pretty rough. We just don't enough data during that period in history to where a powerful explanatory theory could emerge.

Just look at the attempts to explain dark energy or hell even gravity.

 

[RobS]

Tbh...the posts are way too long to care anymore lol

I think I explained enough in this thread my reasons.  I don't appreciate it that I'm accused of believing in "scientism" though.  My use of the consistency argument was actually a refutation of scientism, to show that the one true "consistent" Logos created the cosmos with His character of consistency.

I forget, aren't you a biologist or something? Or was that pharmacy?

 

[minasoliman]

I do have a bachelors in biology.  Then I went on for medicine.

 

[RobS]

I do have a bachelors in biology.  Then I went on for medicine.

Well Ativan look no further than anything minasoliman has to say. I'm certainly less than a layman here.

 

[minasoliman]

I'm not sure I'll be able to see straight after Ativan

 

[ativan]

Nothing

Is the question of "life's origin and diversity" a scientific question or not?

I pretty much answered this indirectly in my post above, if you feel I didn't I suppose I could elaborate further..

You know ativan, evolutionary biology doesn't actually attempt to explain the origin of life, just what occurred after that which came into being.

That's not to say it doesn't have a naturalistic theory on the origins, but even biologists admit is pretty rough. We just don't enough data during that period in history to where a powerful explanatory theory could emerge.

Just look at the attempts to explain dark energy or hell even gravity.

That's why I asked question about both origin and diversity. Evolutionary theory tries to explain how diversity of life has arouse. So at least you agree that the question about origin of diversity of life is a scientific question. Why do I ask it? I'm actually trying to see how today's science relates to the point you've made. You said "Scientists aren't concerned with truth, but only with useful predictions". This is actually against evidence. When an evolutionary biologist claims diversity of life is the consequence of random genetic mutations and natural selection for him/her this is a fact, reality and not just some abstraction which makes useful predictions. They claim trueness of it. Same as true of many other scientific theories. When nuclear physicist claims of existence of atomic and subatomic particles for them this is not just a conceptual model but reality. The existence of electron for a physicist is reality. You can claim the science should follow your principle but that's not reality.

That's not to say it doesn't have a naturalistic theory on the origins, but even biologists admit is pretty rough. We just don't enough data during that period in history to where a powerful explanatory theory could emerge.

Allright. Let's assume that we don't have enough data about origin of life. Let's for a second think of some wild imaginary data which in the future could come handy to explain origin of life in naturalistic terms. Imagine you have freedom to chose such data which would support abiogenesis. At lease in theory what would be such data? What kind of data it would be? What type of data are we looking for? To make my question more clear I will give you an example. Standard theory of particle physics predicted the existence of Higgs boson. Physicists new what type of data they would look for to validate the existence of it. Whole experimental setup was directed towards this objective. At least you should be able to point to some theoretical findings in the future to validate abiogenesis. And my question is asking exactly that. In fact, there's nothing like it and never will be. Proponents of abiogenesis (which would be the only naturalistic explanation) have no clue what such data could be. This is a clear indication that abiogenesis is false theory in any its form.

You shouldn't feel threatened at all by science that's going to erode the ground of your faith.

Believe me, your statement is counterfactual. Science can never erode my faith today. In fact inability of science to explain many things and instead of explanation talking about fantastic stories brought me to faith.

There is no denying that science has worked remarkably well in what it does, that is make useful predictions.

I have no doubt in this. But that does not mean every theory explains facts well. For example, neo-Darwinian theory of evolution has most ridiculous explanation of the existent facts.

There simply is no other competing theory that comes close, and is pretty much as valid as quantum theory.

This is exactly the point i was making. Because you restricted explanation to naturalistic causes you think there's no competing explanation. In reality there is. Intelligent design (that life is creation of intelligence) is the only conclusion one can make when studying life.

And you are also not using the word "random" in how its understood in biology. It basically means that the causes of mutations are itself natural and lack directional properties. So there was nobody planning or guiding any of this. There is no teleology to account for it. And why they occur are due to a plethora of well researched reasons that are able to measure it at a certain rate. Which that rate, by the way, is consistent with how its determined that the theory of evolution is valid. So we can verify the predictions that concords with the theory.

I know exactly what "random" means. You make so much claims for Neo-Darwinism i hope you can support it. Firstly, random mutations should be randomly distributed in genome. It is known fact that mutations in genome are not randomly distributed. There are locations in the genome which allow high rates of mutations and there are locations which are very conserved. How can random mutations lead to such a distribution of mutations in genome? Even more, genes coding for immunoglobulins have regions that allow several magnitudes of order of mutation rates than can be seen even in mutational hostspots. These mutations happen in exact spots such that to create a gene which will code for a protein which exactly matches with an antigen towards which it is directed. At the same time constant regions of immunoglobulin genes have mechanisms to not allow mutations in these locations. How can you call this randomness (or something lacking direction) when it directly contradicts your theory?

Furthermore, we don't see objects in the nature that look-like man-made and is not man-made. Anytime we see refrigerators, radios, tvs, computers, cars and so on we know they were designed and created and did not arise out of random processes. We have not seen anything like it and we will not ever say these machines can be brought into existence by random and undirected events. Then why will you say cellular machines (and the whole life for that matter) which are much more complex can arise out of undirected and random event? Why will you not stay consistent (which you have made a principle in other cases) and in one case of intelligent peace of machinery you will claim its intelligent design and another case deny it? After all materials we use are composed of exactly same atoms and molecules that life is composed of. Then what is so special with life that undirected and random processes lead to ordered structures while no such thing happens with regards to human designed machines?

 

[ativan]

My use of the consistency argument was actually a refutation of scientism, to show that the one true "consistent" Logos created the cosmos with His character of consistency.

What about miracles then? Are miracles in the line of "a spirit of consistency among all material phenomenon".?

As i remember you have claimed that God has used evolution in Neo-Darwinian fashion or something in this line. Is that right?

I'm not sure I'll be able to see straight after Ativan

i like this

 

[ativan]

If you can provide us with a single observable fact that upends the entire theory, I will make sure I get you nominated for a Nobel.

Single observable fact against neo-Darwinism: there's no observable fact that supports ne-Darwinism.

 

[biro]

Huh?

 

[RobS]

Huh?

Since I'm posting from phone, I have to keep this short.

ativan just has a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics such as theories, facts, science, truth, etc. I'll sort this all when I get the time.

He certainly is worth responding to and if I can help clear up the confusions he has, I hope that will allow him to see his views are rooted in folly.

I'm not trying to evangelize but I can't help to notice how ativan is using a particular style, it suggests there is something more problematic than the theory of evolution that's he real issue here. I just haven't determined what that is yet.

 

[minasoliman]

My use of the consistency argument was actually a refutation of scientism, to show that the one true "consistent" Logos created the cosmos with His character of consistency.

What about miracles then? Are miracles in the line of "a spirit of consistency among all material phenomenon".?

As i remember you have claimed that God has used evolution in Neo-Darwinian fashion or something in this line. Is that right?

Yes, that is correct.  Let's use one small part of science that I am sure you and I agree upon:  medicine or pharmacology (judging by your username, you might agree with the science of pharmacology?).  There is a consistency in the treatment of diseases and disorders based on a human being's biochemical, physical, and overall, physiological make-up.  We judge by the pattern of a patient's symptoms along with confirmation using our diagnostic tools what the patient has, and what treatments are available to alleviate, treat, or cure the patient's ailments.

Now, we have cancer for instance.  We have treatments for cancer, and we hope to find better treatments.  But let's say the cancer metastasized and there is only a month to live.  We have all the proof there is that there are mets.  But miraculously, 3 months go by, then 4 months, and when we check again, the mets are gone.  What happened?  Miracle?  Maybe.  Maybe God has His reasons to heal this patient of something impossible to heal.  Does that take away the consistency of the science of oncology?  No, it does not, and there is still hope in the future that we can tackle cancer scientifically, as God allows us to grow in this knowledge.

Same with any other science.  There is a consistency.  Do miracles happen?  Yes!  Are they part of God's consistent plan for all of us?  I think so, even if it does not seem consistent by scientific standards, yet by divine providence, I trust that a few "inconsistent" miracles here and there are part of God's consistency of which I have no way of understanding until the second coming.

 

[Opus118]

Huh?

Since I'm posting from phone, I have to keep this short.

ativan just has a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics such as theories, facts, science, truth, etc. I'll sort this all when I get the time.

He certainly is worth responding to and if I can help clear up the confusions he has, I hope that will allow him to see his views are rooted in folly.

I'm not trying to evangelize but I can't help to notice how ativan is using a particular style, it suggests there is something more problematic than the theory of evolution that's he real issue here. I just haven't determined what that is yet.

I suggest that you start by going to the bottom of page 66 of this thread topic to around page 70. I posted seriously during this episode. There is another episode starting around page 96 to around page 106. This will get you up to speed.

 

[RobS]

Huh?

Since I'm posting from phone, I have to keep this short.

ativan just has a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics such as theories, facts, science, truth, etc. I'll sort this all when I get the time.

He certainly is worth responding to and if I can help clear up the confusions he has, I hope that will allow him to see his views are rooted in folly.

I'm not trying to evangelize but I can't help to notice how ativan is using a particular style, it suggests there is something more problematic than the theory of evolution that's he real issue here. I just haven't determined what that is yet.

I suggest that you start by going to the bottom of page 66 of this thread topic to around page 70. I posted seriously during this episode. There is another episode starting around page 96 to around page 106. This will get you up to speed.

Thank you Opus, this is a lot to review and parse.

 

[RobS]

You said "Scientists aren't concerned with truth, but only with useful predictions". This is actually against evidence.
When an evolutionary biologist claims diversity of life is the consequence of random genetic mutations and natural selection for him/her this is a fact, reality and not just some abstraction which makes useful predictions. They claim trueness of it. Same as true of many other scientific theories. When nuclear physicist claims of existence of atomic and subatomic particles for them this is not just a conceptual model but reality. The existence of electron for a physicist is reality. You can claim the science should follow your principle but that's not reality.

See this is the problem, Ativan, you confuse scientists that embrace philosophical naturalism that pretends to be science when it's really not.

And there are people like yourself that hold to intelligent design, which is speculative philosophy, and call it science.

So you are both two sides of the same coin.

If science does anything else other than methodological naturalism, then it isn't science. Science just starts and doesn't ask why. Real philosophy, on the other hand, doesn't just start, it asks where do we even begin? What method should we use? Etc etc.

Philosophy and science have nothing in common.

Science make no truth claim whatsoever and has no ontology.

I am almost certain you will agree with this, if you don't then we can go no further than the basics here.

Allright. Let's assume that we don't have enough data about origin of life. Let's for a second think of some wild imaginary data which in the future could come handy to explain origin of life in naturalistic terms. Imagine you have freedom to chose such data which would support abiogenesis. At lease in theory what would be such data? What kind of data it would be? What type of data are we looking for? To make my question more clear I will give you an example. Standard theory of particle physics predicted the existence of Higgs boson. Physicists new what type of data they would look for to validate the existence of it. Whole experimental setup was directed towards this objective. At least you should be able to point to some theoretical findings in the future to validate abiogenesis. And my question is asking exactly that. In fact, there's nothing like it and never will be. Proponents of abiogenesis (which would be the only naturalistic explanation) have no clue what such data could be. This is a clear indication that abiogenesis is false theory in any its form.

I can tell you right now that the theory of abiogenesis isn't at all satisfactory, so you won't find any disagreement from me.

I'm also glad you agree that quantum theory is pretty powerful.

In fact inability of science to explain many things and instead of explanation talking about fantastic stories brought me to faith.

Depends what calls for the explanation, but of course science is limited, it only studies natural causes. Nobody is using science in order to extract meaning out of Jonah.

I have no doubt in this. But that does not mean every theory explains facts well.

Of course.

For example, neo-Darwinian theory of evolution has most ridiculous explanation of the existent facts.

And what is the better alternative?

This is exactly the point i was making. Because you restricted explanation to naturalistic causes you think there's no competing explanation. In reality there is. Intelligent design (that life is creation of intelligence) is the only conclusion one can make when studying life.

Because science is ONLY limited to natural causes, it does not seek any other explanations outside of that. The reason science doesn't need intelligent design is because it doesn't give us useful predictions, whereas the theory of evolution does. That's the difference.

But let's end intelligent design right in its tracks.

The theory of evolution works remarkably well in its explanation of observable facts - which is exactly what scientific theories do. And it explains it with no reference at all to some sort of mechanicsm of design.

In fact the whole point of the theory of evolution, which makes a very thorough, persuasive account of what the mechanism is - natural selection.

Intelligent design is stuck because it must provide the mechanism, and none of the proponents ever will because all it is some disguise for a doctrine that God created the universe.

It cannot tell us anything beyond that, hence why it cannot be a scientific theory. It is disqualified from the start.

I'll give you a challenge. Give me a theory of origins, meaning you would have to provide a theory of the mechanism that is used by supposed designer in order for us to test it.

I will bet $100 dollars that will never happen because intelligent design isn't a real scientific theory. So if God made things, there is simply no reason for there to be any evidence that God did. Probably because God's actions aren't naturalistic, so further evidence that there is zero point to the intelligent design argument at all.

I know exactly what "random" means. You make so much claims for Neo-Darwinism i hope you can support it. Firstly, random mutations should be randomly distributed in genome. It is known fact that mutations in genome are not randomly distributed. There are locations in the genome which allow high rates of mutations and there are locations which are very conserved. How can random mutations lead to such a distribution of mutations in genome? Even more, genes coding for immunoglobulins have regions that allow several magnitudes of order of mutation rates than can be seen even in mutational hostspots. These mutations happen in exact spots such that to create a gene which will code for a protein which exactly matches with an antigen towards which it is directed. At the same time constant regions of immunoglobulin genes have mechanisms to not allow mutations in these locations. How can you call this randomness (or something lacking direction) when it directly contradicts your theory?

Sure none of them are random in a mathematical sense, but random in the sense there is no end or purpose. What I think you are doing is confusing random mutations and a random system when its not.

And yeah we know the processes that cause mutations. They have already been tested and confirmed. We also have already measured the rate of mutation and know the consequences.

This all fits perfectly into the theory of evolution.

So we have a very useful explanation for how mutations work, and unless you can present evidence to the contrary this is by all means case closed.

Furthermore, we don't see objects in the nature that look-like man-made and is not man-made. Anytime we see refrigerators, radios, tvs, computers, cars and so on we know they were designed and created and did not arise out of random processes. We have not seen anything like it and we will not ever say these machines can be brought into existence by random and undirected events. Then why will you say cellular machines (and the whole life for that matter) which are much more complex can arise out of undirected and random event? Why will you not stay consistent (which you have made a principle in other cases) and in one case of intelligent peace of machinery you will claim its intelligent design and another case deny it? After all materials we use are composed of exactly same atoms and molecules that life is composed of. Then what is so special with life that undirected and random processes lead to ordered structures while no such thing happens with regards to human designed machines?

This is incoherent. I haven't said any of the above, and once again you are equivocating with the word "random".

We know where radios, TVS, computers, etc come from - factories. So they are designed. We know where animals come from - they were evolved from earlier life forms, so there is no design.

We aren't looking for design elements and then determine if something was designed. Like I said above, we look to origins.