tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post8678144821765770449..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: USAToday: Evolution is Settled Science and Not a Religious PropositionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11924886475905301492014-01-16T18:09:25.983-08:002014-01-16T18:09:25.983-08:00Correction:
Nor would said inductive criteria ha...Correction: <br /><br /><i><b>Nor</b> would said inductive criteria have always been valid before some supernatural being decided to create a material world. </i>Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15343097890053099012014-01-16T07:49:44.472-08:002014-01-16T07:49:44.472-08:00J: It's something that a God that can explain ...J: It's something that a God that can explain the validity of inductive criteria wouldn't and didn't do.<br /><br />I'm still not following you. <br /><br />First, all I’ve done is move the boundaries set by creationism and implied in ID. Instead of creating a great number of organism all at once, at the cambrian for example, or creating the program in each organisms DNA, some designer decided to create the entire universe at once, 150 years ago. These are variants of the same general purpose strategy to deny that creation actually took place. All I’ve done is changed the boundary at which creation is denied. <br /><br />And, yes, I’m including ID. For example, could ID’s designer be an ancient civilization of highly advanced aliens: Yes or No? If no, why?<br /><br />Second, for the sake of argument, let’s assume inductive criteria is currently valid. How does a supernatural being’s choice to create the universe all at once, 150 years ago render inductive criterial invalid *now*? No one alive today with apparent memories is 150 years old. No would said inductive criteria have always been valid before some supernatural being decided to create a material world. Again, all I’ve done is change the boundaries that are already present in creationism and implied in ID. <br /><br />Actually, that’s not quite right. I’ve changed the boundaries in ways that conflict with specific human conceptions of God. Specially, the ones you just happen to subscribe to. <br /><br />Again, this is why this argument is narrow in scope and represents a general purpose way to deny that any creation actually took place. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62091436820471415632014-01-15T05:57:31.847-08:002014-01-15T05:57:31.847-08:00Scott: Or perhaps you do think we could rule out G...Scott: Or perhaps you do think we could rule out God having create the entire universe we observe, all at once, 150 years ago?<br /><br />J: We DO rule it out, Scott, so that we can explain in a way that we can believe has value to our choices (which is what inductive criteria have to do with). But you can't even make sense of that, for you deny that we can know that there are even such things as APPARENT memories. Because to claim even that knowledge is to embrace foundationalism.<br /><br />Scott: For example, you might think it’s to difficult for God, or perhaps you think that is something a sensible God wouldn't do?<br /><br />J: It's something that a God that can explain the validity of inductive criteria wouldn't and didn't do.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46076919711026904742014-01-13T18:33:59.219-08:002014-01-13T18:33:59.219-08:00Scott: Furthermore, it seems that your argument is...Scott: Furthermore, it seems that your argument is narrow in scope as, being a non-theist, I’m not concerned with solving the problem of God being wise, sublime, exalted, or any of the other religious conflicts you mention. Rather, a belief that God decided to use evolution would be, theistic evolution. <br /><br />CH: Terrific, then unlike evolutionists you are free to go by the science and reject the theory since it fails so badly.<br /><br />But this argument is also narrow in scope as, being a non-Empiricist (not to be confused with rejecting the importance of empirical observations) I’m not concerned trying to derive theories from observations. Nor am I concerned with proving theories are true or probability true. <br /><br />Just as I think God or some abstract designer is a bad explanation for the biological complexity we observe, I think Empiricism is a bad explanation for the growth of knowledge (not to be confused with rejecting the idea that knowledge does indeed grow).<br /><br />Rather, I think we have and can continue to make progress on the growth of human knowledge beyond Empiricism. To think we live in some privileged time where we cannot make progress on the issue is, well, mistaken. Just as Logical Positivists were mistaken, etc. <br /><br />See The history of Scientific Method on Wikipedia. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81191685431589663452014-01-13T18:23:32.946-08:002014-01-13T18:23:32.946-08:00If this guy thinks evolution is a settled fact and...If this guy thinks evolution is a settled fact and he has a audience by way of his magazine then teach his readership, to convert or confirm, about the top evidence for evolutionary biology! Stating the TRUE RELIGION is easy but prove your religion.<br />Its interesting. Is not america defined by its opposition to evolution?<br />Is it a sign of a historic more intelligent people who are the least likely to be misled or go into error OR is it a sign of a backward nation relative to Europe, Asia, Africa, and the rest?!<br />ID and YEC are the talk of the modern world of science.<br />This is a famous and on going fight.<br />One side's leaders will go down in intellectual history as either another rebel who was right/establishment wrong or another rebel who was wrong/establishment right.<br />this fight can't go on forever when both sides invoke evidence/failed evidence .<br /><br />I do by the way think beauty is truth because i think there is no beauty but only accurate equations. This, to me , shows a creator in the universe who made the universe beautiful based on laws of symmetry.<br />beauty is simply right answer living in a majority world of wrong answers. however the wrong simly lower the bar and create a beauty division.<br />Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-592002388361948092014-01-13T17:56:39.271-08:002014-01-13T17:56:39.271-08:00Jeff,
Cornelius argues that God could have chose...Jeff, <br /><br />Cornelius argues that God could have chosen to create the same world we observe in different ways. And, being God, he might have a good reason for choosing one on those ways that we simply cannot understand. <br /><br />I’m merely pointing out that one of those ways God could have created these same world we observe, it to create it all at once, 150 years ago, for some good reason we could not understand either. And I’m pointing out the implications of God having made that choice. <br /><br />Or perhaps you do think we could rule out God having create the entire universe we observe, all at once, 150 years ago? For example, you might think it’s to difficult for God, or perhaps you think that is something a sensible God wouldn't do?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29263799551042815152014-01-13T11:04:35.494-08:002014-01-13T11:04:35.494-08:00Scott:
being a non-theist, I’m not concerned with...Scott:<br /><br /><i>being a non-theist, I’m not concerned with solving the problem of God being wise, sublime, exalted, or any of the other religious conflicts you mention.</i><br /><br />Terrific, then unlike evolutionists you are free to go by the science and reject the theory since it fails so badly.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-97680893303906932014-01-13T04:15:55.752-08:002014-01-13T04:15:55.752-08:00Scott: Or are you saying that we can rule some of ...Scott: Or are you saying that we can rule some of God’s choices out, like choosing to create the universe we observe all at once 150 years ago? <br /><br />J: Scott, teleological explanations INCLUDE the positing of specific, historic choices. Otherwise they don't explain. No big "D" ID view can work without positing that the inductive orderliness of an inductively-inferred extra-ego reality is, itself, CHOSEN by the big "D" designer. This is what EXPLAINS the existence of positive evidence while simultaneous ruling out the absurd views you mention.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75663689993576590342014-01-12T14:47:09.349-08:002014-01-12T14:47:09.349-08:00Cornelius, I’m still confused by this argument.
...Cornelius, I’m still confused by this argument. <br /><br />For example, how do you know that God didn’t choose to create the universe we observe, all at once, 150 years ago? What would be the impact of that choice on what we believe? <br /><br />I’m asking because it would seem that, according to you, those impacted beliefs would be religious too, because we cannot rule out that God didn’t choose to create the world we observe in any particular way. For example… <br /><br /><i>“Consider this: if a supernatural creator were to have created the universe at the moment when Einstein or Darwin or any great scientist (appeared to have) just completed their major discovery, then the true creator of that discovery (and of all earlier discoveries) would have been not that scientist but the supernatural being. So such a theory would deny the existence of the only creation that really did take place in the genesis of that scientist’s discoveries.”</i><br /><br />Excerpt From: David Deutsch. “The Beginning of Infinity.” iBooks. https://itun.es/us/F1G6A.l<br />Is the belief that Darwin is the true creator of his own theory religious? <br /><br />Or are you saying that we can rule some of God’s choices out, like choosing to create the universe we observe all at once 150 years ago? If so, how?<br /><br />Furthermore, it seems that your argument is narrow in scope as, being a non-theist, I’m not concerned with solving the problem of God being wise, sublime, exalted, or any of the other religious conflicts you mention. Rather, a belief that God decided to use evolution would be, theistic evolution. <br /><br />Calling theistic evolution “religious” would be, well, a tautology, right?<br /><br />Last, you refer to a misrepresentation, in that Evolutionary theory doesn’t suggest that everything arose spontaneously. The idea that one must think biological complexity was due to design or appeared spontaneously is a false dilemma. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77545940750328430702014-01-12T11:47:50.560-08:002014-01-12T11:47:50.560-08:00Dr. Hunter I think you should have bumper stickers...Dr. Hunter I think you should have bumper stickers printed up with you theme, "Religion drives science, and it matters." If you have a reasonable quantity printed and sell them at a profit you might even be able to make a little extra money.<br /><br />I would be the first one to buy one!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00122507021360282368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23294666588480949232014-01-12T02:49:20.904-08:002014-01-12T02:49:20.904-08:00Of somewhat related note: ENV has a somewhat humor...Of somewhat related note: ENV has a somewhat humorous article detailing the futile attempt of two materialists who tried to reduce the ‘sense of beauty’ to mere material mechanism.,,<br /><br />Beauty Evades the Clutches of Materialism – March 27, 2013<br />http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/03/beauty_evades_t070321.html<br /><br />Though the article was somewhat technical, it was almost comical to read how every approach, in which the materialists tried to reduce the subjective sense of beauty to a mere material mechanism, was thwarted.,, But alas, don’t those materialistic researchers have even the faintest clue that,,,<br /><br />All Things Bright And Beautiful – poem<br />http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4082996/<br /><br />,,,come from God??<br /><br />What Encourages Belief in God? Amazing Sights of 'Planet Earth,' Says New Study - November 27, 2013<br />http://www.christianpost.com/news/what-encourages-belief-in-god-amazing-sights-of-planet-earth-says-new-study-109644/cpf <br />The argument from beauty needs no words...<br />22 Unbelievable Places that are Hard to Believe Really Exist - photos<br />http://www.boredpanda.com/amazing-places/ <br /><br />Beauty. . . can be appreciated only by the mind. This would be impossible, if this `idea' of beauty were not found in the mind in a more perfect form. <br />http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/williams-aesthetic.shtml <br /><br />MercyMe - Beautiful<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vh7-RSPuAA<br />bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.com