The “conflict lies in perception”: Evolution and Creationism

I'm not a fan of evolution. But I recognize that it could be true. If, at some point, I were to decide that evolution had created all of the lifeforms we see around us, it would not alter may faith in God.

That's how I feel about "evolution".

How do I feel about evolutionists? With all the contempt, derision, "flying spaghetti monster" ridicule? I think goal #1 for most evolutionists is to attack religion and to diminish the importance of God in modern society. Goal #2 is probably to support biological research and buttress the theory of evolution.

In short: Evolutionists would get a lot less grief from believers, if the evolutionists cut back on their (very obvious) opposition to God. They don't need to oppose God in order to support evolution. But their opposition to God seems like the central mission for them.

From the article:

Materialism is a philosophical position, affirming that nothing exists beyond “matter,” that which we can experience with our senses. I would say that science is methodologically materialist: it can deal only with the world of matter. But it is not philosophically materialist; it does not imply that nothing can exist beyond what we experience with our senses, as religion requires. One can accept scientific principles and also hold religious beliefs. But, many people are ignorant of science and just assume it is contrary to their religion. Of course, the proponents of intelligent design and creationism are also spreading a lot of propaganda. The only way to deal with the problem is education and specifically science education, which is unfortunately lacking, by and large, and not only in this country.

Some of this will come as news to many posters here.

And did you note the fellow's credentials?

Today, Dr. Francisco J. Ayala is a university professor and Donald Bren professor of biological sciences, ecology and evolutionary biology in the School of Biological Sciences; a professor of philosophy in the School of Humanities; and a professor of logic and the philosophy of science in the School of Social Sciences at the University of California, Irvine.

In short: Evolutionists would get a lot less grief from believers, if the evolutionists cut back on their (very obvious) opposition to God.

I think you'll find the most of the (few) supporters of evolution still posting here are reacting to the efforts of creationists to teach their religious beliefs in schools in place of, or as the equal to, science, and doing so by falsely disguising creationism as science (first as creation "science" and next as intelligent design).

I think goal #1 for most evolutionists is to attack religion and to diminish the importance of God in modern society.

Until very recently, biologists simply did their work and reported their findings. I suppose they were arrogant to expect solid work to be accepted as it is in other fields of science.

The interesting thing is that the war on science has escalated. It may have started with evolution, but it now encompasses geology and physics. Not to mention medicine.

Medicine is the one area of science where conservatives and liberals have an equal number of moonbats, mostly in agreement with other.

Liberals seem to have the majority of pseudoscientists in the areas of environmentalism, energy, GM foods, and such.

It's equal time for all with parapsychology, UFOs, ghosts, religious relics and such.

"Science" has been defined in a certain way. If something is physical, if something can be measured, then it is science. Some sort of Intelligent Designer cannot be considered science. Therefore, any science class becomes unacceptably "weird" if it discusses Intelligent Design.

This is a stacked deck. Look at what you posted (from the original article):

I would say that science is methodologically materialist: it can deal only with the world of matter. But it is not philosophically materialist; it does not imply that nothing can exist beyond what we experience with our senses, as religion requires. One can accept scientific principles and also hold religious beliefs.

In my opinion, a science class would be justified in discussing things which "can exist beyond what we experience with our senses". A science class could discuss how people could hold true to "scientific principles and also hold religious beliefs".

But that handy-dandy definition of "science" pretty much says that science class is for material stuff only.

Stacked deck. Done for a reason.

Their atheistic faith does not allow them to put God in the picture. It’s ironic how Darwin was a Deist, who in all practicality was an atheist, but he still had to admit that a creator was the best explanation for the origin of time.

"Science" has been defined in a certain way. If something is physical, if something can be measured, then it is science. Some sort of Intelligent Designer cannot be considered science. Therefore, any science class becomes unacceptably "weird" if it discusses Intelligent Design.
This is a stacked deck. Look at what you posted (from the original article):

I would say that science is methodologically materialist: it can deal only with the world of matter. But it is not philosophically materialist; it does not imply that nothing can exist beyond what we experience with our senses, as religion requires. One can accept scientific principles and also hold religious beliefs.

Science works from a specific assumption, that of methodological naturalism. Those who have religious beliefs are operating under a different assumption.

The problem we are seeing lately is that believers want their beliefs to be taught as science, or at least to be given equal consideration with science.

Because they operate with different assumptions, and using a completely different method, this does not work. Science relies on evidence and the testing of that evidence. Religion relies on some form of revealed knowledge, which is not readily tested. And in those cases where it can be tested (for example, belief in a global flood some 4,350 years ago), the findings of science are often rejected in favor of revealed knowledge.

In my opinion, a science class would be justified in discussing things which "can exist beyond what we experience with our senses". A science class could discuss how people could hold true to "scientific principles and also hold religious beliefs".

But that handy-dandy definition of "science" pretty much says that science class is for material stuff only.

Stacked deck. Done for a reason.

Science can study things which "can exist beyond what we experience with our senses" (parapsychology and other similar subjects). What science can't readily test is the supernatural. And this is where the problem really lies.

So what would you have science do? Accept the supernatural claims of anyone who passes by with no evidence or testing? What if the claims of several people conflict? What would happen then?

In actuality there are some 4,300 world religions (source). Should all of their claims be accepted at face value, or just some of them?

If you prefer only Christian sects to be included, there are tens of thousands of different Christian denominations worldwide (source). Do we include some of these or all of them? And what do we do when they conflict? (Conflicts are why there are so many different groups in the first place.)

I think by now you might be willing to concede that science has to deal with evidence and verifiable claims. If you let any and all claims stand as truth, or TRVTH, with no way to differentiate between them, you will get nowhere.

And did you note the fellow's credentials?

Yeah, pretty thin, huh? :)

In short: Evolutionists would get a lot less grief from believers, if the evolutionists cut back on their (very obvious) opposition to God.

Please define what you mean by "God".

Your post #8 was beautiful. Just beautiful!

This priest is theologically confused. If... “God has a lot to account for?” That is stupid 12 ways not worth explaining.

The great discussion begins at the point you wish to have us all grant a priori that your existence is certain and that your intellect is reliable without subjecting those “givens” to science. Why should your “assumption” that a self-recognizing protoplasm, randomly thrown up by the unthinking universe now be deemed a reliable thinker be given a pass and other “assumptions” be held to a different standard?

YEC INTREP

That is stupid 12 ways not worth explaining.

Try

The great discussion begins at the point you wish to have us all grant a priori that your existence is certain and that your intellect is reliable without subjecting those “givens” to science. Why should your “assumption” that a self-recognizing protoplasm, randomly thrown up by the unthinking universe now be deemed a reliable thinker be given a pass and other “assumptions” be held to a different standard?

The assumption made by science is a working assumption; if better information comes along it can be changed.

It is retained because it produces usable results.

An assumption that "a self-recognizing protoplasm, randomly thrown up by the unthinking universe" can't do anything leads nowhere.

Religious believers are free to operate under any other assumptions that they choose. Have at it! Conduct any research you want in any manner you want. Nobody is stopping you.

But just don't call it science, and don't expect to exercise a veto power over science unless you can produce scientific evidence.

I think ther are a lot of evolutionists who are atheists. But if the theory didn;pt exist, they still would be atheists.

I know there are evolutionists who are not atheists and I am one. Trying to convince atheists who believe in evolution that they should use it to advnace thier personal philosophies is a waste of time.

Evolution describes the materialistic “how”. It doesn;t address the “why” or the philosophical “how”. Many atheist evolutionists maintain that evolution is the result of random, chnace mutations and hence God couldn;t have a hand in evolution. I think they are drawing a false conclusion, one which is not justified by logic.

God, as the prime cause, created the laws of evolution. Since He is defined as all-knowing, its is impossible that He would not be aware the result of so-called “chance” mutations.

Both believers who state you can’t believe in Evolution and be a believer and non-believers who state the opposite are not thinking logically.

Science “is not philosophically materialist; it does not imply that nothing can exist beyond what we experience with our senses.”

Some things I believe in that are beyond the five senses: my mind, self-consciousness, free will, truth, reason, logic, mathematical relations, beauty, right and wrong, and the effect music has upon me. I suspect that if all but one of us had four senses, the additional findings of the one person with five senses would be rejected. How many things do we not know for lack of a sixth sense?

There has been a lot of junk science that has been largely accepted. This includes Marxism, Malthusianism, Freudian psychology, anthropogenic global warming, and a host of environmentalist claims. Metaphysics, junk science, and real science - how can one tell the difference? It’s not credentials, or consensus, or any other arguments from authority. One has to buckle down and investigate claims, counter claims, reason and evidence. There has been a lot in the history of evolutionary theory that has not stood the sniff test. This includes Darwin’s candid admission that the fossil evidence did not support his theory (but have faith - it will!), the Piltdown man hoax, and the attitude that goes way beyond the requirements of science. Efforts to impress, control, and intimidate rub the wrong way. They are only necessary if you don’t have reason and evidence on your side.

The problem we are seeing lately is that believers want their beliefs to be taught as science, or at least to be given equal consideration with science.

Oh yeah? Would you care to point out to us, precisely where any school board in the nation has adopted language that states *anywhere* that "religious beliefs must be given equal consideration"? Oh, wait, you said the problem is what some people want to be taught. Wow. How about focusing for some moments on what IS taught?

Here's a link (found using google) which contains information concerning various States official proclamations concerning "science", what they say it is, and in some cases, touching upon what it isn't.

Kansas Definition of Science Consistent With All Other States Contrary to Media Claims

Found anything like you here claim "is the problem"?
Let's examine one, say from Minnesota

"Scientific knowledge must meet certain criteria including that it: be consistent with experimental, observational and inferential evidence about nature; follow rules of logic and reporting both methods and procedures; and, be falsifiable and open to criticism."

Now let's skip over to touching upon some other pertinent info concerning science, evolution, and unproven assumptions masquerading as science;

“a lack of empirical evidence for a ‘primordial soup’ or a chemically hospitable pre-biotic atmosphere" and a "lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code"

Regarding the origin of the genetic code,

“[t]he origin of the code is perhaps the most perplexing problem in evolutionary biology”

Random sequences are the antithesis of prescribed genetic information. There is no empirical or rational justification for theorizing that the random shuffling of nucleotides could generate instructions for a metabolic network. Progress has been made, however, on the evolution of already existing genetic instructions ... [various citations] ... But none of these papers provide mechanisms whereby stochastic ensembles in prebiotic environments acquire algorithmic programming prowess. (Trevors & Abel, 2004)

(underlining and font color emphasis mine own)

Yet, speaking of assumptions, isn't the one about life "poofing" itself in to existence, one of the biggest underlying, unproven assumptions one which a great many of the most vociferous evolutionists, have no problem at all --- taking as an article of "faith"?

Yet that is the one, that is crammed down students' throats!
You (or should I say evolutionists whom delight in bashing "religion", in general) seem to suggest, that the merest mention of some other possibility, including a religious or supernatural one, be verboten? And then there's the issue of your tagline...wow. Religious belief? talk about the pointing hand having even more fingers pointing BACK, towards the accuser!

Here's some skeptical "science deniers", for you (but then, you've seen it before, I'd be)]

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Literally HUNDREDs of Ph.d's, tenured professors, doctoral candidates, etc. Signing on to the rather bland statement;

"We are skeptical about the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged"

You seem to cling to such ideas as you state here;

"Science works from a specific assumption, that of methodological naturalism."

How to sort out, and keep track of the various assumptions, differentiating them from the "methodological"? I say, some branches of science might not have such stellar, completely trustworthy record, though we do have some science practitioners well informed and honest enough, to share things such as;

Paleontologist Robert Carroll writes, "Paleontologists in particular have found it difficult to accept that the slow, continuous, and progressive changes postulated by Darwin can adequately explain the major reorganizations that have occurred between dominant groups of plants and animals.” (Carroll, 1997.) Similarly, evolutionist paleontologist Niles Eldredge writes, “...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not" (Eldredge, 1985).