Regardless what you think of it Evolution has brought us great good

by zagor 35 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • hooberus

    The Biblical creationist view does not precludes that "the world is real and largely as it appears to be, and that measuring, investigation and the use of logic can lead us to useful conclusions about the universe."

    No, it doesn't preclude it, but such a view is secondary to their primary supposition that the Bible is true. Where there is a clear contradiction between the literalist interpretation of the Bible and the observable evidence (as in Abaddon's examples above), they choose the former.

    Many creationists deny that they presuppose such a thing. At least AIG are honest and admit it, although to justify this view they need to claim that those who believe in evolution also have presuppositions, and that these are of the same kind as their own, a claim that is clearly untrue.

    Many evolutionists do have presuppositions. For example one of them is that of only considering "naturalistic"(materialistic) * explanations for all phenomena including origins (before looking at and regardless of the data). Thus we find statements such as:

    "[W]e have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations…that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (Lewontin, Richard [evolutionist scientist], Billions and Billions of Demons, New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28., emphasis added)
    "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." Scott C. Todd
    Department of Biology, Kansas State University, 18 Ackert Hall, Manhattan, Kansas 66506, USA Nature 401, 423 (30 September 1999); doi:10.1038/46661

    Furthermore many evolutionists (including the NAS and teachers groups) even go so far as to require that "science" itself be defined as being limited to only "naturalistic" explanations:

    "The NAS defines science as a search for purely natural explanations for all phenomena. Under this definition, science is bound to oppose any theory of intelligent design, no matter how compelling the evidence. That is fine, but the NAS should admit that this definition is a philosophic choice, and a statement of faith that natural explanations indeed exist for all things, and indeed are true." (A Critical Analysis of Science and Creationism A view from the National Academy of Sciences In relation to Intelligent Design Theory By Casey Luskin)

    “If there is one rule, one criterion that makes an idea scientific, it is that it must invoke naturalistic explanations for phenomena … it’s simply a matter of definition—of what is science, and what is not.”
    (Eldredge, Niles, 1982, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, Washington Square Press)

    Indeed much of the Kansas School Board controversy simply involves the definition of "science" itself -in which evolutionists are demanding that the definition of "science" itself be as being limited to only "natural" explanations: "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world." (The other side is simply seeeking a definition that is philosophically neutral -that is that is: "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.")

    * As Denyse O'Leary stated: "In practice today, "natural explanations" is a code phrase for "explanations that rule out design or purpose." " (ID Report 07-16-05) (Lewontin and Eldrege quotes above provided by

  • tetrapod.sapien
    Macro-evolution is in dispute.

    i already explained this to you in the past rexly. biologically, technically, there is no difference between macro and micro evolution. biologists use these *abstractions* and *concepts* in cladistic analysis of "speciation" (which is yet another abstraction for the purposes of research).

    as far as actual mutations are concerned, whether they lead to a new "species" or just mutations within a "species", they are still just mutations. it's not like mutations are divided into "intra-species mutations" and "extra-species mutations". sheesh. mutations are mutations man. they ll happen gradually. depending on environmental pressures, some stay as a species, and others can longer interbreed with others from whom the population has been sepparated. learn it already fool.


  • zagor
    Common sense is more important than arguing inane insanities with the intellectuals, who haven't realized that the '60s generation is passing away and a new age has dawned.

    Interesting thing about common sense is that it is limited by your personal experience. in 1500 people believed that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects 'cause that what common sense was telling them. Today we know that gravity acceleration is always even on earth i.e 9.8 m/s squared, and only reason why lighter things like feather are falling slower is because of the air friction. Similarly, at one point people believed that earth was center of the universe because common sense was telling that, or that earth was flat because common sense was telling that or that no one can travel faster than 100 miles per hour or his eyes would fall out because common sense was telling that, ..., need I continue?

    For the record, I don't accept everything every scientist ever said, but that's why we have our brains if you want to refute something instead of just pointing finger at scientific community with the same old rant of "well you don't explain everything" of course not, no one does. Science is work in progress as someone pointed earlier somewhere. Funny thing though is that people that say that are seemingly assuming that they are therefore able to explain everything. But when they need to come up with goods they seem lost for words or are again repeating same old rants and then are wondering why there are not taken seriously. I for one, think that life and universe is far grander than science was ever able to envisage before. And many physicists are just getting taste of it through so called String Theory, Super Strings , M-theory, etc. Have a look into it, you just might find your god there

  • zagor

    and if you want to wach video here is direct link in case you haven't already noticed

    get yourself a coffee and sit comfortably 'cause it's about 3 hours long I think

  • shark attack
    shark attack

    ZAGOR a phobia of common sense,there must be a job for you in the white house

  • peacefulpete

    hooberus, I wonder if you really thought about that article before posting a link. While the author was trying to carve a middle ground he in fact was saying nothing new. :

    Some think such a discovery will never happen because supernatural claims are not subject to the scientific method, that they are not empirically testable. If they were testable, according to this view, they would be natural "by definition." None of my dictionaries define natural as testable.
    We can imagine many ways to empirically test for phenomena so beyond any natural explanation that we could safely classify them as supernatural. An individual undergoing a religious experience might accurately predict future natural disasters that no one at the time could have anticipated. Prayer could be shown to cure cancer. People could be shown to perform physical feats that defy all material possibility.
    Indeed, for over a century these and other possibilities have been investigated in the laboratory. Many positive effects have been reported, some in peer-reviewed journals, although none have thus far proved convincing to the scientific community. These reports have not been rejected because they claim supernatural effects. They have been rejected because they lack sufficient evidence according to the same criteria that are applied in scientifically evaluating any extraordinary claim.

    So as I read it he is saying that extraodinary claims should be tested using scientific method and results subject to peer review. Who disagrees with that? No one. He also pointedly said that the supernatural claims have been tested for over 100 years and have failed to standup to the rigors of science. Do you think is it good science to endorse (teaching it as a viable option is endorsing) an idea that failed these tests? Of course not. You would not want your child to be taught phrenology or tarrot card reading in science class. Now you want to have ID taught, fine, how do we test it? Per your article we apply all the conceivable tests to biology, geology, and paleontology and if these fail to offer hint of plausible explantion then we consider a supernatural explanation.

    It seems to me that we have been doing that testing over the past 200 years. The findings are that earth and life on it are very old. Life forms today are very different from their ancient forbearers. Genetics reveals not only relationships between living forms but even the proximity of relatedness. New forms are appearing today through the processes of decent with modification. Do we ignore or dismiss the bedrock findings of biology, geology and paleontology that have been exhaustively tested and stood so as to then create a need for ID? Why?

Share this