Their Own Judge
Person X: “supernatural explanations always mean the end of inquiry”
Person Y: “So the appearance of species through time, as seen in fossils, is far from random. … No theory of special creation, or any theory other than evolution, can explain these patterns.” [emphasis in original]
The answer is that Person X and Person Y are the same person. In this case the person is Jerry Coyne but it could be any one of the leading evolutionists because they commonly make these kinds of self-revealing pronouncements. The first statement delegitimizes supernatural explanations and the second statement is a supernatural explanation.
For when evolutionists blame others for being religiously-driven, introducing religion into science, abusing religion, abusing science, misrepresenting the science evidence, being anti-science, and promoting ideas that are science-stoppers, they are, in fact, judging themselves.
Religions drives science and it matters.
"all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick. He piled upon the whale’s white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart’s shell upon it."
ReplyDeleteI would say this depends a lot on what is meant by 'supernatural' - or 'natural' come to that. There seems to be a fair measure of disagreement about both.
ReplyDeleteFor example, if by 'supernatural' you are referring to a domain forever beyond the reach of scientific investigation, then appealing to a supernatural explanation would indeed be a science-stopper.
Substitute "metaphysical".
DeleteThe postulate "a domain forever beyond the range of scientific investigation" is itself a metaphysical concept. The ability confidently to place such a constraint on all science for all future time and space for all investigators/witnesses, puts one in a god-like category, no?
I think I finally understand these evolutionists. They actually believe what they say. When they say there is mountains of evidence for evolution they think that this is true. For example, if two species have similar morphologies they think this is proof of evolution. It took me a long time to realize this because it seems too strange to be true. Similar morphologies, like similar strands of dna do not prove anything. They only show a similarity. Evolution attempts to explain the change from one species to another. Similar morphologies say nothing about how one species could change into another. It is no evidence for evolution at all. It is a mistake in logic that would fail a first year philosophy student. This is incredible. And yet these biology professors consistently make this mistake. So when an evolutionist says there is mountains of evidence for evolution, in fact there is none. Words escape me to describe this unbelievable error throughout this field of knowledge. I can't bring myself to call it science.
ReplyDeletePeter:
DeleteI think I finally understand these evolutionists. They actually believe what they say.
Yes, it takes a long time to finally get it. Amazingly simple once you see it, but it usually takes a long time. Like those incredible optical illusions:
http://kathrynvercillo.hubpages.com/hub/Two-Faces-or-a-Vase-10-Simple-but-Wonderful-Optical-Illusions
I am not sure all evolutionists believe in their own lies. The idiots among them do but not the smart ones. I'm almost certain that jackasses like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers know that evolution is a pile of crap. They continue to preach it because of their hatred for Christianity. They just want to replace Christianity with their own religion. They think that the goal of destroying Christianity justifies all the lies.
DeleteWhat a waste.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYes, Velik
Deletesome gentlemen here remind me a lot of Namasensei japanese lessons
I highly recommend lessons as long as you can handle rough language as seen above.
So he is saying evolution is the only answer so no need for further inquiry? Could this be construed as ending inquiry?
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't understand is how evolutionists says that "God did it" is not allowed because it is not falsifiable, then they proceed to falsify it.
ReplyDeleteThink hard, as a matter of connecting truth-preserving statements, you should be able to work it out eventually.
DeleteHow does inferring that eyes are for seeing preclude the possibility that we could learn about some or most of the necessary conditions of sight? It obviously doesn't. Coyne is such a victim of his own dogma that he can no longer think past the nose on his face about how teleological explanation does and doesn't work.
ReplyDeleteCoyne is a paid con artist, a complete ass kisser. You can see it in his face. His arguments for evolution are mediocre at best and complete BS at worst.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCoyne: “supernatural explanations always mean the end of inquiry”
ReplyDeleteJ: Supernatural explanation, in this context, is just teleological inference to a super-competent designer. It no more precludes the possibility of researching what are the means to the ends than inferring that a machine is designed precludes it.
V: "all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick. He piled upon the whale’s white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart’s shell upon it."
ReplyDeleteJ: Whence the non-relativistic normativity from your point of view? Not seeing it at all.
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteWhence the non-relativistic normativity from your point of view? Not seeing it at all.
I like my normativity in all flavors,
But, whence, V. Whence?
ReplyDeleteFrom 5 years of Jesuit education, and you?
DeleteI'm not talking about non-relativistic normativity you've rejected already. I'm asking about that you're using in your first post to try to guilt CH. Whence is THAT?
DeleteJeff,
DeleteI'm not talking about non-relativistic normativity you've rejected already
Which objective morality have I rejected? Perhaps I am a fan of Pascal's Wager,causing me to follow at majority of the Ten Commandments.
I'm asking about that you're using in your first post to try to guilt CH. Whence is THAT?
Interesting,guilt never occurred to me.
I think CH believes that evolutionists,Coyne in particular, are a source of evil in the world.Depending on his beliefs,an actual tool of Lucifer. This is not a scientific disagreement, it is religious and personal.
How could he ever feel guilty about doing anything in the service of defeating such an enemy?
Why then?I love that quote. And as a fellow believer in knowledge by analogy, the metaphor described by Melville seemed analogous to CH's feelings toward Coyne.
A picture worth a thousand words, so to speak.
I think the real reason CH rails against Coyne so much is that CH is insanely jealous of Coyne's success. Coyne is a well known author and educator while CH is a pretend scientist nobody who threw his professional career away for a few dollars to push the DI's lies and propaganda.
DeleteJealousy is an ugly ugly thing.
Thorton
DeleteCH is a pretend scientist nobody who threw his professional career away for a few dollars to push the DI's lies and propaganda.
I doubt CH feels that way, I expect he feels he is doing the Lord's Work.
Jealousy is an ugly ugly thing.
Evolutionists are no doubt responsible for that as well.
V: I think CH believes that evolutionists,Coyne in particular, are a source of evil in the world.Depending on his beliefs,an actual tool of Lucifer. This is not a scientific disagreement, it is religious and personal.
DeleteJ: How does Coyne consistently conceive of moral obligation, given his metaphysics? I say he can't. And, therefore, if he's consistent, he's no more shocked or disturbed by anything CH says than he is by a dog chasing a cat.
Jeff,
DeleteI say he can't. And, therefore, if he's(Coyne) consistent, he's no more shocked or disturbed by anything CH says than he is by a dog chasing a cat.
It probably is more a feeling of amusement if anything.
Perhaps. On the other hand, he may be like Weinberg and Harris and see himself as doing his part to rid the world of religion because of the "evils" of religious people. Regardless, CH writes about what the blog is about. I seriously doubt he thinks Coyne, by himself, adversely affects the world that much. We all do somewhat, eh?
Deletevelikovskys.
Delete"Jealousy is an ugly ugly thing.
Evolutionists are no doubt responsible for that as well."
Maybe not evolutionists, but most certainly evolution would be responsible.
Jeff.
DeletePerhaps. On the other hand, he may be like Weinberg and Harris and see himself as doing his part to rid the world of religion because of the "evils" of religious people.
Coyne seems pretty intolerant of theism,from what little I have read on his blog. However since as you have noted, Coyne doesn't believe that free will exists and likewise morality,Melville's quote might not be as appros as it is towards CH.
Regardless, CH writes about what the blog is about. I seriously doubt he thinks Coyne, by himself, adversely affects the world that much.
You may be right, but New Atheists advocate a diminished role of religion in society which CH obviously feels adversely affects society. Coyne is a visible leader of that philosophy. My guess is yes,CH thinks that Coyne has a measurable adverse effect.
Nic,
Maybe not evolutionists, but most certainly evolution would be responsible.
I agree. Does the designer also take responsibility for it,as well? Or is that undesigned?
velikovskys.
Delete"I agree. Does the designer also take responsibility for it,as well? Or is that undesigned?"
It's a consequence of our fall from grace.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"The first statement delegitimizes supernatural explanations and the second statement is a supernatural explanation."
ReplyDeleteReally? "No theory of special creation, or any theory other than evolution, can explain these patterns.” [emphasis in original]" looks to me like it's saying ANY theory BUT evolution would be false, whether it's a natural theory or a supernatural theory.
If only Jesus had spoken English...