RufusAtticus

What presuppositions does evolution have? Are they any different than the presuppositions of science in general?

~~RvFvS~~

scigirl

And every religion makes a very similar claim. How do you know you aren't just deluding yourself? How do you know that if you were born in India or Pakistan, you would be coming here as a devout Muslim urging us to accept the Koran or Allah because "it's in my heart?"

Fine and dandy. And that's exactly why your religion should stop with you. You alone know what your feelings are, and if religion is simply a matter of personal feelings, than there is no objective truth in your religion, and no point in trying to "convert" others.

Scientific truths don't work that way, randman. Sure, the types of experiments we do are dictated by our culture (we in america spend a lot of money on cancer research, well because we get a lot of cancer), but the scientific method transends culture, transends your personal warm fuzzy feelings, and all that. Your post is exactly why the debate between scientists and creationists is pointless. You start with a subjective, untestable feeling ("I know the bible is true") and try to fit science to that theory.

If your theory is based on personal revelation, than you don't need the bible to be literally true. In your case, the Bible is not scientific. It is so much more than that - it is a book about the human condition - about wars, about strife, about love, faith, etc etc. When you try to enter your religious text into a scientific realm, you devalue that text (instead of being a spiritual guide it is now simply a list of facts), and you also devalue science.

So I'm not an honest seeker now, because my beliefs differ from yours?

This post of yours is exactly what I call a self-reinforcing delusion.

There is little tangible objective proof of God existing the way you describe him (as an intervening being who plays chess with his creation). We both agree on this. Therefore the following may be true:

1. God only shows himself to people who already believe (or want to believe) in Him to begin with.
2. God doesn't exist the way you think He does.

I tend to believe #2, you tend to believe #1. I will illustrate an example of this "self-reinforcing" delusion later tonight, because I read a perfect example in Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things. Until then. . .

scigirl

Daydreamer

If by evolution you mean common descent then we have no presuppositions beyond that of science in general:

The Phylogenic tree began as a list, in geochronological order, of all the fossils known. Then, through the use of such techniques as tracing our mitochondrial DNA and homologues bewteen species, these points are connected in a tree structure.

Our only presuppositions are that:
A) It is possible, given enough time, for macroevolution to occur (whether it did or did not occur is proved by the data, not assumed).
B) Our fossil record is a reasonably cross section of all creature that have ever existed.

tgamble

Nope, totally opposite. Scientists don't have preconcieved conclusions that aren't allowed to change under any circumstances for any reason.

MrDarwin

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.

Just to double-check, I looked up an English translation of Genesis from the Hebrew on a Torah website. Now, I figure the Jews ought to know Hebrew, right? So here's the translation (from <a href="http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm" target="_blank">this website</a>):

And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.'

Now, if you'd like to expand on your backhanded accusation of dishonesty on my part, feel free tro demonstrate it for all to see. But if you can't, I guess we'll just have to leave it to others to judge our respective honesty, yours and mine.

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

MrDarwin

And one of randman's presuppositions is that he can trust his translation of the Bible is accurate when he makes rather convoluted arguments about its accuracy, scientific or otherwise.

scigirl

As promised, here it is: Shermer had just tried to debunk an ESP demonstration.

Page 71-72 from Chapter 4 Deviations

When reading this chapter, I thought that this symbol needed to somehow be in the book: <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

randman: this is what I call a self-reinforcing delusion, and I think is similar to the Christian claim. Replace the woman believing in ESP with a Christian that believes Jesus is personally talking to or inspiring her. People who don't believe in Jesus simply haven't been "inspired yet," mainly because they don't believe.

So there is no way to falsify your theory, thus it is not a valid scientific argument (regardless of whether it is true or not).

scigirl

randman

It's funny but I basically try to avoid mixing religious discussion and evolution, and stick to bashing evolution on the data, but it is the evolutionists who constantly bring up religion. So I explain my reasons for believing, and they bash that as unscientific.
This is one reason evolutionism appears to be a cult to me, the irrational behaviour of its proponents.

Now, I have never claimed that I would defend creationism, which according to some here includes theistic evolution, and I never stated that I considered science to be technologically padvanced enough to be useful as a tool for truth outside the physical universe, though it could perhaps become that way.
But notice the illogic of the atheists here. They disbelieve God because of evolution, which is why they demand you defend religion. To them, athiesm/evolution and other theistic religions are not compatible and are competing religions.

I believe fully in Jesus quite simply because I have seen and touched Him, and not just in my heart. Unfortunately, I hesitate to write of such experiences here for 2 reasons.
1. One is that I don't feel I am the best example of a Christian on these boards.
2. The other is it is probably unwise to share things of such a personal nature with people as hostile as some are here.

But be that as it may, it is the truth, and meeting Jesus radically changed my life. He personally taught me the gospel, which I had never understood, in a "words which it is not possible for men to speak." He blew away my world so to speak, and began to show me His.

What can I say, I cannot deny Him. Did He tell me evolution was true or not?
Nope.
Did he tell me and show me that the gospel was?
Yep.
But if you want to simply reject Him and discount the ways He is trying to reach you, I cannot do a lot about it myself.
I certainly don't think "science" can prove it to you either way.

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

MrDarwin

It's pretty unavoidable when people use religion as the basis for rejecting evolution. What they just don't seem to get is that there are plenty of scientists who are theists of various kinds--many are even (gasp) Christians--and also accept the fact of evolution. One's religious beliefs have no bearing whatsoever on the evidence for, or the truth of, evolution.

Now, if you're wondering why evolution and atheism seem strongly correlated in these arguments, maybe you haven't noticed that you've come posting in the discussion forums on an atheist website?

Edited to add, as I always must, that virtually all scientists in life science-related fields, and probably more than 99% of scientists in ALL fields, accept the fact of evolution. It's all well and good to cite somebody with a PhD who doesn't believe in evolution, but you have yet to provide any compelling reason to believe this tiny minority consists of misunderstood geniuses and the 99%+ scientists are a bunch of misguided dummies.

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

notto

Randman,

Can I remind you of a statement you made in your first post to this thread?

"Obviously, these learned men reject your belief, though it appears to pain some of you so. At least, when the Christian evangelist is likewise concerned over your rejection of his beliefs, the gospel, he is actually concerned over the destruction of your soul in hell whereas there is no harm for anyone in rejecting evolution. "

Not really the words of someone who doesn't like to mix religion in a science discussion and wants to simply stick to scientific discussion. Again you show your non-scientific bias by exposing your belief that somehow there are souls at stake based on this scientific theory.

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: notto ]</p>