Thursday, March 31, 2011

Francisco Ayala: I Don’t Answer Questions on My Personal Beliefs

Here is an interview with evolutionist Francisco Ayala where he does not give answers about his personal beliefs.

You won [a Templeton prize] for arguing there is no contradiction between science and religion. Many disagree.

They are two windows through which we look at the world. Religion deals with our relationship with our creator, with each other, the meaning and purpose of life, and moral values; science deals with the make-up of matter, expansion of galaxies, evolution of organisms. They deal with different ways of knowing. I feel that science is compatible with religious faith in a personal, omnipotent and benevolent God.

This view that science and religion address different types of problems is known as the compartmentalization model. It ignores the vast and substantial body of theological claims made by scientists, and material claims made by religions.

Why do you say creationism is bad religion?

Creationism and intelligent design are not compatible with religion because they imply the designer is a bad designer, allowing cruelty and misery. Evolution explains these as a result of natural processes, in the same way we explain earthquakes, tsunamis or volcanic eruptions. We don’t have to attribute them to an action of God.

So god does not create calamity.

Do you believe in God?            

I don’t answer questions on my personal beliefs.

The evolutionist thinks his theodicy is not a personal belief. After all, isn’t it obvious that god would not create calamity? It reminds me of what Edwin Burtt wrote about positivism:

[T]he lesson is that even the attempt to escape metaphysics is no sooner put in the form of a proposition than it is seen to involve highly significant metaphysical postulates.

For this reason there is an exceedingly subtle and insidious danger in positivism. If you cannot avoid metaphysics, what kind of metaphysics are you likely to cherish when you sturdily suppose yourself to be free from the abomination? Of course it goes without saying that in this case your metaphysics will be held uncritically because it is unconscious; moreover, it will be passed on to others far more readily than your other notions inasmuch as it will be propagated by insinuation rather than by direct argument. That a serious student of Newton fails to see that his master had a most important metaphysic, is an exceedingly interesting testimony to the pervading influence, throughout modern thought, of the Newtonian first philosophy.

Now the history of mind reveals pretty clearly that the thinker who decries metaphysics will actually hold metaphysical notions of three main types. For one thing, he will share the ideas of his age on ultimate questions, so far as such ideas do not run counter to his interests or awaken his criticism. No one has yet appeared in human history, not even the most profoundly critical intellect, in whom no important idola theatri can be detected, but the metaphysician will at least be superior to his opponent in this respect, in that he will be constantly on his guard against the surreptitious entrance and unquestioned influence of such notions. In the second place, if he be a man engaged in any important inquiry, he must have a method, and he will be under a strong and constant temptation to make a metaphysics out of his method, that is, to suppose the universe ultimately of such a sort that his method must be appropriate and successful. Some of the consequences of succumbing to such a temptation have been abundantly evident in our discussion of the work of Kepler, Galileo, and Descartes. Finally since human nature demands metaphysics for its full intellectual satisfaction, no great mind can wholly avoid playing with ultimate questions, especially where they are powerfully thrust upon it by considerations arising from its positivistic investigations, or by certain vigorous extra-scientific interests, such as religion. But inasmuch as the positivist mind has failed to school itself in careful metaphysical thinking, its ventures at such points will be apt to appear pitiful, inadequate, or even fantastic. [The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science, Revised Ed., Doubleday Anchor, 1954, p. 228-9.]

Like a fish that doesn’t know it is in water, those who are most indebted to metaphysics are the least aware.

44 comments:

  1. So god does not create calamity.

    Well, not lately, aside from the Noachian flood, Sodom & Gomorrah, and the plagues in Egypt.

    Did I leave anything out?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Like a fish that doesn’t know it is in water, those who are most indebted to metaphysics are the least aware.

    What debt to metaphysics allows you to claim a fish doesn't know it is in water?

    It seems you are quite desperate to bring "evolutionists" down to your level. Are you feeling a bit lonely? I'm afraid if you want to be taken seriously, you need to be a bit more specific about your alternatives to evolution. Until then, you look like a frustrated whiner.

    Having said that, keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  3. CH: So god does not create calamity.

    Surely we cannot rule this out with 100% certainty, but what reason do we have to think God would create calamity? As Pedant pointed out, the Hebrew God was thought to create calamity in various degrees.

    However, if you look at this history of religious belief, as a whole, early conceptions of gods were generally amoral. For example, some early gods were angered by watching dogs mate or when people melted beeswax. The gods explained why good things happened to some people, but not others.

    As we discovered natural explanations for phenomena, the gods became less directly involved, including calamity. Since thunder and lighting had a natural cause, we didn't need to appeal to an angry storm god to explain what we observed.

    What you're presenting is a possibility, not an explanation. This is because we've discovered evolutionary process effect speciation in very specific ways.

    It's as if you think this some sort of trial and all you need to do is create a "reasonable" doubt that evolution represents the best explanation for what we observe because it's possible God did it.

    But any lawyer could say that about their defendant. We cannot be 100% certain that God didn't kill someone for some mysterious reason and then use his supernatural abilities to plant evidence that made it look like their client did it.

    Given what we know about evolutionary processes, DNA, etc., that God could have done it isn't a reasonable doubt - It's an apparel to a possibility.

    CH: Here is an interview with evolutionists Francisco Ayala where he does not give answers about his personal beliefs.

    And you do?

    I've asked you a number of direct questions which are either ignored or carefully sidestepped. Here's two

    01. Where does revelation fit into the traditional hierarchy of philosophy, induction and deduction?

    02. Do you think the biological complexity we observe is beyond human reasoning and problem solving?

    03. Over 98% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. Is the fact that human beings exist in the less than 2% that survived the result of an intelligent designer or was it the result of natural processes?

    04. Please provide an example of a scientific fact, along with your criteria for how it meets said definition?

    And these are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Francisco Ayala: "Evolution explains these as a result of natural processes, in the same way we explain earthquakes, tsunamis or volcanic eruptions. We don’t have to attribute them to an action of God."

    Cornelius Hunter: "So god does not create calamity."


    Do you have reading comprehension problems CH? Or more likely just a big honesty problem.

    Ayala's words don't say "We know God didn't create calamities". They say "We know of natural mechanisms that can cause calamities so introducing God as the cause isn't necessary".

    The two are quite different as you well know. You make the same dishonest bait-n-switch argument about what ToE has to say about God's involvement too. You claim ToE says "God didn't do it". ToE actually says "God's direct involvement isn't necessary".

    Shame on you again.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pedant:

    "Well, not lately, aside from the Noachian flood, Sodom & Gomorrah, and the plagues in Egypt.

    Did I leave anything out?"
    ===

    Only the fact that those accounts were a mere flushing of the proverbial toilette. The greatest and final toilette bowl cleaning is yet to come very soon. For the benefit of humankind's continued existance and that of the natural world around them, Thank God!
    *wink*
    ---

    Troy:

    "I'm afraid if you want to be taken seriously, you need to be a bit more specific about your alternatives to evolution."
    ===

    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't it against the laws for any public school or state institution of higher learning to even consider ANY alternative to Evolution ???

    Hmmmmmmmmmm ???
    ---

    Scott:

    " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "
    ===

    Okay, the usual default answer is again the only response necessary here. Hope this selection matches precisely whatever parallel universe you are typing from today.

    Hollowed Wiener

    ---

    Thorton:

    "@#/=?@&%0 . . . . . . #$%&@#/<\"
    ===

    So what else is new ???

    ReplyDelete
  6. Eocene:

    The greatest and final toilette bowl cleaning is yet to come very soon.

    Of course. That claim has been made non-stop for the last 2000 years ("any day now!"), and gullible idiots like you still buy into it, hoping to be sucked up in Jesus' spaceship while watching how the rest of us get tortured. It's not even sick.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "It's not even sick."

    You are right! Its the Good News! I deserve death, I deserve God's wrath, I deserve eternal punishment. I am a vile & wicked man. Thankfully, Jesus has died in my place because he loved me so much. Now the father does not look at me as that vile sinner, but as a righteous man! What Good News!!! The grace & mercy displayed by Jesus is AMAZING!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Another lunatic joins the fray. It's almost as if it's April's fools day. Oh wait.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 1 Corinthians 1:18-31

    18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,

    “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
    and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

    ReplyDelete
  10. Troy:

    "Of course. That claim has been made non-stop for the last 2000 years ("any day now!"), and gullible idiots like you still buy into it, hoping to be sucked up in Jesus' spaceship while watching how the rest of us get tortured."
    ===

    The mis-informed torture option is of your own imaginary making. You've been watching too many Stephen King flicks. The actual punishment is eternal death/non-existence, something for which every single atheist anywhere has a future hope anyway. Is this not correct ???
    ---

    Troy:

    "Another lunatic joins the fray. It's almost as if it's April's fools day. Oh wait."
    ===

    Most certainly, "Oh Wait". Isn't today one of the most hollowed of atheistic holidays ???

    Psalm 14:1 (New International Version, ©2011)

    (1) The fool[a] says in his heart,
    “There is no God.”

    FOOTNOTE: [a] The Hebrew words rendered fool in Psalms denote one who is morally deficient.


    The only thing I may be guilty of here is this:

    Proverbs 26:4-5 (New Century Version)

    (4) "Don't answer fools when they speak foolishly, or you will be just like them."

    (5) "Answer fools when they speak foolishly, or they will think they are really wise."

    You gang above are predictable. Always Johnnies on the spot when Cornelius has a new entry. When do you scientific geniuses actually find the time for being actual scientists as you promote yourselves here ??? You're like the materialist's version of the four horseman of the Apoalypse prosyletizing against what you consider the false religion. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  11. Eocene:
    Troy:

    "Of course. That claim has been made non-stop for the last 2000 years ("any day now!"), and gullible idiots like you still buy into it, hoping to be sucked up in Jesus' spaceship while watching how the rest of us get tortured."
    ===

    The mis-informed torture option is of your own imaginary making. You've been watching too many Stephen King flicks. The actual punishment is eternal death/non-existence, something for which every single atheist anywhere has a future hope anyway. Is this not correct ???


    You're forgetting the 5 months of being stung by grasshopper-scorpions:

    Revelation 9:3-5 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads. And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.

    This is according to Harold Camping, whose voice and teachings reach millions of people the world over on christian family radio. He outlines how the rapture is this may 21st, according to the bible, and will be followed by five months of the above torment.

    http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/may21/

    So you are wrong about Troy making up the torment. Also, how could you be so unaware that some christians belive in hell?

    I also take offense at the point of athiests hoping for non-existence. I just commented more about that in the Author Caplan story.

    Finally,
    Eocene: You're like the materialist's version of the four horseman of the Apoalypse prosyletizing against what you consider the false religion.

    That is precicesly what I am doing. When I percieve lies and falsehoods on this blog I feel obligated to correct them.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Eocene: The actual punishment is eternal death/non-existence, something for which every single atheist anywhere has a future hope anyway. Is this not correct ???

    This is something I've never understood. If one is genuinely open about what happens after we die, then who's to say that we might not exist in some form even if God doesn't exist?

    Or it could be that God exists, but intends us to have a finite existence. Or he gives everyone eternal life.

    We cannot be 100% certain than these possible states-of-affairs are not true in reality either.

    The problem is that there is no functional reason as to how God's actions, Jesus' death or our beliefs actual result in receiving eternal life. Instead, it appears to be an extension of the scapegoat myth that dates back long before Christianity.

    Without a functional reason to prefer one of countless variants, advocating one of them, in preference to the others, is irrational.

    When the person we attribute to Jesus' teachings was crucified, they had a choice. Either his death meant that God's plan was derailed by mere mortals or that God used mortals as part of some fulfillment of his work.

    We can say the same about how the Israelites interpreted their defeat at the hands of the Assyrians.

    They had a choice: conclude that the Assyrian God Assur put Yahweh in a corner, or conclude that Yahweh was so powerful he used the Assyrian people and their God Assur to punish he Israelites.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Scott said...

    Eocene: The actual punishment is eternal death/non-existence, something for which every single atheist anywhere has a future hope anyway. Is this not correct ???

    This is something I've never understood. If one is genuinely open about what happens after we die, then who's to say that we might not exist in some form even if God doesn't exist?

    Or it could be that God exists, but intends us to have a finite existence. Or he gives everyone eternal life.

    We cannot be 100% certain than these possible states-of-affairs are not true in reality either.

    The problem is that there is no functional reason as to how God's actions, Jesus' death or our beliefs actual result in receiving eternal life. Instead, it appears to be an extension of the scapegoat myth that dates back long before Christianity.

    Without a functional reason to prefer one of countless variants, advocating one of them, in preference to the others, is irrational.

    When the person we attribute to Jesus' teachings was crucified, they had a choice. Either his death meant that God's plan was derailed by mere mortals or that God used mortals as part of some fulfillment of his work.

    We can say the same about how the Israelites interpreted their defeat at the hands of the Assyrians.

    They had a choice: conclude that the Assyrian God Assur put Yahweh in a corner, or conclude that Yahweh was so powerful he used the Assyrian people and their God Assur to punish he Israelites.

    =========================

    Great ponits Scott

    ReplyDelete
  14. Scott and the world of MAYA[illusion]:

    "This is something I've never understood. If one is genuinely open about what happens after we die, then who's to say that we might not exist in some form even if God doesn't exist?"
    ===

    We've been down this game playing road before Scott and you weren't interested other than deflecting into a netherworld of multiple universes and definition shell gaming. If you are still content within your own little world/universe of worldview, then so be it. That's what freewill is for. I've only said that when you die you will not suffer anything. Death is always opposite of life, not continued life. It's as simple as that.

    But I do understand the Atheist need for a FUNDIE ONLY definitions and takes here when it comes to anything biblical. Because you have no foundation otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Scott:

    "My point is that you're presenting a false dilemma. Your'e all about rebelling against dogmatic world views as long as it leaves your particular dogmatic world view as the only other alternative.

    You're the one deflecting and apparently uninterested in discussing the issue."
    ===

    Sorry Scott. I'm not the one who runs and hides in the realm of the mystic land of Kooksville everytime I don't like another point of view. These conversations NEVER have anything to do with science. As always, they are nothing more than resentment of being accountable and infuriated by definitions of morality and it will always be the motivational force behind New Age responses.
    ---

    Scott:

    "And should one not accept a FUNDY definition, we must accept your "non-fundy" definition, which just so happens to be the "correct" interpretation. Right?"
    ===

    This has never been about my or a fundie interpretation of the Bible. Anyone who is truly interested can go online or to any library[if the still exist] and research for themselves original definitions of words/terms and compare them honestly to the context. You refused to intelligently discuss this before and proved that any future address with you on any matter is simply a case respecting the discussion rule of Matthew 7:6

    In the mean time you have the freewilled right as a living human to spin things any way your heart desires or you sees fit. *wink*

    ReplyDelete
  16. Eocene said...

    Scott:

    "My point is that you're presenting a false dilemma. Your'e all about rebelling against dogmatic world views as long as it leaves your particular dogmatic world view as the only other alternative.

    You're the one deflecting and apparently uninterested in discussing the issue."
    ===

    Sorry Scott. I'm not the one who runs and hides in the realm of the mystic land of Kooksville everytime I don't like another point of view. These conversations NEVER have anything to do with science. As always, they are nothing more than resentment of being accountable and infuriated by definitions of morality and it will always be the motivational force behind New Age responses.


    Correction. What you mean is YOUR conversations never have anything to do with science. That's because you skitter off like a frightened bunny rabbit every time someone posts a paper from the scientific literature and asks you to provide evidence for specifically where it is wrong.

    Blustering empty rhetoric like yours comes cheap for a Creationist. Actually doing some work and providing some evidence to back up the talk is much harder.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thorton:

    "Correction. What you mean is YOUR conversations never have anything to do with science. That's because you skitter off like a frightened bunny rabbit every time someone posts a paper from the scientific literature and asks you to provide evidence for specifically where it is wrong."
    ===

    Surely you jest here. Oh wait a minute, yes I forgot, you're the "Cut N Paste" scientist. My bad.
    ---

    Thorton:

    "Blustering empty rhetoric like yours comes cheap for a Creationist."
    ===

    Sorry, you lose again. I'm NOT a Creationist. But then you already knew that. However, I guess that one was for all these invisible lookie-loo peers who PM'ed you that you were losing it.

    *eyes rolling*
    ---

    Thorton:

    "Actually doing some work and providing some evidence to back up the talk is much harder."
    ===

    In all the years I've worked with researchers and field biologists, never once did I ever experience from any of them the murderous hatred filth and vulgarities which spew forth from your mouth and many of them(not all mind you) believed in evolution to a degree. Every one of them were respectful, courteous and had such a love for the work they did that the very idea of wasting time in rediculous debates would have been considered nonsense in the old days. Wouldn't really call them evolutionists, because they weren't exactly evangelical about it as the gang on these boards are prone be.

    I have no idea what caught your knickers to be in such a twist in life, but no one here is to blame for whatever misfortune befell you early on in life. Only you have the power to change that. Now I suggest madam thet you go meditate on that for a while. Unfortunately I fear this will be nothing more than water off a duck's back.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Eocene: Sorry Scott. I'm not the one who runs and hides in the realm of the mystic land of Kooksville everytime I don't like another point of view.

    Please point out how the following represents "running off to Kooksville"

    Scott: "This is something I've never understood. If one is genuinely open about what happens after we die, then who's to say that we might not exist in some form even if God doesn't exist?"

    Eocone: These conversations NEVER have anything to do with science. As always, they are nothing more than resentment of being accountable and infuriated by definitions of morality and it will always be the motivational force behind New Age responses.

    Eocone,

    Did you even read my comment?

    The problem is that there is no functional reason as to how God's actions, Jesus' death or our beliefs actual result in receiving eternal life. Instead, it appears to be an extension of the scapegoat myth that dates back long before Christianity.

    Without a functional reason to prefer one of countless variants, advocating one of them, in preference to the others, is irrational.


    In other words, it's unclear how the claim that a human sacrifice which happened over 2,000 years ago can take away my "sins" represents either morality or accountability.

    My point is that is appears to arbitrary claim accepted as dogma, rather than an explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Eocene:

    These conversations NEVER have anything to do with science. As always, they are nothing more than resentment of being accountable and infuriated by definitions of morality and it will always be the motivational force behind New Age responses.

    That's right - it's infuriating that we can't go out to pillage, rape and murder without being held accountable. To deny us that which we want most, it's just unbearable. How dare you deny us our New Age pleasures?

    *Flash back to reality*

    This coming from Eocene, who gets all giddy and moist over the idea that very soon the world will be destroyed, except for a select bunch of his fellow lunatics who will get beamed up straight to heaven, where they shall live happily ever after.

    Imagine that, get lectured on morality by a psychopath looking forward to the greatest slaughter in history.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Troy:

    "That's right - it's infuriating that we can't go out to pillage, rape and murder without being held accountable. To deny us that which we want most, it's just unbearable. How dare you deny us our New Age pleasures?"
    ===

    And so shouts the materialistic rider on the Red Horse.
    ---

    Troy:

    *Flash back to reality*

    This coming from Eocene, who gets all giddy and moist over the idea that very soon the world will be destroyed, except for a select bunch of his fellow lunatics who will get beamed up straight to heaven, where they shall live happily ever after."
    ===

    Interesting.

    Since the beginning of time your world(figurative to human's alienated from God) that you proudly thrive and wallow in has been on a distructive course of global ruination from it's beginning. Mind you, it's been accomplished in small increments of time, but has recently gained full steam ahead in just the last few decades.

    So you apparently have no problem in the bastardizing of the natural world and it's human inhabitants to it's final end, you just have a bone to pick as to whose right it is to accomplish this ??? Yes, the destruction of the wicked part of Satan's world is necessary as born out by this scripture which clearly states that if left to it's own devices, nothing(human, animal, birds, reptile, fish, plants, bacteria, etc, etc, etc) would be able to survive(but especially human):

    Matthew 24:21-22 (Amplified Bible)

    (21) "For then there will be great tribulation (affliction, distress, and oppression) such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now--no, and never will be [again].)

    (22) "And if those days had not been shortened, no human being would endure and survive, but for the sake of the elect (God's chosen ones) those days will be shortened."

    So yes indeedy Troy, you are correct. It is necessary to end all government, big Business(science), even religion which is bring this planet quite literally to ruin. If there is no God of the Bible, then time for ALL life on earth is fast running out. The Bible in revelation lumps all three major componants listed above as the biggest problems from the beginning and a hinderance to continued life on earth and it has been this way from the beginning. It's just that now your side[world alienated from god) has excellerated it's ruin.
    ---

    Troy:

    "Imagine that, get lectured on morality by a psychopath looking forward to the greatest slaughter in history."
    ===

    I don't blame you for being disturbed. I can understand that being told your worldview is literally destroying life on earth at an excellerated rate and needs removal if any life is to survive period, does drive home that biblical meaning of "weeping and knashing of the teeth" to higher conscious levels as never before experienced. Still you have the freewilled right to pursue whatever worldview you see fit to follow even though time is extremely limited for doing so further.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Troy:

    "*Flash back to reality*"
    ===

    Yes of course let's get back to the original topic. You didn't answer the question posed.
    ---

    Troy:

    "I'm afraid if you want to be taken seriously, you need to be a bit more specific about your alternatives to evolution."
    ===

    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't it against the laws for any public school or state institution of higher learning to even consider ANY alternative to Evolution ???

    ReplyDelete
  22. Eocene: Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't it against the laws for any public school or state institution of higher learning to even consider ANY alternative to Evolution ???

    No, but it is illegal to bundle up religion or pseudo-science into sciency-sounding language and try to pass it off as science in the classroom.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Zachriel:

    "No, but it is illegal to bundle up religion or pseudo-science into sciency-sounding language and try to pass it off as science in the classroom."
    ===

    Which is exactly the very problem we have at present with evolution being protected by laws of the land. However, I DON'T want "Creationism" or "IDism" there either because the same problematic issues exist as with evolutionism. Ultimately however I have no say in the matter, so let the chips fall as they may. Ideally it would be a healthier situation for scientific progress if all three religious philosophies were kept in their own corners as separate studies without infecting other sciences. But too this would be impossible and merely wishfull thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Eocene: Which is exactly the very problem we have at present with evolution being protected by laws of the land.

    The vast majority of working biologists consider the Theory of Evolution to be strongly supported. It is appropriate to teach the scientific consensus to school children.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Eocene,
    I said, ""I also take offense at the point of athiests hoping for non-existence."
    and you replied, "Interesting, are you saying they do have a hope for the future ???"

    Your question does not follow from my statement. My statement implys that I believe that its not the case of "athiests hope for non-existence." In English, to negate sentences we generally negate the first verb phrase. So, in this case we have, "athiests do not hope for non-existence" as the valid inference. I am including a link to an English as a second language site which explains it a little better. Good luck!

    http://www.suite101.com/content/esl-lesson-plan-for-teaching-sentence-negation-a116053

    ReplyDelete
  26. T Cook:

    "Your question does not follow from my statement. My statement implys that I believe that its not the case of "athiests hope for non-existence." In English, to negate sentences we generally negate the first verb phrase. So, in this case we have, "athiests do not hope for non-existence" as the valid inference. I am including a link to an English as a second language site which explains it a little better. Good luck!"
    ===

    I love this. A typical atheist has zero of import to offer in the topic but to fall back as an expert booksmith when nothing of value is to be had.

    I forgot, Heaven to an atheist is called "Artificial Intelligence". In otherwords having ones brain downloaded at the time of death into some futuristic super computer presently found only in the mythological worlds of online gaming sites.
    ---

    Zachriel:

    "The vast majority of working biologists consider the Theory of Evolution to be strongly supported. It is appropriate to teach the scientific consensus to school children."
    ===

    Have you actually pried your claws off that keyboard and gotten of your duff lately to take a long hard look at the natural world and seen what your Religious leaders [biologists] have done to it ??? They have no clue as to how it actually operates and ecosystems are failing globally everywhere. Maybe if they actually did the science research instead of creating stinks over worldviews maybe they accomplish something. Your own political farce of a blog proves it's not about the SCIENCE.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Eocene:
    The actual punishment is eternal death/non-existence, something for which every single atheist anywhere has a future hope anyway. Is this not correct ???

    Me:
    I also take offense at the point of athiests hoping for non-existence.

    In other words. No, that they hope for non-existence is not a true statement about athiests.

    Eocene:
    Interesting, are you saying they do have a hope for the future ???

    Me:
    "athiests do not hope for non-existence" [is] the valid inference.

    Eocene:
    I love this. A typical atheist has zero of import to offer in the topic but to fall back as an expert booksmith when nothing of value is to be had.

    Athiests do not hope for non-existence, they believe that it is coming regardless of their wishes. Death is scary. Thinking this life is all we get is not comforting. Accepting that takes courage.

    I've heard this point before, that athiests somehow want death. It seems a common enough misconception that I feel compelled to correct it. I would hardly call that nothing of value.

    ReplyDelete
  28. T Cook:

    "In other words. No, that they hope for non-existence is not a true statement about athiests."
    ===

    Fine, then they have no hope. Got it.
    ---

    T Cook:

    "Athiests do not hope for non-existence, they believe that it is coming regardless of their wishes. Death is scary. Thinking this life is all we get is not comforting. Accepting that takes courage."
    ===

    Well if anything, this outlook definitely defines and explains the present world we live in.
    ---

    T Cook:

    "I've heard this point before, that athiests somehow want death. It seems a common enough misconception that I feel compelled to correct it. I would hardly call that nothing of value."
    ---

    Fine your personal take and point is more clear now.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hi,

    What's your views Cornelius on this article explaining the Cambrian explosion through fossil finds of the Precambrian:
    http://biologos.org/questions/cambrian-explosion/

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  30. Eocene: Have you actually pried your claws off that keyboard and gotten of your duff lately to take a long hard look at the natural world and seen what your Religious leaders [biologists] have done to it ??? They have no clue as to how it actually operates and ecosystems are failing globally everywhere.

    Most biologists are not religious leaders.

    Yes. Medical advances have led to large increases in the human population, and industrialization has had a profound impact on the environment. That has nothing to do with the scientific validity of the Theory of Evolution, any more than the atom bomb undermine atomic theory.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Zachriel:

    "Most biologists are not religious leaders."
    ===

    Wrong , Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers, Larry Moran, etc, etc, etc and countless others who lable themselves as biologists are all indeed religious leaders. If they were truly bilogists, they'd be spending the better part of their time finding solutions to the problems facing humankind's proper understanding of the natural world and how to be better custodians of it. Instead, we get research from such Ecclesiatical Hierarchies of Scientifism for the purpose of using it to bring the Secularist version of fire, brimstone and damnation to anyone who opposes their worldview.

    On a special note: Conscientious biologists who actually are working their backsides off to find realworld solutions[as opposed to proving the Evo god's existance] are most often scoffed at by both sides of this debate.
    ---

    Zachriel:

    "Yes. Medical advances have led to large increases in the human population, and industrialization has had a profound impact on the environment. That has nothing to do with the scientific validity of the Theory of Evolution, any more than the atom bomb undermine atomic theory."
    ===

    Wrong again Reverend. The theory of evolution is nothing more than a religious article of faith. A faith which promotes, encourages and actually celebrates the pursuit of selfnessness and greed as perfectly normal attributes which guide and direct the wonders of the world we live in. This same article of faith also has a perverted jihadist mission to stamp out what are considered a threat to this so-called enlightened worldview. The fact that human society along with the natural world are in a downwards freefalling spiral into the proverbial toilette are considered to be nothing more than necessary collateral damage for the good of the politically correct worldview winning out.

    Maybe you should stick to writting about those damn Republicans, Tea Baggers, George Bush and Bill O'Reilly and who ever else you deem unfit to reside at your table. You seem better suited for that.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Zachriel: Most biologists are not religious leaders.

    Eocene: Wrong , Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers, Larry Moran, etc, etc, etc and countless others who lable themselves as biologists are all indeed religious leaders.

    Dawkins, Myers and Moran don't make a majority, even when adding etc. etc. There is no serious debate within biology about Intelligent Design, and most biologists are barely aware of the culture wars.

    In any case, you seem to have a problem because some biologists are outspoken atheists. Not all biologists are atheists, and not all atheists are outspoken. And none of that undermines the basic scientific support for the Theory of Evolution.

    Eocene: The theory of evolution is nothing more than a religious article of faith.

    The Theory of Evolution is a strongly supported scientific theory that forms the foundation of modern biology.

    Eocene: A faith which promotes, encourages and actually celebrates the pursuit of selfnessness and greed as perfectly normal attributes which guide and direct the wonders of the world we live in.

    You seem to be confusing natural selection with human nature.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Zachriel:

    "Dawkins, Myers and Moran don't make a majority, even when adding etc. etc."
    ===

    Sure they do. They claim to represent the majority even as the political shills do here.
    ---

    Zachriel:

    "There is no serious debate within biology about Intelligent Design, and most biologists are barely aware of the culture wars."
    ===

    I couldn't care less whether Intelligent Design is taught or not. It is in fact another religious worldview with it's own bias just as equal to Evolutionism. If science were allowed to be neutral in it's research without invoking the bias terminologies of either creationism, evolutionism or IDism, they they could actually clean up their act and accomplish something productive.
    ---

    Zachriel:

    "In any case, you seem to have a problem because some biologists are outspoken atheists. Not all biologists are atheists, and not all atheists are outspoken. And none of that undermines the basic scientific support for the Theory of Evolution."
    ===

    No problem at all. I merely have a problem with someone's religious articles of faith bastardizing science.
    ---

    Zachriel:

    "The Theory of Evolution is a strongly supported scientific theory that forms the foundation of modern biology."
    ===

    Really "forms the foundation of modern biology" ??? Well that would explain why they are indeed directly responsible for the destruction of the Earth's natural world and the present ongoing extinction events of all life happening right now as we speak. Very well said genius.
    ---

    Zachriel:

    "You seem to be confusing natural selection with human nature."
    ===

    So when the Reverend Richard Dawkins wrote his book "The Selfish Gene", he was only talking about humans and not the natural processes of the raw animal nature which drives the god of evolution ??? On second hand, maybe there is no selfishness and greed, just raw uninhibted Ammorality that rules. Let's see, how did the good Reverend put it ???

    There is no love, no hate, no good, no bad, just blind pointless pitiless indifference. Or as Cornelius puts it, everything arose spontaneously for no reason.

    What about the 3rd Person Speak question ???

    ReplyDelete
  34. Zachriel:

    "They claim that a majority of biologists are religious leaders? Where?"
    ===

    Nice deflection, that was what YOU[Legions] originally said genius above. But then you already knew that.
    ---

    Zachriel:

    "Intelligent Design ignored in science. It leads to no new understanding, no new knowledge. It's sterile and fruitless."
    ===

    WRONG! The origins game is nothing more than that by all sides, just A Game. There is alot of scientific research[and researchers] which/who never takes into account evolutionism, creationism or IDism. They simply report on findings and discoveries and how they work and function. Research papers which invoke the name of your Bearded Buddha or god[evolution] merely do so to appease the Elites and nothing more. Nice try tho.
    ---

    Zachriel:

    "Easy enough to solve. Do it yourself. Let us know what scientific insights you develop."
    ===

    Already have done that, thanks.
    ---

    Zachriel:

    "Your paraphrase is inaccurate."
    ===

    Your deflection is inaccurate!
    ---

    Zachriel:

    "Dawkins doesn't speak for all biologists, and he was making a metaphysical, not a scientific statement."
    ===

    Sure he does. If this were not true, then those supposedly other biologists would be all over his back side publically, but the roar of their continued silence on this as yours is deafening.
    ---

    Zachriel:

    "This still doesn't call into question the Theory of Evolution."
    ===

    Sure it does. As long as this dogma is mandated through the laws as the official religious articles of faith for modern science, then adherents of the dogma will continue with giving faith-based statements by their biased story telling, assumptions, assertions and speculations which are not real world facts, but rather factoids.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Eocene: Nice deflection, that was what YOU[Legions] originally said genius above.

    You said Dawkins was a religious leader, but he's an atheist. Then you said he claimed to be speaking for all biologists, but won't or can't support the claim.

    Zachriel: Intelligent Design ignored in science. It leads to no new understanding, no new knowledge. It's sterile and fruitless.

    Eocene: WRONG!

    Just putting it in caps doesn't make it come true. The scientific community ignores Intelligent Design. There's no there there.

    Eocene: Your deflection is inaccurate!

    Are you trying to defend your misquote?
    http://www.google.com/search?&q=dawkins+%22no+love%2c+no+hate%22

    Eocene: As long as this dogma is mandated through the laws as the official religious articles of faith for modern science, then adherents of the dogma will continue with giving faith-based statements by their biased story telling, assumptions, assertions and speculations which are not real world facts, but rather factoids.

    So you are reduced to a grand international conspiracy spanning generations to suppress the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Zachriel:

    "You said Dawkins was a religious leader, but he's an atheist. Then you said he claimed to be speaking for all biologists, but won't or can't support the claim."
    ===

    I can see where all those wasted hours spent in online gaming in virtual netherworlds really starts to pay off when playing this game. Very nice genius.
    ---

    Zachriel:

    "Just putting it in caps doesn't make it come true."
    ===

    Let's see here, is this where you come clean and admit that speaking in the 3rd Person is a ruse to make the perceived opponant bow before your feet as the academic loser ???
    ---

    Zachriel:

    "The scientific community ignores Intelligent Design. There's no there there."
    ===

    Again what does intelligent design have to do with this ??? Why don't you take it up with someone who actually cares about another politically charged religious bias besides your's cares about whether or not an Atheistic community condescendingly approves or not.
    ---

    Zachriel:

    "
    Are you trying to defend your misquote?"
    ===

    Funny, I didn't misquote anything. are you once again trying to deflect ??? Remember your own Articles of Faith = "No Inteeligence Allowed"
    ---

    Zachriel:

    "So you are reduced to a grand international conspiracy spanning generations to suppress the truth."
    ===

    Well let's see, from a Scottonian philsophical perspective, I invoke the
    "What Is Truth" ??? rule!!! Which parallel universe shall we play in ???

    See I can play your stupid game as well.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Eocene: Funny, I didn't misquote anything.

    Eocene: So when the Reverend Richard Dawkins wrote his book "The Selfish Gene", he was only talking about humans and not the natural processes of the raw animal nature which drives the god of evolution ??? On second hand, maybe there is no selfishness and greed, just raw uninhibted Ammorality that rules. Let's see, how did the good Reverend put it ???

    There is no love, no hate, no good, no bad, just blind pointless pitiless indifference.


    Perhaps Dawkins did say that. Please provide a citation. Thank you.

    http://www.google.com/search?&q=dawkins+%22no+love%2c+no+hate%22

    ReplyDelete
  38. Zachriel:

    "Perhaps Dawkins did say that. Please provide a citation. Thank you."
    ===

    This is funny. You can't EVER answer[in this case refuse] one simple question[actually posed before over and over for a period of several months now] about your use of this rediculous 3rd Person Speak tactic, yet you self-righteously demand an explanation for some perceived word or two that just may be out of order ???

    Not a chance. No one anywhere is misrepresenting your position mate. Blind pointless pitiless indifference without purpose or intent. Deal with it. Start providing factual answers as to how unguided, undirected forces of nothing more than physics and chemicals without purpose or intent bring about anything remotely complexly intelligent. Until then you still are spinning your wheels in the proverbial mud of pre-biotic soup.

    On second thought, I take it back. This is truly sad. Not funny anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Zachriel:

    "Perhaps Dawkins did say that. Please provide a citation. Thank you."
    ===

    This is funny. You can't EVER answer[in this case refuse] one simple question[actually posed before over and over for a period of several months now] about your use of this rediculous 3rd Person Speak tactic, yet you self-righteously demand an explanation for some perceived word or two that just may be out of order ???

    Not a chance. No one anywhere is misrepresenting your position mate. Blind pointless pitiless indifference without purpose or intent. Deal with it. Start providing factual answers as to how unguided, undirected forces of nothing more than physics and chemicals without purpose or intent bring about anything remotely complexly intelligent. Until then you still are spinning your wheels in the proverbial mud of pre-biotic soup.

    On second thought, I take it back. This is truly sad. Not funny anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Zachriel:

    "Perhaps Dawkins did say that. Please provide a citation. Thank you."
    ===

    This is funny. You can't EVER answer[in this case refuse] one simple question[actually posed before over and over for a period of several months now] about your use of this rediculous 3rd Person Speak tactic, yet you self-righteously demand an explanation for some perceived word or two that just may be out of order ???

    Not a chance. No one anywhere is misrepresenting your position mate. Blind pointless pitiless indifference without purpose or intent. Deal with it. Start providing factual answers as to how unguided, undirected forces of nothing more than physics and chemicals without purpose or intent bring about anything remotely complexly intelligent. Until then you still are spinning your wheels in the proverbial mud of pre-biotic soup.

    On second thought, I take it back. This is truly sad. Not funny anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Zachriel:

    "Perhaps Dawkins did say that. Please provide a citation. Thank you."
    ===

    This is funny. You can't[refuse over a period of months now] even answer a simple question about the tactical use of condescending 3rd Person Speak, yet you show righteous indignation by quibbling over a word or two.

    Blind pointless pitiless indifference without purpose or intent are guiding influences which caused everything to spontaneously arise, no matter what arose, be it planets, solar systems, oceans, land, biological life, etc, etc, etc. Cornelius was right. You lose again.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Eocene: No one anywhere is misrepresenting your position mate. Blind pointless pitiless indifference without purpose or intent.

    As that is not our position, you are misrepresenting it.

    Noted that you can't justify your paraphrase of Dawkins.

    ReplyDelete
  43. A number of theories have been proposed concerning our use of nosism. If Zachriel were legion ...

    commune of pedants
    ultimate expression of internet group think
    hive
    group of poseurs
    committee
    weird cult
    collective pseudonym like Bourbaki
    five people
    collective
    tri-unity
    being of more than one mind
    royalty
    schizophrenic
    gaggle of grad students
    Jovian clique
    someone with a tapeworm

    -
    We are thus led also to a definition of 'time' in physics. — Albert Einstein

    ReplyDelete
  44. Zachriel:

    "A number of theories have been proposed concerning our use of nosism. If Zachriel were legion ...

    commune of pedants
    ultimate expression of internet group think
    hive
    group of poseurs
    committee
    weird cult
    collective pseudonym like Bourbaki
    five people
    collective
    tri-unity
    being of more than one mind
    royalty
    schizophrenic
    gaggle of grad students
    Jovian clique
    someone with a tapeworm

    -
    We are thus led also to a definition of 'time' in physics. —"
    ===

    Got it. You consider yourself a sort of multi-personality god. (Pluralis Majestatis) a sort of New Age Pope, Hierarchal Cleric of Evolutionism.

    And I thought Scott had the market cornered on posting manuscripts that go nowhere.

    ReplyDelete