Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sci_Fidelity · 08-13-2002, 02:00 PM

Posted by Primemover:

Quote:

Like I said, I don't really have anything against evolution. I think that it is a nice theory, but there are flaws in it, and instead of getting defensive about it why not look into it and investigate. That is what science is supposed to do. Science is supposed to attempt to disprove it's theories, as best it can.

I find it interesting that although you admit you're not a scientist, you feel qualified to expound on evolution's "flaws." BTW- it is "its theories", NOT "it's theories." It's is a contraction for it is. Sorry, that's a pet peeve of mine.

08-13-2002, 02:06 PM

Vanderzyden,

Hey man, I spouted a lot of those "Evolutionists are desperate, the evidence is closing in" generalities too.

I too was unable to deal with the specific evidence.

There have been many fascinating facts posted here and a deafining silence in reply. Are you not interested in these phenomenon?

Where are the substansive arguments?

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]

Albion · 08-13-2002, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Claiming to be wise, the Darwinian ignores the strong clues to an Intelligent Cause and invents theories to exclude this cause from consideration.

Exactly how do theories about evolution exclude God? All they do is exlude the God of the Gaps. Is that a deity you're particularly fond of? Sounds like a poor excuse for a creator to me.

Quote:

It's easy to see why. Such vehement denial provides an escape from any accountability to a supposed creator, thus permitting a man to live without restraints and with impunity. The Big Lie has had its effect.

And how would this apply to the thousands and thousands of Christians who accept evolution?

Quote:

Make no mistake, Stephen, Darwinians have their own religion. Leaps of faith abound everywhere in their thinking. The methodological naturalist clings desperately to the edge of an immense chasm. And yet, rescue is at hand.

Sounds like a person unclear on the concept of methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is practised by Christians, Jews, Moslems, and Pagans as well as atheists. It can hardly be a religion and be practised by Christians - Christianity isn't a religion that plays well with others. Don't know about you, but around here there are no Darwinist or Methodological Naturalist churches.

Sci_Fidelity · 08-13-2002, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Make no mistake, Stephen, Darwinians have their own religion. Leaps of faith abound everywhere in their thinking

Examples, please.

Camaban · 08-13-2002, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sci_Fidelity:
[/b]

Examples, please.

Probably that we haven't managed to prove it by winning Hovind's challenge.

lpetrich · 08-13-2002, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

Clearly, the naturalist is too proud to admit the precarious situation in which she finds herself. Her primary pre-scientific belief is that the creator, if he exists, takes no special interest in his creation. Claiming to be wise, the Darwinian ignores the strong clues to an Intelligent Cause and invents theories to exclude this cause from consideration.

WHAT clues?

There can easily be more htan one "intelligent cause" at work; in fact, many features of the Earth's biota suggest multiple designers if they had been designed.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

It's easy to see why. Such vehement denial provides an escape from any accountability to a supposed creator, thus permitting a man to live without restraints and with impunity. The Big Lie has had its effect.

How is that supposed to be a relevant argument? A "creator" could have no special interest in us, for all we know -- and thus would not act like some cosmic bogeyman.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

Make no mistake, Stephen, Darwinians have their own religion. Leaps of faith abound everywhere in their thinking.

"Religion" as a dirty word? "Leaps of faith" as a dirty phrase? What will be next?

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

The methodological naturalist clings desperately to the edge of an immense chasm. And yet, rescue is at hand.

On the contrary, I find that methodological (and metaphysical!) naturalism is as solid as a rock.

Vanderzyden · 08-13-2002, 03:33 PM

[In reply to Skeptical, Synaesthesia, Albion, Sci_Fidelity, et al]

Perhaps the most outrageous example of a Darwinian leap of faith that I've read:

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

-- Richard Dawkins, from the opening page of "The Blind Watchmaker"

I'm am genuinely saddened when I read such things. Not only is this an utterly non-sensical definition of biology, it blantantly reveals his pre-scientific, methodologically naturalistic bias.

hezekiah jones · 08-13-2002, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Perhaps the most outrageous example of a Darwinian leap of faith that I've read:

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

-- Richard Dawkins, from the opening page of "The Blind Watchmaker"

No, he is countering what appears to be your leap of faith. That entire book does.

Quote:

I'm am genuinely saddened when I read such things.

Here, have a tissue.

Quote:

Not only is this an utterly non-sensical definition of biology, it blatantly reveals his pre-scientific, methodologically naturalistic bias.

Shocking. Richard Dawkins, a professional scientist, committed to methodological naturalism. Shocking, I tell you. Absolutely appalling.

lpetrich · 08-13-2002, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
[In reply to Skeptical, Synaesthesia, Albion, Sci_Fidelity, et al]

Perhaps the most outrageous example of a Darwinian leap of faith that I've read:

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

How is that supposed to be a "leap of faith"? And what do you want Richard Dawkins to claim? That evolution is driven by the design efforts of a large population of invisible elves?

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

I'm am genuinely saddened when I read such things. Not only is this an utterly non-sensical definition of biology, it blantantly reveals his pre-scientific, methodologically naturalistic bias.

Why the association of "pre-scientific" and "methodologically naturalistic"?

And why is that definition supposed to be nonsensical?

Albion · 08-13-2002, 04:29 PM

Quote:

I'm am genuinely saddened when I read such things. Not only is this an utterly non-sensical definition of biology, it blantantly reveals his pre-scientific, methodologically naturalistic bias.

The only thing it blatantly reveals is that he knows what science is. Exactly why that should sadden you is beyond me.

If you have any sort of evidence to back up this repeated contention of yours that methodological naturalism and science don't have anything to do with each other, please let us see it. How about starting with a definition of what you think methodological naturalism actually is.

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: Albion ]

08-13-2002, 02:06 PM	#52
Synaesthesia Guest Posts: n/a	Vanderzyden, Hey man, I spouted a lot of those "Evolutionists are desperate, the evidence is closing in" generalities too. I too was unable to deal with the specific evidence. There have been many fascinating facts posted here and a deafining silence in reply. Are you not interested in these phenomenon? Where are the substansive arguments? [ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-13-2002, 03:33 PM	#57
Vanderzyden Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: California Posts: 694	[In reply to Skeptical, Synaesthesia, Albion, Sci_Fidelity, et al] Perhaps the most outrageous example of a Darwinian leap of faith that I've read: Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. -- Richard Dawkins, from the opening page of "The Blind Watchmaker" I'm am genuinely saddened when I read such things. Not only is this an utterly non-sensical definition of biology, it blantantly reveals his pre-scientific, methodologically naturalistic bias.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.