6days
New member
I agree... You don't. But, He knows you. Not only that, He loves you.
Who Hates Academic Freedom?
- Thread starter 6days
- Start date
6days
New member
Likewise, neither does evolutionism.
They are beliefs about the past.
("Evolutionism" is 6days' personal strawman)
6days
New member
Your religion DOES start with an "e".
noguru
Well-known member
Science is not a religion. Your posting it does not make it so. Your track record indicates that no one should put any stock in anything you post.
6days
New member
Barbarian said:
Score another point for stripe. Barbarian doesn't seem to realize that most evolutionists believe in stellar evolution and chemical evolution.*
Stripes statement is also correct with biological evolution.... evolutionists often think everything is about evolution. We see over and over where evolutionists argue that non-functionality is evidence of evolution... and functionality is evidence of evolution. In other words. .... "The problem is evolutionists, who want everything to be evolution."
noguru
Well-known member
Barbarian realizes that all things change. And that there is also cosmological evolution and chemical evolution. But again, you vile YECs misrepresent the specific subject which is contingent on context. Barbarian was specifically referring to evolution in regard to biodiversity. Your attempts to misdirect and mislead are noted, however.
What is that 3, 4 or more attempts at deception today?
It's from the YEC playbook. They play the same games with "belief", claiming these sentences:
"I believe in God."
"I believe the evidence is overwhelming."
"I believe I'll have another Guinness."
All mean the same thing. As noted before, 6days and Stipe have been repeatedly reminded that evolutionary theory is not about the big bang, or about the origin of life, or all kinds of other things that scare them.
But they continue to pretend otherwise.
This is why they have the reputation they do.
"I believe in God."
"I believe the evidence is overwhelming."
"I believe I'll have another Guinness."
All mean the same thing. As noted before, 6days and Stipe have been repeatedly reminded that evolutionary theory is not about the big bang, or about the origin of life, or all kinds of other things that scare them.
But they continue to pretend otherwise.
This is why they have the reputation they do.
noguru
Well-known member
Yes, but can't their reputation be saved by claiming to believe in God, and then putting on a facade of being really committed by attempting to propagate YEC dogma?
6days
New member
You are dishonest again.*Barbarian said:
I differentiated 3 types òf evolution añd did not mentioñ ToE.*
Funny thing is that it is usually the evolutionists who conflate / equivocate on terms. Other evolutionists such as Eugenie Scott just admit that for an atheiest there is connection between different types of evolution... "Evolution involves far more than just human beings and, for that matter, far more than just living things.”
(In her book 'Evolution (ism) vs creationism' p-23
Speaking òf abiogenesis and cosmic evolution.. .if they are discussed in science class thè teacher should have the academic freedom to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of such beliefs
noguru
Well-known member
No. You are the one being dishonest. It has been exposed, but you are so dishonest that you will never admit when you are wrong. That YECism seems to attract sleazy lazy minded fools like you.
That raises his score to -987
Originally Posted by 6days View Post
Kdall comments:
You don't understand. They get points for lying.
Kdall comments:
You don't understand. They get points for lying.
6days
New member
Attacking the person rather than adressing their argument is ad hominem fallacy.Barbarian said:
Stripe said "The problem is evolutionists, who want everything to be evolution."
Stripe is correct. There are evolutionists who argue good biological design is evidence of evolution ...and they argue that "sloppy" biological design is evidence for evolution. ...As Stripe said, 'they want everything to be about evolution'.
Funny that you've never said that to Stripe. Only in defense of him
noguru
Well-known member
You don't understand. Their lies are just attempts to convert people to their way of thinking. Because if you don't think like them, you will go to hell. It is a wonderful way to view life.
noguru
Well-known member
Their goal of converting people outweighs the methodology of deceiving others to get the conversion. In their mind YECs can lie, because lying is for a higher purpose.
6days
New member
I'm not arguing with Stripe...Barbarian and now you would rather attack a person seemingly unable to address their point.
What i said was...
Attacking the person rather than adressing their argument is ad hominem fallacy.
Stripe said "The problem is evolutionists, who want everything to be evolution."
Stripe is correct. There are evolutionists who argue good biological design is evidence of evolution ...and they argue that "sloppy" biological design is evidence for evolution. ...As Stripe said, 'they want everything to be about evolution'.
Dialogos
Well-known member
Darwin said many things that wouldn’t be admissible in a current high school science class based on the current legal climate.
Such as:
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” (Darwin, On the Origin of the Species)
This concept would be booted right out of a public high school science curriculum as being too “religious.” Darwin often referenced God in the Origin of the Species. In some cases he writes attributing creation to God as he did above, in other places he appeals to an anti-creationist presuppositions claiming that evolution is true because God wouldn’t do it that way.
In any case, what Darwin thought and what is being taught in today’s public school science curriculums (which is really Neo-Darwinism) are not the same thing. The Origin of Species would probably not be allowed in the modern science classroom precisely because it has too much God talk. In fact, you sum up the current philosophical bias of Neo-Darwinism quite nicely when you say:
If you mean, agnostic in the sense of practical atheism then you are correct. The modern philosophy of science is that science can’t speak to issues of divinity and so scientists proceed as if there is no God.Lucaspa said:
I realize that the modern philosophical presupposition is that all science is, of necessity, “agnostic” (which really means that all science is practically atheistic) but it hasn’t always been so and, in fact, the very foundations of science were found in a theistic worldview rather than an agnostic worldview.
Mendel was an Augustinian monk, Bacon said his life’s goal was to “uncover the truth, serve his country and serve the church,” Pascal was just as prolific a theologian as he was a mathematician and even Darwin, as you have identified in your quotations, alluded to God far more often than the typical public school science curriculum would now allow. I would argue that without a theistic worldview, there would be no science!
It is only recently that ideas of naturalism (which has its origin in philosophy, not science) have driven our culture to accept the very unscientific premise that science must be “agnostic.” It is unscientific because it eliminates a potential cause in an a priori fashion, taking a possible explanation off the table before any experimentation or research has been conducted.
ID seeks to change that unscientific bias and hypothesizes that some things look like they are the product of an Intelligent Creator precisely because they are.
Advocates of naturalism have retreated to a position of dogma asserting that ID isn’t science.
First off, whether or not ID is science is itself a very unscientific question to ask, whether or not it is true is a much better scientific question to ask if science has anything at all to do with the search for truth. Whether or not ID is science is really a legal question and that legal question is asked by those who want censor any inquiry as to whether or not it is true.
Second, the current advocacy of naturalism has more to do with ideology than it does scientific inquiry as committed naturalists insist that things that look designed in biological structures can’t possibly be designed because the inherent agnosticism (really a practical atheism) of science cannot tolerate the notion that any Intelligent Creator had any active role in creation. In contrast to ID, the a priori presumption of naturalism is that what appears to be design in nature is necessarily a result of a random, purposeless processes and any appearance of design must be illusory. Evolution, at least as it is taught today, isn’t even agnostic in the purest sense of the word, it is practical atheism as it asserts that if there is a God (and a good number of naturalists teaching evolution in the classroom would openly deny this in front of their students) He is nevertheless wholly irrelevant to the discussion of the origins of life on earth and the origins of species and only naturalistic explanations will be considered, discussed, debated, taught or tolerated.
It is that very atheistic bias that leads me to conclude that “creation is inherently foreign to the basic naturalistic premises of evolution to begin with...”
First, who are you again?Lucaspa said:
How many conversations have we had?
To my knowledge this is the first.
Which makes your attempt to tell me that I am basically anything “at heart” a foolishly assumptive statement said purely from ignorance and arrogance. If you want to know what I am “at heart” you are free to make respectful inquiries.
Otherwise, please keep your completely uninformed assessments of what I am “at heart” to yourself. You’ll likely find that very few are interested in your assessment of what I am “at heart”, and I am likely the most disinterested.
Second, you are totally off base, I most certainly do not accept the premise that “natural” = without God. I am willing to argue quite ardently that nature points to the existence of God. Consequently you really owe me an apology for bearing false witness.
I do accept the premise that the theory of “naturalism” = “without God.”
I am not alone in that assessment.
NATURALISM, you should look it up.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naturalism
:chuckle:Lucaspa said:
I understand the notion of primary and secondary causes, thanks though…
Two responses here. First, I would challenge you to find a contemporary science curriculum that is used in a public school setting that is willing to positively define and discuss the notion of God being the Primary Cause and gravity being the secondary cause.Lucaspa said:
Can you find one?
If you can I bet it will be challenged in court by atheists and thrown out!
Why?
Because, the current philosophy of science says that science must be “practically atheistic.”
Try and publish an article in a peer reviewed scientific Journal on “How God created …..”
Go ahead, try.
Second, the fact that God can, and does, work through secondary causation does not negate the fact that God often intervenes directly in creation. Denying that God does so would be to deny Christ. If one employed the same kind of commitment to naturalism to the virgin birth or the resurrection of Christ one would end up denying both in favor of holding out for a “natural” explanation.
You stated:
Both you and Barbarian have a hard time staying consistent.Lucaspa said:
Either “evolution, like all scientific theories, is agnostic.” Or “we can test hypothesis about how God created.” The second statement conflicts with the first. Either science can say something about God or it must remain agnostic.
So, please, pick a lane.
Lucaspa said:
“Poofed,” really?
I’d like you to please quote a YEC advocate who used the term “poofed” to describe their own beliefs.
If you can’t, then you should be ashamed of yourself for your intentional misrepresentation.
This is debatable but really outside the scope of the OP. We are talking about who really advocates for academic freedom and whether discussions of creationism of any kind are appropriate for the classroom.Lucaspa said:
Poofed huh? Can you show where an ID advocate says that God “poofed” living organisms into being?Lucaspa said:
Your disdain for a theory does not give you license to lie about it, shame on you.
So test it, discuss it, debate it and share the process of testing it with those getting an education in science. Give ID a voice rather than censor the research of ID scientists. Stop presenting one sided critiques while legally gagging those who might be able to present a defense of their conclusions and research in their own words.Lucaspa said:
The current educational climate on ID is akin to a trial where only the prosecution gets to present their case.
Don’t you find it at all telling that ID is present in many textbooks used in public school curriculum but it is only so that the author can critique the theory?
You are assuming a whole lot here. You are whitewashing the challenges to the Big Bang (like the fact that – given recent research in particle physics – the universe shouldn’t have lasted for more than a second) and overlooking the gaping holes and inconsistencies of the theory of evolution (of which there are far too many to innumerate).Lucaspa said:
I’m not arguing that anyone stop teaching the Big Bang as theory, or even evolution as theory. I am advocating that science curricula not overstate the cases for each and tech them both dogmatically as if the question is settled and no further research in needed in either area.
I also advocate allowing discussions and dissent on both theories rather than engage in a policy of censorship and punishing teachers for deviating from current “scientific" party line.
Why is it permissible to critique ID in the classroom but it is considered unlawful to explain defend it?
Now we get to some pretty poor representations of ID.
That is not how IDers describe the evidence of design in biological organisms. I, and many others, have grown tired of these kinds of intentional mischaracterizations.Lucaspa said:
“Poofed” and “manufacturing” are simply not terms used by the scientists who advocate ID. They are mischaracterizations, subtle straw men arguments used to poison the well rather than fairly represent the theory and allow it to speak on its own terms.
There are only two excuses for this. First, those (hopefully you) who engage in such misrepresentations are uninformed about what ID really teaches or they (I hope not you) are intentionally misrepresenting the theory. The first is just intellectual laziness.
The second is morally reprehensible because it is a lie and the person telling it, a liar.
If you would let ID define itself, you would find that the following from Stephen Meyer is a more accurate representation of what ID hypothesizes.
“But what exactly is the theory of intelligent design?
Contrary to media reports, intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins-one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution. According to Darwinian biologists such as Oxford's Richard Dawkins, livings systems "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." But, for modern Darwinists, that appearance of design is entirely illusory.
Why? According to neo-Darwinism, wholly undirected processes such as natural selection and random mutations are fully capable of producing the intricate designed-like structures in living systems. In their view, natural selection can mimic the powers of a designing intelligence without itself being directed by an intelligence.
In contrast, the theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.
Either life arose as the result of purely undirected material processes or a guiding intelligence played a role. Design theorists favor the latter option and argue that living organisms look designed because they really were designed.” (Stephen Meyer, Not by Chance:…)
Contrary to media reports, intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins-one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution. According to Darwinian biologists such as Oxford's Richard Dawkins, livings systems "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." But, for modern Darwinists, that appearance of design is entirely illusory.
Why? According to neo-Darwinism, wholly undirected processes such as natural selection and random mutations are fully capable of producing the intricate designed-like structures in living systems. In their view, natural selection can mimic the powers of a designing intelligence without itself being directed by an intelligence.
In contrast, the theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.
Either life arose as the result of purely undirected material processes or a guiding intelligence played a role. Design theorists favor the latter option and argue that living organisms look designed because they really were designed.” (Stephen Meyer, Not by Chance:…)
Lucaspa said:
ID disconnects creation from the Creator?
Oh, the irony.
You have spent a good deal of your previous post lecturing us about how science is fundamentally “agnostic.” Now you are finding fault with IDers for disconnecting God from creation?
:chuckle:
That’s what an “agnostic” scientific paradigm does, Lucaspa, it disconnects creation from any notion of a Creator!
Now, you may find fault with that approach, just as I do and just as ID does. ID actually allows creation to be evidence for the Creator thus re-establishing the connection that "agnostic" science severed.
If you have grown dissatisfied with a scientific approach that disconnects God from creation, then welcome to the ID scientific movement, your membership card is in the mail.
:sam: