And by Creationism, We Mean Anything That is Not Evolution
As Hegel would have put it, evolution is the antithesis of creationism. Evolution is based on the failure of creationism. Evolutionists have no idea how the world could have spontaneously arisen, but they know it must have, because for them creationism is so obviously false. Read any defense of evolution, including Darwin’s book and works before Darwin, and you will see it is all about the failure design and creation ideas. There is no positive scientific evidence that structures so complex we still cannot figure them out, let alone construct them, spontaneously arise all by themselves. Yet that is precisely what evolution insists must be true. Not because the science says so, but because the religion says so. The constant refrain from evolutionists is that creationism is false. And while the word conjures up anti intellectual fundamentalism—imagery that evolutionists have contrived and promoted with their Warfare Thesis imagery—what evolutionists actually mean is anything that is not evolution. Read any criticism of evolutionary Intelligent Design, for instance, and you will see the “C” word liberally applied. It is not ID, it is IDC. Evolutionists make their religious underwriting abundantly clear because they have to. That is their core thesis.
All of this was again made clear this week when Britain
banned creationism from their schools. And if you read the fine print, what they mean by creationism is anything that is not evolution:
“Creationism,” for the purposes of clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the funding agreement and clause 23E above, is any doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution.
Of course evolution is, from a scientific perspective, not a good theory. So evolutionists need to manipulate people’s thinking. They misrepresent the science, use strawmen ideas as their foil, blackball dissenters and use government controls.
But of course none of this will ever work. They can take your money, abuse science and control the laws. But they can’t change the truth.
"Evolutionists make their religious underwriting abundantly clear because they have to. That is their core thesis."
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly, is our core thesis? Rather unclear from this sentence.
"evolutionists...use strawmen ideas as their foil"
Umm, this is precisely what you do when you, e.g., repeatedly claim that evolutionary theory prediects spontaneity (just to pick out an obvious example from this post).
Cornelius, are you just feeling extra hypocritical today?
Umm, this is precisely what you do when you, e.g., repeatedly claim that evolutionary theory prediects spontaneity
DeleteSo tell us, what sorts of external inputs did evolution get, in creating its many creations? The problem is, evolutionists don't want to admit to their own claims.
Some external inputs that have influenced the history of life on Earth:
DeleteCosmic rays
Ultraviolet light
Heat
Cold
Asteroid impacts
Tectonic movements
"The problem is, evolutionists don't want to admit to their own claims"
ReplyDeleteI guess the answer whether you are feeling hypocritical is a resounding Yes. What claims? What core thesis?
Would be great if you could be specific for once. Your straw man is getting increasingly flimsy.
Stuart:
DeleteWhat claims? What core thesis?
That will become clear when you answer my earlier question which you avoided: "So tell us, what sorts of external inputs did evolution get, in creating its many creations?"
No, it wouldn't be clear. That's why I didn't bother. You can read Pedant's list and hopefully see one of several reasons why your comment is nonsensical.
DeleteNext, please provide an actual explanation of what you think the core thesis of the evolutionists is. Because this is absent from your particularly vacuous OP.
Actually, they are perfectly happy to admit their own claims. The journal literature is replete with evolutionists admitting their claims. The external inputs to evolution have long been established. They are environmental, ecological, geological and astronomical and they drive not just selection but drift, flow and mutation.
ReplyDeleteAlso known as "fine tuning of the Universe for life."
DeleteJimpithecus:
DeleteThey are environmental, ecological, geological
Oh, so you deny cosmological evolution.
Not at all. I am just simply answering your statement that "evolutionists' rarely admit their own claims.
DeleteAh but you do, though you deny it. For if the cosmos evolved, then they are not external inputs to evolution.
DeleteEquivocation alert!
DeleteTwo meanings of "evolution" conflated.
Equivocation alert! Two meanings of "evolution" conflated.
DeleteSo the cosmos evolved, the Earth evolved, the species evolved, but the evolution of the species was not spontaneous because there were external inputs from the Earth and cosmos. And anyone who complains is equivocating! That’s quite a shell game evolutionists have.
You can complain all you want, but you shouldn't equivocate.
DeleteAnd your ad hominem ("shellgame") accusations of dishonesty are tedious.
In any case, let's say that the Cosmos was created by God (we all know that's the "external input" you won't admit that you have in mind). Once the Cosmos exists, why should biological evolution or anything else that follows historically within the Cosmos require God's continuing "external input"?
Pedant:
DeleteYou can complain all you want, but you shouldn't equivocate.
You still don’t get it. I wasn’t the one equivocating.
And your ad hominem ("shellgame") accusations of dishonesty are tedious.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say evolution created everything but the world did not arise spontaneously.
In any case, let's say that the Cosmos was created by God (we all know that's the "external input" you won't admit that you have in mind).
And you accuse me of being tedious? The “external input” was in response to your claim that evolution is not spontaneous, remember? Why do evolutionists always bring up God? Oh yeah …
Once the Cosmos exists, why should biological evolution or anything else that follows historically within the Cosmos require God's continuing "external input"?
There you go again. I made no such claim, remember? You’re the evolutionist. If you want to say everything exists except the species, then great, at least you have some raw material and energy as your starting point, and you have therefore dodged the first of a long list of problems.
I have no idea what the above rants are trying to express. Anybody?
DeleteCornelius, since your definition of spontaneous seems to hinge on external input, you'll need to unpack what qualifies as internal input and why.
DeleteHowever, at first glance, your approach seems quite problematic as it appears to result in an infinite regress.
Correction: "you'll need to unpack what qualifies as *external* input and why".
DeleteHowever, I'd also point out that internal input would be a factor in the form of imprecise replication.
CH: And you accuse me of being tedious? The “external input” was in response to your claim that evolution is not spontaneous, remember? Why do evolutionists always bring up God? Oh yeah …
DeleteWhy? Because what you mean by "external input" is too unclear for us to make progress on the issue.
Again, knowledge grows via conjecture and criticism. Your response referenced "external input", but you have yet to unpack it to the extent that we can differentiate enough to make progress. And since getting details from you is like pulling teeth, we guess.
And when we do, you respond as if you find it objectionable. No surprise here. So, apparently, you think we cannot make progress on this issue. At all. Period.
In fact, I'd suggest you find even the mere idea that progress could actually be made personally offensive. It's an affront to your theological belief.
You want it both ways: God's supposed properties can be referenced as part of an explanation for what we observe, such as concrete biological complexity of the biosphere, despite the fact that we cannot deduce consequences from those very same properties.
Scott:
DeleteCornelius, since your definition of spontaneous seems to hinge on external input
Sorry but this is not my own private definition.
You're quibbling over terminology.
DeleteCall it what you like, such as your private interpretation of spontantious. Regardless, your objection appears to be arbitrary because, apparently, work is work, unless it's not.
Again, consider all of the conceivable transformations of matter. In this group, there are transformations that are prohibited by the laws of physics, and transformations that are possible. For example, you've probability seen a highly realistic computer animation in which the camera travels (is transformed) from earth to the sun in just a few seconds. We can conceive of this transformation, but traveling faster that the speed of light in actual space is prohibited by the laws of physics.
Of the latter possible group, there are two types: transformation that occur spontaneously, such as the formation of stars from gravity, hydrogen and other stellar materials and transformations that only occur when the requisite knowledge is present, such as the transformation of air, water. etc., into plants.
Stellar evolution refers to transformations of the former kind, which is spontaneous. Biological evolution represents transformations of the latter kind. So, it's unclear why cosmic evolution, including the transformation of matter into heaver elements by stars, and their dispersal when they explode, isn't a valid external input for biological evolution, and therefore equivocation.
If it's not equivocation, you must be using some other interoperation of "work" as found in the slides you referenced. That's what we're looking for. Otherwise, we cannot make progress.
But, then again, I'm assumes that you genuinely want to make progress or that you do not hold a theological commitment that progress in this area is, well, impossible.
Cornelius Hunter All of this was again made clear this week when Britain banned creationism from their schools. And if you read the fine print,...
ReplyDelete... you will find Britain did no such thing and well you know it. What they did, quite sensibly, was to ban it from being taught as an evidence-based theory in the science classroom.
The move, which came in a little noticed document last week, marks a significant victory for secular campaigners, who have long fought to ensure the freedom granted to free schools and academies does not allow religious ideas to be taught in science classes.
[...]
It then adds: "The requirement on every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school."
[...]
"The secretary of state acknowledges that clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement, and clauses 23E and 23G above do not prevent discussion of beliefs about the origins of the Earth and living things, such as creationism, in Religious Education, as long as it is not presented as a valid alternative to established scientific theory."
Mr. Speddling,
DeleteIf an intelligent agent has been messing with our ancestors' dna over the eons, what findings would be "scientific". Would honest science not conclude that an intelligent agent has been messing with our ancestors' dna over the eons?
http://analogaddiction.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/2001-a-space-odyssey-ape-monolith.jpg
Delete
Delete"... you will find Britain did no such thing and well you know it. What they did, quite sensibly, was to ban it from being taught as an evidence-based theory in the science classroom."
So where is the "evidence'' that selection, drift, hgt, neutral evolution - you name it, is capable of producing the protein cycle, or a bacterial flagellum?
"does not allow religious ideas to be taught in science classes"
"prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school."
So do you think that what is meant by ''religion'' and ''creationism'' would preclude a theory of intelligent design from discussion?
bFast If an intelligent agent has been messing with our ancestors' dna over the eons, what findings would be "scientific". Would honest science not conclude that an intelligent agent has been messing with our ancestors' dna over the eons?
DeleteFinding evidence of alien intervention in the evolution of life on Earth would be a tremendous discovery in its own right but it would not necessarily mean that evolution did not happen and is not happening now. They might just have been tinkering with its course. But until we have some evidence of alien handiwork on this planet, such as digging up a black monolith which beams an alert signal to a stargate orbiting Jujpiter, its all just speculation.
bpragmatic So do you think that what is meant by ''religion'' and ''creationism'' would preclude a theory of intelligent design from discussion?
DeleteNot necessarily. If there were a theory of intelligent design that had won recognition as such from the scientific community on the basis of argument and evidence then, of course, it should be taught in the science classroom.. But a scientific theory is a lot more than the observation that certain biological structures resemble human artefacts and point to the existence of a non-human designer.
Ian Speddling, "Finding evidence of alien intervention in the evolution of life on Earth would be a tremendous discovery in its own right but..."
DeleteYou didn't answer my question. If evidence of alien intervention were found, would the findings be, well "scientific", and worthy of study in a British public school?
bFast You didn't answer my question. If evidence of alien intervention were found, would the findings be, well "scientific", and worthy of study in a British public school?
DeleteYes, if there were good evidence of alien intervention on Earth in the past then of course it should be taught in schools.
Mr. Spedling,
DeleteAre you of the impression that British public schools, including universities only teach theories where there is "good evidence"? Are you suggesting that clearly unproven hypotheses like the multiverse theory, and string theory are not taught?
bFast: Are you of the impression that British public schools, including universities only teach theories where there is "good evidence"?
DeleteThe law only applies to free schools and academies. Also, creationism can still be taught in religious studies, just not as science.
Zachriel, "The law only applies to free schools and academies"
DeleteOooh, split the hair. Please modify my previous post to recognize Zachriel's precision. "Are you of the impression that British free schools including free post secondary schools only teach theories where there is "good evidence"?
bFast: Oooh, split the hair.
DeleteIt's not splitting hairs. It's the difference between children and adults.
Yes, public education of children should not include creationism in the science classroom because creationism is not science.
C'mon Zachriel, you have been on ID sites for a long time now. Do you still hold the fantasy that the only motivation for all ID scientists is religious? It is obvious, is it not, that anybody in their right mind who has a basic understanding of the theory would possibly question the veracity of the theory.
DeletePlease repeat the mantra: Its all religion vs. science.
bFast: Do you still hold the fantasy that the only motivation for all ID scientists is religious?
DeleteWe didn't make that claim. Our claim is that creationism is not science, ID merely pretends to be science, and evolution is the unifying theory of the the biological sciences.
When teaching science to children, they should be taught the basic scientific consensus, and certainly not something rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community.
1st, if some scientists are concluding that the current model is woefully inadequate to explain the data, if their motivation for this finding is not religious, then their view is "scientific".
Delete2 - If ID is kept from "children" because it is not consensus, then the same should be held with all of the other evidence-less hypotheses floating around like the multiverse theory, string theory, etc.
3 - What of Shapiro et. el. These guys conclude that the modern synthesis is woefully inadequate, yet, for religious reasons, avoid hypothesizing a "creationist" model? Is Shapiro's work worthy of consideration in public schools?
bFast: 1st, if some scientists are concluding that the current model is woefully inadequate to explain the data, if their motivation for this finding is not religious, then their view is "scientific".
DeleteThere are many open questions in biology, but evolution is firmly established.
bFast: 2 - If ID is kept from "children" because it is not consensus, then the same should be held with all of the other evidence-less hypotheses floating around like the multiverse theory, string theory, etc.
Didn't know they were teaching string theory to children.
bFast: What of Shapiro et. el. These guys conclude that the modern synthesis is woefully inadequate, yet, for religious reasons, avoid hypothesizing a "creationist" model? Is Shapiro's work worthy of consideration in public schools?
Generally, the basic consensus models should be taught. Students are first taught Newtonian Mechanics, not Relativity Theory.
Shapiro's hypothesis that cooperation is nearly universal can certainly be mentioned as it has quite a lot of support, however, there's usually only enough time for students to learn the basics. Shapiro's more speculative hypotheses will probably not be covered in grade school.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteYou'll need to reword that bpragmatic.
ReplyDeleteSounds good Dr. Hunter.
Delete"Read any defense of evolution, including Darwin’s book and works before Darwin, and you will see it is all about the failure design and creation ideas. There is no positive scientific evidence that structures so complex we still cannot figure them out, let alone construct them, SPONTANEOUSLY ARISE all by themselves."
And then this:
''Some external inputs that have INFLUENCED the history of life on Earth:
Cosmic rays
Ultraviolet light
Heat
Cold
Asteroid impacts
Tectonic movements"
Maybe my reading of your article was a bit selective,
but I was thinking the gist might have been more concerned with the inner-workings of a living cells, systems, organs, organism whose developments over time obviously will be affected by all the aspects of the environment. But factors at the molecular level have critically specific and powerful impact within the nano realm.
Maybe I am wrong, but it seems that a more charitable reading of what you are saying would take that into consideration.
Did not realize you meant "external inputs" in a teleological sense. I assumed you meant it in a biological sense since that is what the post is about. Evolution, as it pertains to stellar evolution is a very different thing from biological evolution. If I understand you correctly, if there are no "external inputs," it means that God is not directing things. That is not at all what I meant.
ReplyDeleteDid not realize you meant "external inputs" in a teleological sense. … If I understand you correctly, if there are no "external inputs," it means that God is not directing things.
DeleteNo, my point is that evolutionists often use teleological language, such as X evolved in order to achieve Y, or natural selection created Z. This sounds better but is an erroneous description of the theory, which claims that world arose spontaneously. But that accurate terminology is avoided because it makes evolution look bad.
Now you said there are external inputs to the evolution of the species, from the Earth and cosmos. But if the Earth and cosmos also evolved, then these are not external inputs to the evolutionary process. So you’re back to the world arising spontaneously.
Furthermore those external inputs that you did list for biological evolution (environmental, ecological, geological and astronomical) hardly help. Do you seriously believe it is a fact that the biological world arose from a dead world with some sunlight, cosmic rays, etc. added?
Cornelius Hunter: So you’re back to the world arising spontaneously.
DeleteCan you define what you mean by spontaneously?
Cornelius Hunter: Do you seriously believe it is a fact that the biological world arose from a dead world with some sunlight, cosmic rays, etc. added?
DeleteThe Theory of Evolution only concerns what life does, not how life arose. It's similar to explaining the motion of the planets without explaining the origin of the planets.
Zachriel: Can you define what you mean by spontaneously?
DeleteYou're late to the party. See http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-divine-action-project-is-another.html#comment-form
Pedant: You're late to the party.
DeleteWe prefer to think of it as fashionably late!
Cornelius Hunter: "Spontaneous Processes = Processes that can proceed with no outside intervention. "
So what is an "outside intervention"? Does sunlight on the Earth's surface count? Or only an intelligent agent?
CH: No, my point is that evolutionists often use teleological language, such as X evolved in order to achieve Y, or natural selection created Z.
DeleteAh, that is your point. Why didn't you say that in the first place?
Anyway, who said such ridiculous things in the peer-reviewed literature? You're making things up again.
CH: This sounds better but is an erroneous description of the theory, which claims that world arose spontaneously. But that accurate terminology is avoided because it makes evolution look bad.
"Accurate terminology"? I'd like to see you take a paragraph out of a recent paper that you've criticized and compare the original with a revision that uses Hunter's accurate terminology.
"...look bad"? To whom?
Once again I ask: Why did or does the existence of the natural world need "outside input"? In the absence of any known input outside the Universe, and no means to study it, why should science take such a possibility seriously?
Dr Hunter, as best I can remember, the only reason you've given for outside input being required for the origin and evolution of the Universe is that you think the alternative is absurd Am I wrong?
DeleteIt seems as though this conversation has confused methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. To say that x has evolved into y does not invoke teleology. It invokes an understanding of a natural process. Whether or not that natural process is directed by God is a separate matter but the two, in this comments thread seem to have been conflated.
DeleteZachriel:
DeleteSo what is an "outside intervention"? Does sunlight on the Earth's surface count?
Yes, sure, if the sun is not part of the evolutionary process. Evolutionists always want to have it both ways. The cosmos evolved, but then use the cosmos as an external given.
That previous comment is not completely correct. It seems as though it is Dr. Hunter that is doing most of the conflating.
DeleteDr. Hunter, would you PLEASE respond without ad hominem attacks? It sets all of the commenters on edge when you do that.
DeleteJimpithecus:
DeleteTo say that x has evolved into y does not invoke teleology.
Yes, but that is not what I said. I said “X evolved in order to achieve Y.” So Y is a goal.
Whether or not that natural process is directed by God is a separate matter but the two, in this comments thread seem to have been conflated.
Evolutionists always bring up God.
would you PLEASE respond without ad hominem attacks?
Yes, thank you for the comment.
Pedant:
DeleteAnyway, who said such ridiculous things in the peer-reviewed literature? You're making things up again.
No, of course they do. I’m not the one here making things up.
Why did or does the existence of the natural world need "outside input"? In the absence of any known input outside the Universe, and no means to study it, why should science take such a possibility seriously?
Evolution is always justified via contrastive thinking. It is always a process of elimination. This is why evolutionists are constantly referring to creationism, design and God. Here we have yet another example. Their abuse of science is underwritten by the metaphysics. Just look at this logic. We can say spontaneous origins is a fact because, after all, external inputs from outside the universe are not observable.
Pedant:
DeleteDr Hunter, as best I can remember, the only reason you've given for outside input being required for the origin and evolution of the Universe is that you think the alternative is absurd Am I wrong?
Once again, evolution simply cannot self justify. It relies on creationism as its foil and justification for its abuse of science. I said nothing at all about “outside input being required for the origin and evolution of the Universe.” And yet, there it is.
CH: Now you said there are external inputs to the evolution of the species, from the Earth and cosmos. But if the Earth and cosmos also evolved, then these are not external inputs to the evolutionary process. So you’re back to the world arising spontaneously.
DeleteYou'll need to unpack that for us, Cornelius, as it's not clear what your criteria is for "external input".
For example, you seem to suggest that unless the laws of nature were finely tuned to support life via external input from a designer, this would indicate the universe arose spontaneously, and therefore not be an external input. However, this doesn't actually seem to solve the problem at hand because any such designer would itself be finely tuned for the task of tuning those laws. Right? And, by your own criteria would need external input, etc. Right? So, by your own definition, you rule out a designer as the solution to the problem.
If not, then it's unclear how your designer is any less absurd or serves as an explanatory purpose. For example, you wrote...
Cornelius Hunter: Do you seriously believe it is a fact that the biological world arose from a dead world with some sunlight, cosmic rays, etc. added?
How is this any less absurd than the idea that the universe arose from a designer that wasn't itself fined tuned to the task of tuning the laws of physics?
This is what I mean when I say that the current crop of ID is a philosophically bad argument.
Cornelius Hunter: Yes, sure, if the sun is not part of the evolutionary process. Evolutionists always want to have it both ways.
DeleteThe Sun is part of the environment.
Cornelius Hunter: The cosmos evolved, but then use the cosmos as an external given.
Conflation. Evolution of the cosmos is not the same as biological evolution.
CH: Evolution is always justified via contrastive thinking. It is always a process of elimination.
DeleteAs I pointed out, a designer doesn't actually solve the problem, because it eliminates itself by it's own criteria.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't eliminate it as a solution regardless?
Yeah, I already tried asking Cornelius this, but he is shying away from being specific as to what he means.
DeleteCornelius, the scope of your inquiry keeps changing. (And the scope of your confusion seems to be keeping pace). Save the cosmology and geology for your "Einstein's Big Bang Fun Blog".
as X evolved in order to achieve Y, or natural selection created Z...
DeleteI suppose it would depend on what exactly you want X, Y and Z to be. But on the face of it, these are precisely the types of teleological statements that evolutionary biologists DON'T make.
Another straw man?
Scott:
DeleteThis is what I mean when I say that the current crop of ID is a philosophically bad argument.
I wasn't giving an ID argument. Maybe it's a bad argument as you say, but it is not an ID argument.
Scott:
DeleteAs I pointed out, a designer doesn't actually solve the problem, because it eliminates itself by it's own criteria.
So this helps evolution?
Cornelius Hunter:Yes, sure, if the sun is not part of the evolutionary process. Evolutionists always want to have it both ways. The cosmos evolved, but then use the cosmos as an external given.
DeleteThe evolution of the cosmos is not part of the Theory of Biological Evolution. It isn't necessary to understand solar fusion in order to incorporate sunlight as part of the biological environment.
Scot: This is what I mean when I say that the current crop of ID is a philosophically bad argument.
DeleteCH: I wasn't giving an ID argument. Maybe it's a bad argument as you say, but it is not an ID argument.
You're not? Then you have yet to differentiate between some other external input and "evolution" as you're using it here. As such, you're objection to "evolution" as an external input appears arbitrary. So, why don't you provide an example of what you consider an acceptable external input so we know where you're coming from.
Scott: As I pointed out, a designer doesn't actually solve the problem, because it eliminates itself by it's own criteria.
CH: So this helps evolution?
Sorry, you'll need to be more specific.
For example, are you saying that evolution needs help? But that's using teleological terms as if a theory has goals, needs assistance to reach them, etc. Isn't that problematic?
Theories do not need help. They are either good explanations or bad explanations. Good explanations have withstood significant criticism.
External input, in the definition you're referring to is work. So, work is work, unless it's not?
DeleteScott: Theories do not need help. They are either good explanations or bad explanations. Good explanations have withstood significant criticism.
DeleteI'd note that I'm presenting a universal criterion for explanations. Scientific knowledge is a specific case of knowledge.
Good scientific explanations have withstood significant empirical criticism. Theories that cannot be empirically criticized are not science. And, yes, that's based on a philosophical explanation for how knowledge grows, not science. If it was, that would be scientism.
then they are banning historic christianity and banning contrary opinion period.
ReplyDeletethey are plain about it. they are and need to censor to maintain accurate conclusions for the the public.
this stuff is what caused the english civil war.
Where are the puritans and Parliamentarians fighting for the truth and freedom of englishmen to think and speak as they will on conclusions about the universe.
this is a welcome portrayal of deep problems in old england.
they are attacking God, Christ, Protestantism and others, truth seeking, and getting it wrongism.
its offical. this is not just the truth EVOLUTION etc. iTS the only truth.
You couldn't write it. they embarrass themselves.
They don't matter anymore anyways. just another european country. nOt a moral and intellectual leader.
Robert Byers then they are banning historic christianity and banning contrary opinion period.
DeleteThey are banning the Christian account of Creation ( and any other such) from being taught in the science classroom. Quite rightly, as they have no business being there.
Robert Byersthis stuff is what caused the english civil war
The English Civil War was essentially a power struggle between the Crown and Parliament over how England was to be governed and who was going to pay for it.. It had very little to do with free speech and none at all with school curricula.
Robert ByersWhere are the puritans and Parliamentarians fighting for the truth and freedom of englishmen to think and speak as they will on conclusions about the universe.
Amongst other things, the Puritans closed theaters and pubs, banned the celebration of Christmas and banned pretty much any sort of public festivities. If you want a modern analogy, think of them as 17th century English Christian Taliban. They were not in the least bit interested in modern principles of freedom of thought, belief and expression.
Robert Byers they are attacking God, Christ, Protestantism and others, truth seeking, and getting it wrongism.>
No, they are trying to stop religious fanatics from taking over the science classroom and turning into a madrassa
Robert Byers You couldn't write it. they embarrass themselves.
They don't matter anymore anyways. just another european country. nOt a moral and intellectual leader.
You mean, like Canada? Chauvinism is such an unpleasant trait. Of course, they do have a National Health Service which means that, unlike the US, nobody goes bankrupt or untreated because they can't afford to pay medical bills.
"Creationism,” for the purposes of clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the funding agreement and clause 23E above, is any doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution."
ReplyDeleteSo if we determine that epigenetic, inherited variation can be caused in part by seemingly VOLUNTARY (i.e., non-natural) behavior, then we have to deny those behaviors are voluntary JUST so we can say all variation is naturally-caused? How is this any different than last Thursday-ism in that sense? I.e., the incessant claim is that the naturalistic evolutionary hypothesis must be salvaged, even if we have to ultimately eliminate every OTHER hypothesis-evaluative-criteria.
Pedant: Anyway, who said such ridiculous things in the peer-reviewed literature? You're making things up again.
ReplyDeleteCH: No, of course they do. I’m not the one here making things up.
If they say things like "X evolved in order to achieve Y, or natural selection created Z," you should be able to cite examples from the peer-reviewed literature, preferably something published within the last year, rather than in antiquity or the 19th century.
CH: Evolution is always justified via contrastive thinking. It is always a process of elimination. This is why evolutionists are constantly referring to creationism, design and God.
If such a contrast is made in the peer-reviewed literature, it is made to illustrate the superior explanatory power of evolutionary theory over the only serious historically competitive theory: special creation. But you're not arguing for the latter, are you, Dr H?
CH: Their abuse of science is underwritten by the metaphysics.
What is metaphysical about comparing two empirically testable theories? Here's a good place for you to provide the definition of "metaphysics," that you offered to give me several threads ago.
Just look at this logic. We can say spontaneous origins is a fact because, after all, external inputs from outside the universe are not observable.
I never said that spontaneous origins is a fact. If you look again at what you quoted, I asked why science should try to study the unobservable (outside input). Indeed, how could it? And how can you, claiming the mantle of science, insist that it is unscientific to ignore it?
Pedant:
DeleteIf they say things like "X evolved in order to achieve Y, or natural selection created Z," you should be able to cite examples from the peer-reviewed literature, preferably something published within the last year, rather than in antiquity or the 19th century.
Yes, I can. What would you do with it?
Pedant:
DeleteIf such a contrast is made in the peer-reviewed literature, it is made to illustrate the superior explanatory power of evolutionary theory over the only serious historically competitive theory: special creation. But you're not arguing for the latter, are you, Dr H?
You seem to be avoiding the point, which is that evolution (i.e., the claim that it is a fact that the world arose spontaneously) is not motivated and justified by empirical science but by metaphysics. Evolutionists always argue from their metaphysical premises.
Pedant:
DeleteI never said that spontaneous origins is a fact.
Oh, good, you disagree with evolutionists. Perhaps you could make that a little more clear--we have no disagreement.
If you look again at what you quoted, I asked why science should try to study the unobservable (outside input). Indeed, how could it? And how can you, claiming the mantle of science, insist that it is unscientific to ignore it?
I didn't say that it is unscientific to ignore it.
Cornelius, are you deaf? Evolutionary biologists do not make claims of spontaneity. the very claim of spontaneity would likely be non-scientific.
DeleteStop saying this.
(or come up with a better example that doesn't involve blaming evolutionary biology for not dealing with the Big Bang).
CH: Once again, evolution simply cannot self justify.
ReplyDeleteIt's an empirical hypothesis that is well supported by evidence. No competing hypothesis has been as well supported. That's its justification.
It's an empirical hypothesis that is well supported by evidence.
DeleteNo, it's predictions are false.
Is it meaningless to ask if biological darwinism is real (biological complexity actually grows via variation and selection) or just a useful fiction to explain biological complexity?
DeleteIf so, you're an instrumentalist in regards to theories of biological complexity. All predictions are equal because they have no connection to reality. It's essentially prophecy.
Is that what you're suggesting?
For example, a theory based on a self powered four wheel vehicle might predict a new Ford F50, because tire tracks found match those sold on 2014 models.
If we discover it was actually an older Chevy that had it's tires replaced with the same model tires, does that falsify the theory that it was a four wheel, self powered vehicle? What about a El Caminio which recently had the same model tires installed?
It only does so if one is an instrumentalist, in that it's meaningless to ask if the four wheel, self powered vehicle is real, or just a useful fiction to explain phenomna.
CH, June 18: As the Epicureans explained, the world must have arisen on its own. It must have evolved.
ReplyDeleteThis idea is so intuitive and so compelling that evolutionists do not even think of it as metaphysical or religious. It drives them to the conclusion that the world must have arisen spontaneously but the absurdity is lost on them, so powerful is the religion.
CH, June 19: "Spontaneous Processes = Processes that can proceed with no outside intervention. "
CH, June 21: I said nothing at all about “outside input being required for the origin and evolution of the Universe.” And yet, there it is.
Pedant:
DeleteLet me try again. The claim that the world must have arisen on its own because of the evil, dysteleology, non random patterns, shared errors, minutia, etc, etc., is a metaphysical claim. It is not from science. You cannot then claim to have an objective, empirical scientific conclusion -- a scientific fact.
What is or is not science, isn't from science. That would be scientism. Right?
DeleteAs such, science doesn't tell us that evolutionary theory isn't science. That's the job of the philosophy of science.
So, it would seem that you ought to present and argue for a specific explanation of how knowledge grows - and specifically, scientific knowledge - then point out how evolutionary theory doesn't fit that explanation.
Of course, you need not personally commit to any particular philosophy of science. You do the above for all modern variants of science, a coherent whole, then point out how evolutionary theory doesn't fit those theories either.
But you have yet to do either of these things.
Straw Man Alert:
ReplyDeleteCH: " This is why evolutionists are constantly referring to creationism, design and God."
Scientific theories do not try to self-justify. They succeed or fail on their own merits. Inheritance of acquired characteristics generated testable hypotheses that could be falsified. Hence, it went to the dustbin of bad theories. Biological evolution is nothing more than a scientific theory that generates testable hypotheses. Overwhelmingly, those have been shown to fit the data observed, both historical and current.
ReplyDeleteRarely do its proponents invoke God in any sense that is directly related to the disciple. There are, of course, exceptions to this--certain names come to mind--but in those instances, it is pretty clear that these are unwarranted sociocultural extrapolations and other evolutionary biologists have pointed this out.
Can you point out specific examples where evolutionary biologists have invoked God (positively or negatively) in the actual practice of evolutionary biology?
Inheritance of acquired characteristics generated testable hypotheses that could be falsified. Hence, it went to the dustbin of bad theories.
DeleteEven though it is true. Another one of evolution's false predictions. Yet evolutionists to this day continue to promote this falsehood that comes out of their thinking.
Biological evolution is nothing more than a scientific theory that generates testable hypotheses.
False.
Overwhelmingly, those have been shown to fit the data observed, both historical and current
False.
Rarely do its proponents invoke God in any sense that is directly related to the discipline.
False.
Can you point out specific examples where evolutionary biologists have invoked God (positively or negatively) in the actual practice of evolutionary biology?
Yes, what would you do with it?
At each point, you say these things are false and yet you provide no evidence to the contrary. Further, if you can provide evidence to the contrary, it would form the basis for further discussion, would it not. As Graham Chapman once said "having an argument is not just saying 'no, it isn't.'"
DeleteJimpithecus:
Deleteyou provide no evidence to the contrary
OK, here's an example:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/06/heres-that-algae-study-that-decouples.html
Cornelius, it's rather unclear what this post is supposed to exemplify. Certainly can't be an example of evolutionary biologists using god in academic discourse. Plus, the post you're citing is silly. You incorrectly describe both the hypothesis and results of a study just so you can make some grandiose about the failure of evolutionary biology.
DeleteSTRAW MAN ALERT.
Stuart:
DeleteYou incorrectly describe both the hypothesis and results of a study just so you can make some grandiose about the failure of evolutionary biology.
You'll need to be more specific. So far you've made empty comments and a lot of noise. Trolling is not allowed here. Criticism is fine, but it has to be meaningful. In this case you'll need to backup this statement with details. Exactly what did the post "incorrectly describe" about the hypothesis and the results. You need to be specific.
Well said!
DeleteAgain, if you're an instrumentalist, like those who adhere to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, theories are nothing but a set of predictions to be found true or false. "Shut up and calculate" means that it's meaningless to ask if the wave-function is a true description of reality, or merely a useful fiction to explain behavior at the very small scale.
DeleteBeing a fundamentalist theist, it would come as no surprises that you would be an instrumentalist regarding biological complexity. God cannot be explained, so there could be no underlying explanation by which predictions are based.
IOW, your objection is the equivalent of "Shut up and calculate" in the field of biological complexity. It's bad philosophy.
And, yes, that mean I'm suggesting instrumentalism in the field of quantum mechanics is bad philosophy as well. My claims do not exist in a vacuum.
DeleteCornelius, pls read the comments I made on that post on algae. There is plenty of substantive criticism for you to deal with. Most of it has gone unanswered by you, so deal with that before you accuse me of trolling.
DeleteMoreover, it's incredibly hypocritical of you to throw in some link with no context or explanation and then suggest that I'm making "noise" when I ask for that context and better explanation.
Stuart:
DeleteCornelius, pls read the comments I made on that post on algae. There is plenty of substantive criticism for you to deal with. Most of it has gone unanswered by you, so deal with that before you accuse me of trolling.
I guess once a troll, always a troll. No, your criticisms were not very substantive, and yes I did respond, and it went downhill from there. You failed to address my response, and threw mud instead. Now I’ve given you another chance here but with the same results. So now you have lost your commenting privileges.
CH: No, your criticisms were not very substantive, and yes I did respond, and it went downhill from there. You failed to address my response, and threw mud instead. Now I’ve given you another chance here but with the same results. So now you have lost your commenting privileges.
DeleteThere were a total of three comments from you on that post. Here they are in order....
CH: The original title of the reporting piece was "Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists," but the evolutionists forced it to be dumbed-down to the polictically-correct: "Old Idea About Ecology Questioned by New Findings." It was just an old idea about ecology, move along.
This represents a theory about the change in the article's title. Namely, evolutionists didn't like it and forced it to be changed. Not a response to Stuart's criticism.
CH: Stuart, In this study, did they test a prediction of evolution? (And yes folks, I know what the answer is: Yes, but not really, maybe and kind of, but under strict caveats which we'll tell you about sometime)
First, see above. In Dawkins posting the article to his site, didn't this test a prediction implied by your theory? Didn't that prediction fail when Dawkins didn't change the title? Does your entire theory hinge on a prediction about that article?
Second, caveats were provided, but not addressed. Specifically, evolutionary theory doesn't hinge on this particular prediction of Darwin. It's not key to the underlying explanation of variation and selection.
However, if you were an instrumentalist on biological complexity, then it's meaningless to ask if evolution is true, in reality, or just a useful fiction to predict phenomena, such as competition between closely related species? There is no key aspect of the underlying explanation about how the world really works, which predictions would be based on. They would al be equal.
Is that what you're suggesting?
And then there is this response....
CH: QED.
Yes. Based on your response, It did go down hill from there.
In an effort to bring the level of discourse uphill, here's a simple question: Are you an instrumentalist in regards to biological complexity?
Sorry, that should have been "discipline."
ReplyDeletePedant: If they say things like "X evolved in order to achieve Y, or natural selection created Z," you should be able to cite examples from the peer-reviewed literature, preferably something published within the last year, rather than in antiquity or the 19th century.
ReplyDeleteCH: Yes, I can. What would you do with it?
Do it and find out! Show some moxie.
Pedant:
DeleteDo it and find out!
Precisely. It has never mattered before. It is not going to matter this time. I've blogged on this over and over and over and ... And now you want examples. And when you get them they won't make any difference.
Pedant: It's [evolution] an empirical hypothesis that is well supported by evidence.
ReplyDeleteCH: No, it's predictions are false.
Sometimes, but the batting average is adequate. The key point is how well the theory and the evidence fit together.
If you have a theory that makes falsifiable predictions, please lay it on the table so we can evaluate it.
CH: Let me try again. The claim that the world must have arisen on its own because of the evil, dysteleology, non random patterns, shared errors, minutia, etc, etc., is a metaphysical claim.
ReplyDeleteIrrelevant to the theory of evolution, which invokes random variation of genes, natural selection of genes that confer a reproductive advantage and descent of life from life. These are empirical claims. Where's the metaphysics?
And where's you definition of metaphysics?
Pedant:
DeleteWhere's the metaphysics?
In the claim that it is a fact. But then again, we've already gone over that.
Pedant, looks like Cornelius is avoiding you now. More hand-waving and refusing to explain himself.
DeleteBy the way, CH, I caught you in a contradiction (http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/06/meanwhile-in-britain-creationism-is.html?showComment=1403378905887#c4933197683264510086) and you just waved it away.
ReplyDeleteHave you no shame?
you just waved it away
DeleteNo, I tried to explain it to you. Guess it didn't take. You cannot say evolution is a fact and that you're doing just science.
So is this how it goes:
ReplyDeleteIn the name of freedom and democracy we forbid alternate views of the world, especially ones we don't like.
(signed) Atheist usurper team
CH, replying to my second request for him to back up his claim that "evolutionists often use teleological language, such as X evolved in order to achieve Y, or natural selection created Z.":
ReplyDeleteI've blogged on this over and over and over and ... And now you want examples. And when you get them they won't make any difference.
I'm not surprised at yet another failure to back up one of your extravagant ad hominem claims, Dr H.
But, having visited this site over several years, I'm used to it.
Now I'm going to leave you to the more tender mercies of your other interlocutors.
But, as always, I thank you for being so generous in allowing my challenges to your claims appear on your blog.
Best wishes,
David K ("AKA Pedant")
Thanks for the comments anyway!
Delete