From the Frying Pan to the Fire
When he went to college for his biology degree his parents thought the teaching might sway him to evolution. But instead, he became even more convinced. His conversion to evolution would come later, when he went to seminary.
It was then that he realized the scriptures presented a far grander story and that evolution revealed a greater god. It was invigorating think of science as exploring the unknown and God became all the more wondrous. Science provided the mechanism by which life develops, and religion provided the agency behind the mechanism. It all fit so well. Science and religion were not in opposition, but rather complemented each other.
He also realized that it is a dangerous fallacy to demand that evolution provide answers to every possible question. Just because evolution cannot explain every detail does not mean it is false. And in fact evolution does provide good answers based on solid scientific research.
That, in a nutshell is the evolution story. It is the story of one man’s journey to Epicureanism, but it is also the story of countless others, including Charles Darwin. The road goes through religion, not science. It was the seminary rather than the biology degree that convinced the young man that the world arose spontaneously. It is not science, but religion that drives men to absurdity. And once there, it seems so right. After all, it makes for a more wondrous theology and it frees up our scientific inquiry. Epicureanism is needed for both God and man.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
I believe the bible is the infallible word of God given by the Creator to mankind. I have read the bible from cover to cover more times that I can count. I have a degree in bible. I am a creationist. I am open to the idea that YECism is a flawed interpretation of Genesis, but I believe Darwinian evolution to be even more flawed and believe that there's more scientific evidence for a literal interpretation of Genesis than there is for Darwinian evolution. How anyone could come to the conclusion that Darwinism is supported by the evidence is beyond me and has to be tied to a psychological rationale for acceptance IMO.
ReplyDeleteThis seems to be just one more case where someone actually studied the physical evidence and saw that the physical evidence for evolution over deep time was indeed compelling. Like many intelligent religious people the conclusion was that God worked through evolution. Millions upon millions of other devout Christians have come to the same conclusion.
ReplyDeleteHow this can be twisted into "religion drives the science" is beyond comprehension.
ghostrider,
ReplyDelete"the physical evidence and saw that the physical evidence for evolution over deep time was indeed compelling."
I have been asking for years for examples of this 'compelling evidence', I have yet to receive any. Want to give it a shot, ghostrider?
Sure Nic
DeleteEvidence for evolution
Pity they don't have colleges and universities, libraries, natural history museums, or even search engines where you live.
Sure Nic
DeleteEvidence for evolution ...
Where it says:
During and since Darwin's time, people have been looking for and studying evidence in nature that teaches them more about evolution. Some types of evidence, such as fossils and similarities between related living organisms, were used by Darwin to develop his theory of natural selection, and are still used today. Others, such as DNA testing, were not available in Darwin's time, but are used by scientists today to learn more about evolution.
Presupposing evolution and interpreting evidence according to evolution does not qualify as evidence *for* evolution. That would be, um, circular. Nice own goal.
Pity they don't have ... search engines where you live.
Search-engine science. Make that two own-goals.
Presupposing evolution and interpreting evidence according to evolution does not qualify as evidence *for* evolution.
DeleteSince that's not what science did we don't have to worry about it, do we? The initial evidence was gathered and assessed before Darwin proposed his theory. The quality and quantity of supporting evidence has only grown since then.
Search-engine science.
(chuckle) No. Search engines to find the science you continually try to wish away. Millions of published scientific papers on all aspects of evolutionary theory.
The neat thing is, all those papers and multiple consilient lines of evidence aren't affected one iota by silly Creationist denial of their existence. :)
Since that's not what science did we don't have to worry about it, do we?
DeleteThe topic is evolution, not science, and you are the one who provided the link, remember? Where it says evidences "are used by scientists today to learn more about evolution." That's the age-old shell game trick. You keep on telling us you have rock solid proof evolution is a fact, but never seem to be able actually to deliver the goods. It's always about interpreting the evidence after slipping in the assumption of evolution to begin with. Science doesn't work that way, sorry.
The topic is evolution, not science, and you are the one who provided the link, remember?
DeleteYou seem to be one of the few people on the planet of the opinion evolution is not science. Strangely enough all of them are religious Fundamentalists.
It's always about interpreting the evidence after slipping in the assumption of evolution to begin with.
Hehe...no. This bizarre misconception of yours has already been dealt with. Repeating it ad nauseum won't make it be true.
Don't you think it strange that if evolution isn't science as you claim that so many top colleges and universities in the world offer courses in evolution in their biology and genetics schools? The University of Chicago has a whole department dedicated to Ecology of Evolution. Shouldn't you at least email them, tell them they're living a lie?
Shouldn't you write to all the scientific journals like Journal of Evolutionary Biology and Journal of Molecular Evolution and tell the publishers their work isn't science? I'm sure they'd be so thankful to you for correcting them.
Don't you think it strange that if evolution isn't science as you claim that so many top colleges and universities in the world offer courses in evolution in their biology and genetics schools?
DeleteI know you'd like to squirm away from this, but the website entitled "Evidence for Evolution" (which you yourself provided the link to, and all I did was click on it) provides, um actually, no such thing. Saying that new evidences (which even further undermine evolution) "are used by scientists today to learn more about evolution" is nothing less than a logical fallacy. Oh, it also says:
Five types of evidence for evolution are discussed in this section: ancient organism remains, fossil layers, similarities among organisms alive today, similarities in DNA, and similarities of embryos. Another important type of evidence that Darwin studied and that is still studied and used today is artificial selection, or breeding.
But the breeding evidence was a *problem* for Darwin. He had to argue why it *wasn't* relevant in the wild. And as for all those "similarities," they don't imply evolution. In fact, there are all kinds of violations of the evolutionary tree that have even evolutionists admitting violate the expected pattern. There is no explanation for them under evolution aside from "and then a miracle happened."
OK, you think evolution has no evidence and that evolution isn't science. I'm sure you are also well aware if you took this "evolution isn't science" schitck anywhere near a college or university science department, professional science journal, or working genetics lab you'd be laughed right out of the room.
DeleteWorks for me. :)
ghostrider,
Delete"I'm sure you are also well aware if you took this "evolution isn't science"..."
Well then, ghostrider, why don't you explain for all how evolution is science.
Please define science for us Nic. A real definition with references, not a Ken Ham made up one.
DeleteMerriam-Webster
Deletescience: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.
ghostrider,
Delete"Please define science for us Nic. A real definition with references, not a Ken Ham made up one."
I see all I can expect is your usual dodging and weaving. Cest' la vie.
Thanks Phillymike. Evolution certainly qualifies as science under that definition. Evolution is knowledge and study of the history of life on Earth with supporting evidence from dozens of scientific fields (biochemistry, geology, paleontology, genetics, zoology, botany, physics, etc.) learned through experiments (i.e. Lenski LTEE) and observation (i.e. the fossil and genetic twin nested hierarchies).
DeleteGee Nic, Phillymike managed to find a definition of science pretty easily. Oh, I forgot they don't have libraries or search engines where you live. Or maybe you just don't know how to use them.
Deleteghostrider,
Delete"Gee Nic, Phillymike managed to find a definition of science pretty easily."
Gee, ghostrider, we're not talking about a definition of science, we're talking about how evolution qualifies as science. Not the same thing.
Biology, genetics, etc. are sciences, but they don't rely on evolution to qualify. They will function exactly the same without it.
Want to try again?
Sorry Nic if you want to know how evolution qualifies as science you have to commit to a definition of science first. Phillymike did and under his definition evolution qualifies. If you're too ignorant or lazy to provide your definition that's your problem.
DeleteBiology, genetics, etc. are sciences
DeleteWhy do biology and genetics qualify as sciences Nic?
ghostrider,
Delete"Why do biology and genetics qualify as sciences Nic?"
Because they meet the standards of repeatability, observation and demonstration.
So, once again, how does evolution qualify as a science?
Is anything starting to sink in yet, or are you going to keep dodging and weaving while trying to think up an answer?
Tests done which support evolution meet the standards of repeatability, observation and demonstration. That makes evolution by science.
DeleteRead my answer to Phillymike above for more information.
ghostrider,
Delete"That makes evolution by science."
Sorry ghostrider, that does not qualify evolution as a science. Evolution is simply the method of interpretation, not the science itself.
You're having a hard time grasping the nature of your problem, aren't you.
Not at all. The nature of the problem is your willful scientific ignorance. I can't do anything to help that Nic, sorry.
Deleteghostrider,
Delete"The nature of the problem is your willful scientific ignorance."
You can call me ignorant all you want, that will not change the fact you still have not provided an answer to the question, how is evolution science?
Dodge and weave repeatedly, that is all you ever do.
You're half right Nic. Pointing out the fact you're willfully scientifically ignorant won't change your willful scientific ignorance. Only you can do that but you seem uninterested.
DeleteThe answer to your question is still with the reply to Phillymike. Asking 100 times won't make that answer go away.
ghostrider,
Delete"The answer to your question is still with the reply to Phillymike."
You just don't get it , do you?
Phillymike gave a definition of science, not an explanation as to how evolution qualifies as science. I guess it has become painfully obvious, you have not got a clue how to answer the question. No surprise at all, that is your usual predicament.
The answer I gave Phillymike explains why evolution qualifies as science. The answer is still there. Too bad if you don't like it or don't understand it. :)
DeleteMaybe evolution qualifies as science but it doesn't qualify as good science. Medicinal leeches qualifies as science, too, but I thing I'd rather take antibiotics than use leeches.
Deleteghostrider,
Delete"The answer I gave Phillymike explains why evolution qualifies as science."
Phillymike's definition explains why biology, genetics, etc., qualify as science, it does nothing to explain how evolution qualifies as science. Do you not understand the difference?
What a dumb question, of course you don't.
Phillymike's definition explains why biology, genetics, etc., qualify as science, it does nothing to explain how evolution qualifies as science
DeleteMy answer to him does the job quite nicely. :)
ghostrider,
Delete"My answer to him does the job quite nicely. :)"
Your answer to him does not even remotely address the question. Why am I not surprised that you are completely oblivious to that fact?
Dodge and weave, dodge and weave, ad nauseum.
Your answer to him does not even remotely address the question.
DeleteOf course it does. :)
Why do you think my answer is wrong?
ghostrider,
Delete"Why do you think my answer is wrong?"
Because it does nothing to explain how evolution qualifies in and of itself as a science. It only makes a claim that evolution explains the findings of actual sciences like biology and genetics.
Evolution is not a scientific discipline, it is simply a world view by which some attempt to explain the findings of actual scientific endeavor.
Can you really not grasp that fact?
OK, you can give no reasons why my answer is wrong, merely that you don't like it. Too bad for you.
DeleteBTW Nic no one says evolution is a separate scientific discipline. The question was does it qualify as science. Evolutionary research gets its inputs from many scientific disciplines. Every bit of it falls under the definition of doing science.
ghostrider,
Delete"OK, you can give no reasons why my answer is wrong,..."
Clearly I just did, but you're incapable of grasping that fact as well.
"The question was does it qualify as science."
That's correct, and you have failed repeatedly to answer how evolution qualifies as science. Laying claim to scientific results from biology, genetics, etc., and interpreting them through the filter of an evolutionary world view does not qualify evolution as a science.
ghostrider,
Delete"OK, you can give no reasons why my answer is wrong,..."
Clearly I just did, but you're incapable of grasping that fact as well.
"The question was does it qualify as science."
That's correct, and you have failed repeatedly to answer how evolution qualifies as science. Laying claim to scientific results from biology, genetics, etc., and interpreting them through the filter of an evolutionary world view does not qualify evolution as a science.
Tell you what Nic. You go right ahead and keep claiming evolution isn't science. The millions of scientists worldwide who work on all aspects of it will think you're just another Creationist fool.
DeleteIt's a win-win. :)
ghostrider,
Delete"The millions of scientists worldwide who work on all aspects of it will think you're just another Creationist fool."
Now you're required to stoop to appeals to authority and majority opinion, how pitiful.
Guess what ghostrider, all those millions of scientists you're appealing to can't answer the question either. So tell me, how does that help you?
Well Nic, either those millions of scientists who actually work with and study evolution are all incompetent and wrong, or you the ignorant Creationist is.
DeleteI'll go with the scientists who know the subject being right and you being the blithering fool. :)
ghostrider,
Delete"Well Nic, either those millions of scientists who actually work with and study evolution are all incompetent and wrong,..."
I never said they were. I only said they can't answer the question as to how evolution in and of itself qualifies as science, and they can't.
"I'll go with the scientists..."
I never expected anything else.
Like I said Nic - I'll go with the scientists and the empirically demonstrated veracity of science. You can go with your YEC lying nincompoops. We'll each be happy. :)
Deleteghostrider,
Delete"I'll go with the scientists and the empirically demonstrated veracity of science."
I'm in favour of empirically demonstrated science, that's why it's so easy to reject evolution. ;)
ghost would make a great lemming.
DeleteIt seems to me that the problem with evolutionary theory is not only evidence for evolution, bu the real problems evolutionary theory has to explain.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence for evolution exists, true. Similarly, there is evidence that UFO's visited the Earth. But when we weigh the evidence against the problems, evolution comes up short.
"...and similarities of embryos."
ReplyDeleteWait a minute. Aren't there also differences between embryos? IF the similarities are evidence for evolution, then the differences should be evidence for evolution.
good point. it was religion and not biology.
ReplyDeleteIndeed darwin was so influenced by origins as presented by the Anglican church.
I note he was so convinced thinhgs evolved/created themselves jUST because islands could not of had thier species created by GOD.
YET this was never a genesis claim. the flood destroyed all life and so YES islands were colonized by immigrant species and then diversity by mechanisms of minor details.The bible never said god created species.
Genesis was already rejected by darwin.
The bible says nothing about mechanisms in biology but expects one to understand they are there. Behold mankinds looks. God didn't do that.
good point. it was religion and not biology.
ReplyDeleteIndeed darwin was so influenced by origins as presented by the Anglican church.
I note he was so convinced thinhgs evolved/created themselves jUST because islands could not of had thier species created by GOD.
YET this was never a genesis claim. the flood destroyed all life and so YES islands were colonized by immigrant species and then diversity by mechanisms of minor details.The bible never said god created species.
Genesis was already rejected by darwin.
The bible says nothing about mechanisms in biology but expects one to understand they are there. Behold mankinds looks. God didn't do that.
Cornelius Hunter:
Delete“It is not science, but religion that drives men to absurdity.”
Perhaps the meaning of the word ‘absurdity’ is not clear. I checked the dictionary, according to which it is something that is ‘utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false.’
Is the Hindu god Ganesha an absurdity? Hindu religion tells us that one day his father Shiva came home, cut off the head of his son and then, after the outraged mother Prawati had started to destroy the world, had it replaced by that of an elephant. Absurd? Well, one asks oneself what the big difference is with someone walking over water without sinking as both are clearly supernatural acts.
Now this water walking man, Jesus, really being God in one of his manifestations (so I was told when I was young), thought it wise to have himself killed and then rise from the dead, so that people could get access to heaven. Though he was (and still is) God, he nevertheless seemed not to know of any other way get the job done. According to quite a lot of other religions this whole thing never happened and, as far as Muslims are concerned, it is even blasphemous to suggest it! Though the same Muslims never complain about this Jesus being born from a virgin, which of course makes perfectly sense.
It leaves the impression that the word ‘absurdity’ has a very flexible meaning in religion and perhaps that explains why we have so many of them.