evolution and creation as one

[Phi for All]

Well, what is evolution? Are you a supporter of the Darwinian concept of it?

Evolution is a fact, we see it happening daily. Nothing you can say can change that.

 

The Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, is probably one of the best supported theories in all of science. Despite your crude attempt to poison the theory by referring to one of it's early pioneers (a pretty typical, overused creationist tactic), it remains the best explanation for biological diversity in mainstream science. Where that sort of thing is studied extensively.

 

 

Science and religion. Different sides of the same coin.

What do you think the coin represents in this analogy? Because this is an incredibly easy thing to say, but I have no idea what you mean by it.

[evobulgarevo]

 

Evolution is a fact, we see it happening daily.

Come on now, daily? I doubt that. This is my second attempt at a joke that is a little less flat than the first, if I say so myself.

 

 

Nothing you can say can change that.

I haven't set out to change 'that'. I think evolution is a real thing.

 

The Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, is probably one of the best supported theories in all of science. Despite your crude attempt to poison the theory by referring to one of it's early pioneers (a pretty typical, overused creationist tactic), it remains the best explanation for biological diversity in mainstream science. Where that sort of thing is studied extensively.

No argument there. Though history shows us that science theories come and go.

 

 

What do you think the coin represents in this analogy? Because this is an incredibly easy thing to say, but I have no idea what you mean by it.

No matter how you cut it, we are all the same. We all come from the same place. Different people have different interpretations of it all.

 

And I think it's possible for an answer to be both true and false at the same time.

[Strange]

Do scientists progress science by closing doors?

 

Yes. By showing that some ideas don't work and others do. But this appears to be a non-sequitur.

 

Is science not about questioning everything?

 

Not really, no. But this appears to be a non-sequitur.

 

Are yesterday's scientists crackpots because today's bright minds have proven them wrong?

 

Of course not. But this appears to be a non-sequitur.

 

Let's remind you of the question you were actually asked:

 

You: And so I think that any respectable scientist would need to be well versed in theology.

Me: Why would a scientists need to be well versed in theology?

You: Science needs to be well versed in everything it addresses, otherwise it's not science.

Me: Does science study theology?

You: <random, irrelevant questions>

 

So, why do all respectable scientists need to be well versed in theology? It is not a subject that is relevant to them (apart, perhaps, from a small number of social scientists studying religious belief).

 

Please try and (a) answer the question and (b) stick to the point.

[Ophiolite]

Before you answer Strange's question let me remind you of a couple of relevant facts.

 

1. Religion deals with the supernatural. (To me this appears self evident, but if you disagree I can lay out the logic for the statement.)

2. Science is currently based upon methodological naturalism. That is, a basic assumption is that the supernatural, if it exists, is beyond the remit of science and will therefore not be investigated.

 

Therefore, involving religion in science would be, currently and for some time in the past, inappropriate.

[evobulgarevo]

Socrates was all about questioning commonly accepted "truths". As a result he was sentenced to death for "poisoning young minds". Did you know that?

 

1. Religion deals with the supernatural. (To me this appears self evident, but if you disagree I can lay out the logic for the statement.)

So then science deals with the 'natural'? And while dealing with the 'natural', we have been made well aware by the scientific community that science doesn't have all the answers.

Modern day science is not about questioning or seeking truth, modern day science is about maintaining age long understandings because there are reputations on the line. But then again, this probably doesn't apply to modern day science alone. This was the case since the beginning of time.

 

 

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. – Max Planck

Science is cool, and should be studying to its fullest. The proponents of science, however, may sometimes be an impediment to the evolution of the discipline.

 

2. Science is currently based upon methodological naturalism. That is, a basic assumption is that the supernatural, if it exists, is beyond the remit of science and will therefore not be investigated.

Science has its roots in the belief of what you refer to as the 'supernatural'. Aristotle's unmoved mover is likely the same as Thomas Aquinas' God. In more recent times, some of the biggest names in science, the 'founding fathers of modern day science' if you will.. were all believers in God to some degree.

Science had its origins in what the modern day atheist deems as scientific blasphemy.

Good ol' Albert told us that time is cyclical. What if this is the case with our ability to comprehend that which seems so incomprehensible? What if all this searching simply leads us back to the very reason for the foundation of science? Then Aristotle's unmoved mover would truly be unmoved.

 

Therefore, involving religion in science would be, currently and for some time in the past, inappropriate.

According to you.

 

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. - Albert Einstein

 

According to Einstein, your thoughts on religion and science are lame.

 

 

Yes. By showing that some ideas don't work and others do. But this appears to be a non-sequitur.

 

Why don't we remain unbiased and open minded to the possibilities? The scientific community has not put out a single unified definitive answer, why should we be so arrogant and talk as if they did!?

 

 

Not really, no. But this appears to be a non-sequitur.

 

Ok, so you don't think that science should question things. A regressive view, but then again, that's why we have threads wondering if atheists are closed minded.

 

 

Me: Does science study theology? So, why do all respectable scientists need to be well versed in theology? It is not a subject that is relevant to them (apart, perhaps, from a small number of social scientists studying religious belief). Please try and (a) answer the question and (b) stick to the point.

Respectable scientists who choose to discuss any such matters would need to be well versed in this area of study because if they're not, they would just be your average Joe atheist expressing a one-sided opinion. And one sided opinions cannot be deemed as respectable science.

Edited November 15, 2015 by evobulgarevo

[John Cuthber]

You have said that science should study theology (though you have offered no credible explanation of this).

 

Do you think that, before criticising science, the proponents of theism should take the trouble to understand science.

 

It is clear that you do not understand it..

There is, therefore, very little point in you continuing to post until you have learned enough about how science works, and what it does, to be able to discuss it meaningfully.

[evobulgarevo]

 

 

You have said that science should study theology (though you have offered no credible explanation of this).

Well, not in those words. I said that science and religion go hand-in-hand and can compliment each other. Those are the conclusions of Albert Einstein, I just happen to agree with that.

 

Do you think that, before criticising science

I'm not criticizing science, I've merely expressed criticism toward the scientific community. There's a difference.

 

the proponents of theism should take the trouble to understand science.

Science requires proof to believe. God requires belief to provide proof.

 

It is clear that you do not understand it..

I don't claim to "understand". I thought we are just having a discussion, expressing our thoughts. Conversing, this and that. Keeping an open mind.

 

There is, therefore, very little point in you continuing to post until you have learned enough about how science works, and what it does, to be able to discuss it meaningfully.

Well, we're not really discussing science per se. It's certainly a part of the discussion though.

[Strange]

Socrates was all about questioning commonly accepted "truths". As a result he was sentenced to death for "poisoning young minds". Did you know that?

 

Irrelevant to (modern) science.

 

So then science deals with the 'natural'? And while dealing with the 'natural', we have been made well aware by the scientific community that science doesn't have all the answers.

No one claims that science does (or should) have "all the answers". So also irrelevant.

Modern day science is not about questioning or seeking truth, modern day science is about maintaining age long understandings because there are reputations on the line.

A popular myth, but a myth none the less. Perhaps you would like to provide some examples to support this argument?

 

Science has its roots in the belief of what you refer to as the 'supernatural'. Aristotle's unmoved mover is likely the same as Thomas Aquinas' God. In more recent times, some of the biggest names in science, the 'founding fathers of modern day science' if you will.. were all believers in God to some degree.

Science had its origins in what the modern day atheist deems as scientific blasphemy.

This is a version of the etymological fallacy and is thus irrelevant.

Good ol' Albert told us that time is cyclical.

Citation needed.

According to Einstein, your thoughts on religion and science are lame.

 

Really? I can't see anything in that quote about me or my thoughts. (Apart from which, this is the fallacy of argument from authority.)

 

Why don't we remain unbiased and open minded to the possibilities? The scientific community has not put out a single unified definitive answer, why should we be so arrogant and talk as if they did!?

 

What possibilities? That theories that have been shown not to work might still be correct? Actually, science is open to these possibilities. They repeatedly test existing theories but some people go back and re-check rejected theories with new tools or new evidence.

 

Ok, so you don't think that science should question things.

 

Er, no. That is not what I said. Perhaps you should read more carefully.

 

Respectable scientists who choose to discuss any such matters would need to be well versed in this area of study because if they're not, they would just be your average Joe atheist expressing a one-sided opinion. And one sided opinions cannot be deemed as respectable science.

 

Ah, so you point is that anyone discussing religion should be well-versed in theology. That is a reasonable argument. (And one I don't have a definite opinion on.)

 

However, it is not what you said. This is know as moving the goal posts. Another logical/rhetorical failure.

[evobulgarevo]

Irrelevant to (modern) science.

 

Might be irrelevant to '(modern) science', but it's definitely relevant to the fear of expressing findings that contradict established understandings within the scientific community.

 

 

A popular myth, but a myth none the less. Perhaps you would like to provide some examples to support this argument?

 

Ted talks.

 

 

Citation needed.

 

Ok, so you see time as linear. Much like the thought patterns of your average atheist. Nothing to see here but paint by numbers.

 

 

Really? I can't see anything in that quote about me or my thoughts. (Apart from which, this is the fallacy of argument from authority.)

 

Lol. There IT is. The atheist ego.

 

 

What possibilities? That theories that have been shown not to work might still be correct? Actually, science is open to these possibilities. They repeatedly test existing theories but some people go back and re-check rejected theories with new tools or new evidence.

 

Science is open to the possibilities, yes. Scientists refrain from making statements as bold as the average citizen atheist who has little to no knowledge of science.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps you should read more carefully.

 

Perhaps it is you who should read more carefully?

 

 

Ah, so you point is that anyone discussing religion should be well-versed in theology. That is a reasonable argument. (And one I don't have a definite opinion on.)

 

Anyone making bold statements within any area of study should be well versed in the subject matter.

However, it is not what you said. This is know as moving the goal posts. Another logical/rhetorical failure.

 

You're just talking because your ego feels that your self worth has been put to question. And due to an inability to distance yourself from linear thought patterns, you prefer to dismiss discussions rather than engage in them.

 

So to the question asking if atheists are closed minded, I guess the answer is.. most seem to be far from being open minded?

[Strange]

 

Might be irrelevant to '(modern) science', but it's definitely relevant to the fear of expressing findings that contradict established understandings within the scientific community.

 

You have already failed to provide any support for this claim. Don't worry, no one who claims this ever provides any evidence.

 

Ted talks.

 

Could you be any less specific? Maybe leave off the "Ted"?

 

So you have no evidence to support your claim. Therefore it can be dismissed.

 

Ok, so you see time as linear.

 

Did I say that? No. I asked for a reference where Einstein said that "time is circular".

 

This is the logical fallacy known as a "strawman argument".

 

Much like the thought patterns of your average atheist.

 

You mean, much like your unsupported opinion of the thought patterns of the average atheist. Nothing to see here.

 

 

Lol. There IT is. The atheist ego.

 

I don't think that pointing out your logical fallacies and/or lack of reading comprehension has anything to do with ego. It is the sort of thing I routinely do in engineering reviews and in forums like this.

 

Science is open to the possibilities, yes. Scientists refrain from making statements as bold as the average citizen atheist who has little to no knowledge of science.

 

Another unsupported assertion.

 

Perhaps it is you who should read more carefully?

 

Why? What have I failed to understand?

 

Anyone making bold statements within any area of study should be well versed in the subject matter.

As I say, that is reasonable subject for discussion. But not what you originally said.

You're just talking because your ego feels that your self worth has been put to question. And due to an inability to distance yourself from linear thought patterns, you prefer to dismiss discussions rather than engage in them.

 

No, I am saying it because you moved the goalposts. You originally said:

 

Science needs to be well versed in everything it addresses, otherwise it's not science.

 

But then you changed it to:

 

Respectable scientists who choose to discuss any such matters would need to be well versed in this area of study because if they're not, they would just be your average Joe atheist expressing a one-sided opinion. And one sided opinions cannot be deemed as respectable science.

 

So where does my ego come into it? And why would the unsupported comments of some unknown person in the Internet have any effect on my "self worth", anyway? And I am trying to engage in a discussion, but it is hard when your posts are full of logical fallacies and non-sequiturs.

 

So to the question asking if atheists are closed minded, I guess the answer is.. most seem to be far from being open minded?

 

Some evidence to support that would be nice.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Strange

[evobulgarevo]

I'm not out to prove that your average atheist is someone who is arrogant, self-centered, and has little knowledge of science. Proving that to you is of no benefit. I don't feel the need to feed my ego with some sort of affirmation that I've "defeated you in an argument". I don't even see this as an argument.

 

What some on this forum call "dancing" or "dodging questions" is what I call filtering those with whom I think a constructive discussion can be had. And constructive discussions tend to require open mindedness.

[Phi for All]

What some on this forum call "dancing" or "dodging questions" is what I call filtering those with whom I think a constructive discussion can be had. And constructive discussions tend to require open mindedness.

 

That's an amazing thing to say! "I'm going to ignore filter those arguments I don't like because I want to be constructive and open-minded".

 

I think you get this week's Irony Award.

[Strange]

I'm not out to prove that your average atheist is someone who is arrogant, self-centered, and has little knowledge of science. Proving that to you is of no benefit.

 

I'm not sure why you said this. You haven't previously claimed this, so why would you suddenly say you don't want to prove it?

 

 

I don't even see this as an argument.

 

Nor do I. It is a discussion. As part of a rational discussion on a science forum, I (and others) are asking you to support what you say.

[John Cuthber]

Well, not in those words. I said that science and religion go hand-in-hand and can compliment each other. Those are the conclusions of Albert Einstein, I just happen to agree with that.

 

The words you used were

" I think that any respectable scientist would need to be well versed in theology."

which I paraphrased as "You have said that science should study theology"

It's not clear to me why you are saying there's a difference.

 

On the other hand, there's a lot of difference between either version and " I said that science and religion go hand-in-hand and can compliment each other. "

which is what you now claim

(though the best you can come up with for evidence is a logical fallacy- an appeal to authority).

 

Do you realise how pointless it is to try to move the goalposts when they are posted here and everyone can see exactly what you said?

[Ophiolite]

Do you realise how pointless it is to try to move the goalposts when they are posted here and everyone can see exactly what you said?

In fairness John, I see little evidence in the posts of evobulgarevo that he has much knowledge of science, the findings of science, the methodology of science, the history of science, or the application of logic. Indeed I find some evidence to the contrary. That being the case it is quite plausible that evobulgarevo is unaware that he has moved the goalposts and feels that his exposition thus far is logical, well constructed, factually based and robust. I suspect he sees the majority of the posts as corroboration of his view.

[Strange]

In fairness John, I see little evidence in the posts of evobulgarevo that he has much knowledge of science, the findings of science, the methodology of science, the history of science, or the application of logic. Indeed I find some evidence to the contrary. That being the case it is quite plausible that evobulgarevo is unaware that he has moved the goalposts and feels that his exposition thus far is logical, well constructed, factually based and robust. I suspect he sees the majority of the posts as corroboration of his view.

 

Indeed, the rate at which he throws a variety of logical and rhetorical fallacies into his incoherent posts, suggests he has no idea how to carry on a rational discussion. (And, I suspect you are also correct in that he will see your and my posts as confirmation of his prejudices. And probably that we feel angry and/or threatened.)

Edited November 15, 2015 by Strange

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

This has gone way off the tracks. Closed pending review

 

Edit

 

massive hijack and tangents have been split to http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92255-reputation-again-and-other-stuff-split-from-evolution-and-creation-as-one/

 

Further splitting may occur

I'm not out to prove that your average atheist is someone who is arrogant, self-centered, and has little knowledge of science. Proving that to you is of no benefit. I don't feel the need to feed my ego with some sort of affirmation that I've "defeated you in an argument". I don't even see this as an argument.

 

What some on this forum call "dancing" or "dodging questions" is what I call filtering those with whom I think a constructive discussion can be had. And constructive discussions tend to require open mindedness.

 

!

Moderator Note

The former is OT for this thread, and the latter is not an acceptable position. Soapboxing is against the rules.

[evobulgarevo]

Yup, good job there moderator. When senior members of this forum share your views and have a discussion among themselves, which revolves around me on a personal level to some degree, that's considered 'on-topic' to 'evolution and creation as one'. But when I engage in their commentary, then that's 'off-topic'.

[swansont]

Yup, good job there moderator. When senior members of this forum share your views and have a discussion among themselves, which revolves around me on a personal level to some degree, that's considered 'on-topic' to 'evolution and creation as one'. But when I engage in their commentary, then that's 'off-topic'.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

You were the first to cast any of this discussion in terms of an atheist category. That's on you, and that's not the topic of discussion. Make sure you are following the rules before you worry about whether others are. If you feel they are and want to report a post, you are free to do so.

 

Do not respond to this modnote.

 

[Phi for All]

Yup, good job there moderator. When senior members of this forum share your views and have a discussion among themselves, which revolves around me on a personal level to some degree, that's considered 'on-topic' to 'evolution and creation as one'. But when I engage in their commentary, then that's 'off-topic'.

 

Thanks for bringing us back on topic. This thread's original focus was that Christianity and science could come to a mutual point regarding creation, and that was further clarified to define creation from a Biblical standpoint metaphorically, rather than literally. In fact, it's been pointed out that the literal perspective (Creationism rather than creation) is what causes any friction in the matter.

 

And now you keep showing us why the fundamentalist approach is doomed to fail. Rather than deal with the issues, rather than provide the evidence to support your points, you repeatedly choose to derail intelligent discussion with hijacks and red herrings and anything other than what people have been begging you for: Something of Substance.

 

So your behavior in this discussion is now supportive evidence for this statement: Creationism will never have the support of science because of its disconnection with truth and reality, but science and religion can both agree that we don't know exactly how life on Earth began. There's your connection.