RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

unclemonkey -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/10/2008 6:25:13 PM)

ORIGINAL:1dblthnk02
quote:

My point simply countered unclemonkey's implication that your "opposition to evolution" was clean of any religious/theistic bias, per atheistinpeace's comment:

You have misconstrued my statement. I didn’t say Jack had no religious bias. What I said was that the arguments he presents are based on his understanding of biology.

I admit to being religiously biased, but my argument that evolution has no empirical support is not a religious argument.

If you actually think you are not biased you are deceiving yourself.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/10/2008 6:48:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
You have misconstrued my statement. I didn’t say Jack had no religious bias. What I said was that the arguments he presents are based on his understanding of biology.

Maybe I misunderstood you. I did not mean to misconstrue your statement.
However, you responded to atheistinpeace's comment about a non-religious argument against evolution. Just because Jack understands biology does not mean that his position is not religious.

quote:

I admit to being religiously biased, but my argument that evolution has no empirical support is not a religious argument.

Fair enough. I wasn't questioning your objectivity.

quote:

If you actually think you are not biased you are deceiving yourself.

Then I am not deceived, seeing as how I never claimed to be unbiased.



Jhud -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/10/2008 7:35:20 PM)

quote:

Not if one interprets the facts in order to bolster one's beliefs.


To some extent, everyone does; but my scientific arguments are every bit as empirical and objective as your own, or any other atheist or evolutionist that posts here.

quote:

I'm not entirely sure about your syntax here. My point simply countered unclemonkey's implication that your "opposition to evolution" was clean of any religious/theistic bias, per atheistinpeace's comment:
"I don't think I've ever heard a non-religious challenge to the science behind evolutionary theory."


I am pretty clear about the science that supports my viewpoint, which as far as ID is concerned isn't 'religious'.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/10/2008 8:22:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
To some extent, everyone does

To the extent that anyone does defies scientific method.

quote:

but my scientific arguments are every bit as empirical and objective as your own, or any other atheist or evolutionist that posts here.

As a scientific argument should be. Not all of your arguments that I have encountered are purely scientific.

quote:

I am pretty clear about the science that supports my viewpoint, which as far as ID is concerned isn't 'religious'.

To presuppose a designer of the universe based on one's religious belief is a religious assumption. To set about proving that assumption a priori by skewing someone else's theory/data/research is not objective nor scientific.

Now, if one does not presuppose a designer based on one's religious belief, but starts at point A where intelligent design might be evident, and then works out from there, is being a little more objective-- iff there is no religious assumption fueling one's research.



DanJames -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/10/2008 8:47:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02

Now, if one does not presuppose a designer based on one's religious belief, but starts at point A where intelligent design might be evident, and then works out from there, is being a little more objective-- iff there is no religious assumption fueling one's research.


I have never, EVER looked up the author of a single primary research article to find their religious beliefs before including them in ANY of my research projects. Where did you come up with this logic? You don't psychoanylize a person's motivations when attempting to duplicate laboratory test results. Nor do you phone a person to find out why they were trying to track the emu population in downtown Chicago. Their work is based on the quality and repeatability of their research first and their credentials secondarily, but NEVER based on a religious belief or presupposition.
To the contrary, as far as presuppositions go, a presupposition is actually a (somewhat) required part of any good primary research article. You should start with what you think your results will be, do the test, express your disappointments in your results, explain why you were wrong, and either do the test again in a different way, or suggest how another test could be conducted. I don't recall any primary research articles written any other way.



Jhud -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/10/2008 11:03:57 PM)

quote:

To the extent that anyone does defies scientific method.


Well, if the scientific method could wholly negate human nature we wouldn't be having this discussion.

quote:

As a scientific argument should be. Not all of your arguments that I have encountered are purely scientific.


Nor yours. Nor anyone's around here, come to think of it.

quote:

To presuppose a designer of the universe based on one's religious belief is a religious assumption. To set about proving that assumption a priori by skewing someone else's theory/data/research is not objective nor scientific.


Certainly; the same is true for all metaphysical beliefs, including materialism.

quote:

Now, if one does not presuppose a designer based on one's religious belief, but starts at point A where intelligent design might be evident, and then works out from there, is being a little more objective-- iff there is no religious assumption fueling one's research.


Thus the theory of ID.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/11/2008 7:04:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well, if the scientific method could wholly negate human nature we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Does science have to negate human nature in order to function and advance our understanding of natural laws? I think not-- otherwise, science would have gotten mankind nowhere by now.
What is required is for research to be conducted according to objective standards, thus allowing the data to speak for itself.

quote:

Nor yours. Nor anyone's around here, come to think of it.

Good, then we agree: unclemonkey was not exactly correct about you.

quote:

Certainly; the same is true for all metaphysical beliefs, including materialism.

Does materialism presuppose a designer of the universe?

quote:

Thus the theory of ID.

Why is it that ID's primary supporters are religious groups/individuals who want to see evolution pushed out of the classroom? Everyday I hear the local Christian radio station touting ID in the schools, and creationism on their own programs. It seems rather indicting of ID's proponents, like the Discovery Institute, to swear up an down they are not creationists in sheep's clothing, but then enjoy the cozy endorsement of Christian creationists.



quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
I have never, EVER looked up the author of a single primary research article to find their religious beliefs before including them in ANY of my research projects.

Perhaps you should. For instance, Behe and Dembski have made their religious beliefs rather clear.
Now, so does Richard Dawkins; however, he is more of a commentator than a scientist. Anybody who pursues as much publicity as he does, like Carl Sagan before him, I have a tendency to take with a grain of salt. I don't necessarily disagree with their scientific viewpoints, but their motivation appears just as religious in nature as ID, maybe even more so-- especially Dawkins.



unclemonkey -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/11/2008 10:52:43 PM)

ORIGINAL:
quote:

quote:

Certainly; the same is true for all metaphysical beliefs, including materialism.

Does materialism presuppose a designer of the universe?

Materialism presupposes a designer of the universe does not exist.

quote:

Why is it that ID's primary supporters are religious groups/individuals who want to see evolution pushed out of the classroom?

Do you think unsupportable a priori assumptions should be taught as fact? If you will actually look at ID’s goal you will see that it is NOT to remove evolution from the classroom. ID’s goal is to remove the unsupportable a priori assumptions of atheism from the classroom.

quote:

Perhaps you should. For instance, Behe and Dembski have made their religious beliefs rather clear.

Does the fact that Richard Dawkins is a devout atheist automatically void his position on evolution or ID?

However, the topic of this thread is the claim that there are no non-religious arguments against evolution. Jack and I have both refuted that claim.



drj11 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/12/2008 1:19:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
Materialism presupposes a designer of the universe does not exist.


Science, nor evolution, necessarily have anything to do with materialism. And ID, according to its proponents, isn't necessarily any less naturalistic than evolution.

quote:


Do you think unsupportable a priori assumptions should be taught as fact? If you will actually look at ID’s goal you will see that it is NOT to remove evolution from the classroom.


Why do you have such a soft spot for it then? And here we go again with the whole "ID is not religious, but it keeps atheism out of the classroom thing"...

quote:


ID’s goal is to remove the unsupportable a priori assumptions of atheism from the classroom.


As I have pointed out before. You can still be an atheist and believe in ID. God is not required nor inferred.



unclemonkey -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/12/2008 1:55:56 PM)

ORIGINAL:drj11
quote:

Science, nor evolution, necessarily have anything to do with materialism.

At least you got one thing right in that statement. Science and evolution should be mentioned as separate entities.
Science is indifferent to materialism, deism or any “ism”. Evolution as it is taught in public schools is hogtied to materialism.

quote:

And here we go again with the whole "ID is not religious, but it keeps atheism out of the classroom thing"...

Because it opposes the religion of atheism it MUST be religious itself?

quote:

You can still be an atheist and believe in ID.

Who/what is the atheist’s ID?

quote:

God is not required nor inferred.

No particular God is inferred, but ID DOES infer the supernatural. What so many people fail to understand is presenting evidence that infers the supernatural is NOT religious, it is unfettered science.



drj11 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/12/2008 2:44:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
At least you got one thing right in that statement. Science and evolution should be mentioned as separate entities.
Science is indifferent to materialism, deism or any “ism”. Evolution as it is taught in public schools is hogtied to materialism.


Show me how exactly? You make claims like this a lot, but never have anything to back it up. Evolution is no different than other natural sciences.

quote:


Because it opposes the religion of atheism it MUST be religious itself?


Atheism is a lack of belief in god. Calling it religion is like calling not collecting baseball cards a hobby. ID doesnt imply supernatural or god, it just implies design, possibly by another natural entity.

quote:


Who/what is the atheist’s ID?


ID claims that since we can somehow infer design, while knowing absolutely zero about the designer in question. Who is the designer for a typical ID proponent? God? But didn't you say ID isnt religious? Or is it just supernatural, but not God? What does that even mean anyways? The designers could be ethereal spirits, but not aliens etc?

quote:


No particular God is inferred, but ID DOES infer the supernatural. What so many people fail to understand is presenting evidence that infers the supernatural is NOT religious, it is unfettered science.


Nowhere does it say the designer is supernatural. In fact, ID'ers take great pains and go to great lengths to make sure the point is driven home that that designer doesn't mean supernatural or god. If something is unknown, it doesn't automatically mean supernatural. Where are you getting that idea? Supernatural is a meaningless term for the most part anyways.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/13/2008 11:38:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
Materialism presupposes a designer of the universe does not exist.

Does materialism then use other people's research to set about proving it?

quote:

If you will actually look at ID’s goal you will see that it is NOT to remove evolution from the classroom.

But most who argue for ID in the classroom do. They couldn't get creationism in, so they backed the next best thing. The agenda remains the same: to remake the science of biology in their own image.

quote:

ID’s goal is to remove the unsupportable a priori assumptions of atheism from the classroom.

Incorrect. IDers already know that atheism is not taught in biology. You were on the right track when you pegged materialism as the target. Here is a quote:

"However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy . . . Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."


Pay particular attention to that last phrase. Hardly the "Aw, shucks, we don't mean to cause any problems" agenda you are making it out to be. The goal is obvious: objectivity out; Christian theology in. Once that happens, it's only fair for creationism to enter the picture as well which is the true, unstated goal of most ID supporters.

quote:

Does the fact that Richard Dawkins is a devout atheist automatically void his position on evolution or ID?

It certainly taints it. Evolution does not need, nor has ever needed a theistic position of any kind. Dawkins comes across as less of a scientist and more of a man with an axe to grind. He wants atheism in the classroom.

Btw, if atheism were already in the classroom, why would Dawkins have to push for it?

quote:

However, the topic of this thread is the claim that there are no non-religious arguments against evolution. Jack and I have both refuted that claim.

Actually, Jack and I deduced that religious non-bias is not evident on this thread



unclemonkey -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/13/2008 8:37:05 PM)

ORIGINAL:
quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
Materialism presupposes a designer of the universe does not exist.

Does materialism then use other people's research to set about proving it?

No. For materialism that as an a priori assumption. Materialism accepts it as a truism regardless of the evidence.

quote:

But most who argue for ID in the classroom do. They couldn't get creationism in, so they backed the next best thing.

That is nothing more than propaganda spread by ID opponents.

quote:

The agenda remains the same: to remake the science of biology in their own image.

True, the agenda remains the same. However the agenda is to remove atheism from the classroom.


quote:

Incorrect. IDers already know that atheism is not taught in biology.

Your quote disproves that claim. In fact your quote verifies what I have been saying. Read the opening statement carefully. “However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source.”

quote:

Pay particular attention to that last phrase.

You need to pay particular attention to the entire wording.

“Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

quote:

The goal is obvious:

That is right. The goal is to REMOVE ATHEISM from the classroom.

quote:

quote:

Does the fact that Richard Dawkins is a devout atheist automatically void his position on evolution or ID?

It certainly taints it.

ROFLOL! You just verified that you perceive the messenger as more pertinent than the message. IOW you reject evidence simply because of the source. That is anti-science.
The evidence is independent of the messenger.

quote:

Btw, if atheism were already in the classroom, why would Dawkins have to push for it?

He is NOT pushing to instill atheism in the classroom. He is fighting to keep it there.

quote:

Actually, Jack and I deduced that religious non-bias is not evident on this thread

That is a distortion. The claim of this thread is that “there are no non-religious arguments against evolution”. Jack and I have both disproved that claim. Please explain how pointing out the lack of empirical support for evolution is a religious argument.



cybrjewls -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/14/2008 12:22:22 AM)

Hello! Thank you for the information.

quote:

ORIGINAL: atheistinpeace

quote:

ORIGINAL: .prophetica.

Could you please supply some links for the studies on speciation?



I'll simply say that I suggest you look at Talk Origins - I'm hesitant to link to it, as I'm not sure if it would constitute a ToS violation. For the study in the lab, have a look at the study on Drosophila; for examples on evolution in nature, start with the London Underground mosquito or the Faroe Island house mouse. I don't think this forum is the right place to reproduce the details of the study - they're widely available on the web.

AiP



ianz -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/14/2008 10:48:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
...

quote:

The goal is obvious:

That is right. The goal is to REMOVE ATHEISM from the classroom.
If atheism is taught, then it hasn't exactly been a roaring success.

quote:

quote:

quote:

Does the fact that Richard Dawkins is a devout atheist automatically void his position on evolution or ID?

It certainly taints it.

ROFLOL! You just verified that you perceive the messenger as more pertinent than the message. IOW you reject evidence simply because of the source. That is anti-science.
The evidence is independent of the messenger.
Indeed it is. But we've all got a right to be suspicious of evidence put forward by a seemingly untrustworthy or biased messenger (as you noted, we're all subject to bias)

Cheers, Ian



ianz -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/14/2008 11:02:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
...

Actually, Jack and I deduced that religious non-bias is not evident on this thread
That is a distortion. The claim of this thread is that “there are no non-religious arguments against evolution”. Jack and I have both disproved that claim. Please explain how pointing out the lack of empirical support for evolution is a religious argument.
Bit beyond me to quibble the empirical support for evolution. So I'm going to duck and pose a slightly different angle. This did occur to me: evolution is accepted by atheists and (many) theists. But a young-earth is not to my knowledge accepted by any atheist.

On this basis, it seems that evolution theory is acceptable to many irrespective of their religious beliefs, but acceptance of young Earth evidence (for example) is limited to religious groups, yet one would expect the evidence for the age of the Earth to be considered without regard for whether God exists.

Regards, Ian

Edit: sorry stuffed up the quote markers



Jhud -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/14/2008 1:04:27 PM)

quote:

Bit beyond me to quibble the empirical support for evolution. So I'm going to duck and pose a slightly different angle. This did occur to me: evolution is accepted by atheists and (many) theists. But a young-earth is not to my knowledge accepted by any atheist.

On this basis, it seems that evolution theory is acceptable to many irrespective of their religious beliefs, but acceptance of young Earth evidence (for example) is limited to religious groups, yet one would expect the evidence for the age of the Earth to be considered without regard for whether God exists.


I am not quite sure what 'angle' this is exactly, but I would say one can be critical of evolution quite apart from the age of the earth.



Veritas -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/14/2008 1:22:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey


quote:

But most who argue for ID in the classroom do. They couldn't get creationism in, so they backed the next best thing.

That is nothing more than propaganda spread by ID opponents.

According to the evidence presented at the Dover trial, that is exactly what the creationists on the Dover School Board tried to do.



Jhud -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/14/2008 1:27:07 PM)

Veritas - been on vacation?



Veritas -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/14/2008 3:36:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Veritas - been on vacation?

I haven't been on vacation. My computer is taking a break. :(



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/14/2008 4:58:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
No. For materialism that as an a priori assumption. Materialism accepts it as a truism regardless of the evidence.

Materialistic science does not try to disprove the existence of a personal creator. Subjective notions like ID, and especially creationism, DO try to prove the existence of a personal creator by attempting to discredit evolution and other fields of science with a faulty spin on what scientists are actually telling us.

quote:

That is nothing more than propaganda spread by ID opponents.

No, this is an established fact. The push to get ID in our schools came after creationism failed. It is not a coincidence.

quote:

Your quote disproves that claim.

No, the quote never mentions atheism once.

quote:

You need to pay particular attention to the entire wording.

You have failed to pay attention to what I am actually saying.

quote:

ROFLOL! You just verified that you perceive the messenger as more pertinent than the message.

You amuse easily . . .
The messenger cannot be separated from the message. Dawkins pushes atheism; I view this as more pertinent to the sentiment of the messenger than the veracity of the message.

quote:

The evidence is independent of the messenger.

But the message is not independent of the messenger. There is a difference between objective truth and a subjective summation of the evidence.

quote:

That is a distortion. The claim of this thread is that “there are no non-religious arguments against evolution”. Jack and I have both disproved that claim.

Not yet you haven't. Nobody has yet on this thread. Argue this with Jack-- he helped bring this to light himself.



unclemonkey -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/14/2008 6:00:17 PM)

ORIGINAL:ianz
quote:

If atheism is taught, then it hasn't exactly been a roaring success.

Even a low success rate verifies it is being taught.

quote:

] But we've all got a right to be suspicious of evidence put forward by a seemingly untrustworthy or biased messenger (as you noted, we're all subject to bias)

I am suspicious of anything Dawkins says, but I don’t reject it simply because Dawkins said it. That’s not the same as drj11’s admission to rejecting evidence simply because of the source.

quote:

On this basis, it seems that evolution theory is acceptable to many irrespective of their religious beliefs,

What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? Is the scientific validity of a concept determined by how many people believe it?

The topic of this thread is the claim that there are no non-religious arguments against evolution. That claim has been soundly refuted



unclemonkey -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/14/2008 6:13:08 PM)

ORIGINAL:1dblthnk02
quote:

quote:

You need to pay particular attention to the entire wording.

You have failed to pay attention to what I am actually saying.

On the contrary, I HAVE paid attention to what you are actually saying. That is how I can point out the flaws in it.

quote:

The messenger cannot be separated from the message. Dawkins pushes atheism; I view this as more pertinent to the sentiment of the messenger than the veracity of the message.

So atheism is false simply because Richard Dawkins promotes it?
My rejection of atheism has absolutely nothing to do with Dawkins' rabid support for it.

quote:

quote:

The claim of this thread is that “there are no non-religious arguments against evolution”. Jack and I have both disproved that claim.

Not yet you haven't.

Then please explain how pointing out the fact that evolution lacks empirical support is a religious argument.



Nothingman -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/14/2008 6:25:32 PM)

can someone please explain to me how evolution has anything to say either way about the question of God? Anyone who uses evolution as an argument for or against the question of God is synthesizing evolution into their religious/philosophoical argument on the matter. Evolution says nothing about God.



DanJames -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/14/2008 6:26:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:

That is a distortion. The claim of this thread is that “there are no non-religious arguments against evolution”. Jack and I have both disproved that claim.

Not yet you haven't. Nobody has yet on this thread. Argue this with Jack-- he helped bring this to light himself.


I don't understand, I'm starting to think that maybe I'm as disconnected from reality as the old-earthers on this site think I am. Am I misreading you or are you claiming that there are no scientific arguments being made against evolution? What do you think that we've been doing on this site? Are we screaming the names of the books of the Bible like Matthew Brady in "Inherit the Wind"? Is that all you think we're about here? Have you conveniently ignored the explicitly scientific threads like Stasis as a criticism of evolution and Early complexity as a criticism of evolution? Of course there are non-religious arguments against evolution. What a bizarre claim. I must be misunderstanding. Someone please bring me back to reality.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI