Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Having it both ways

In response to Having it both ways posted by pink101:

It is NOT the natural scientist that has the problem here--it is the person who wants Creationism to be considered an aspect of natural science that creates the problem.

Creationism is a specific branch of Intelligent Design. I agree that Creationism is not science. It is a religious view. As such, I am not advocating that Creationism be taught in public science classrooms.

Intelligent Design is a different story. It is an interpretation of the same evidence that Darwinian Evolutionists are looking at.

The problem is the demand that Creationism be seen as science and that evolution be seen as no more than a philosophical opinion.

You've exaggerated the standoff here. There are SOME Creationists who make this demand. I am not one of them. I am saying that evolutionists need to HUMBLE about their findings and claims.

They cannot claim that science has PROVEN evolution. All they can claim is that NATURAL SCIENCE (by its presupposition of naturalism) can only CONSIDER origin theories within a naturalistic framework. And therefore, evolution is the most plausible theory. THAT is all they can say. And yet that is far from what scientists like Dawkins say.

The objection to your position is that it cannot be demonstrated in the same way that evolution is demonstrable.

MICRO-evolution (modifications WITHIN species classes) is demonstrable, NOT macro-evolution or speciation.

THAT is what puts Creationism outside the parameters of science.

Agreed on Creationism, and it's also what puts Darwinian, naturalistic, MACRO-evolution outside the parameters of science.

Once you are able to demonstrate that it is, in fact, able to be proven through some repeatable experiment, natural science will have no choice than to accept it as legitimate.

Darwinian evolutionists need to play by those same rules. Can they demonstrate "through some repeatable experiment" that the universe evolved from nothing or that life originated from matter and energy (which evolved from nothing) or that lower organisms evolve into higher-functioning and more complex organisms????? Can they?? Have they????

» pink101 - Having it both ways

In response to Having it both ways posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Can they?? Have they????
.
You have me on Darwinian evolutionists as I don't know what or who they are.
.
My position has to do with evolution. Perhaps you would like to take this opportunity to show how Darwinian evolutionists are outside the parameters of science.
.
I'm open to new information. I like to learn.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Having it both ways

In response to Having it both ways posted by pink101:

Got busy, and this thread ended up lapsing. Let me address your point...

Perhaps you would like to take this opportunity to show how Darwinian evolutionists are outside the parameters of science.

I stole the phrase "parameters of science" from YOU, based on YOUR charge that Intelligent Design in general (and Creationism in particular) was "outside the parameters of science." Here is the charge you made....

The objection to your position is that it cannot be demonstrated in the same way that evolution is demonstrable. THAT is what puts Creationism outside the parameters of science. Once you are able to demonstrate that it is, in fact, able to be proven through some repeatable experiment, natural science will have no choice than to accept it as legitimate.

By YOUR standard, anything that is not "demonstrable" falls outside the "parameters of science."

Well, guess what....Darwinian, naturalistic evolution (particularly on a MACRO-scale, meaning one species changing into another species - and tracking that all the way back to a common ancestor) is NOT demonstrable.

Scientists have NOT been able to verify via observation nor have they been able to reproduce macro-evolution. The ONLY thing that they can verify is MICRO-evolution (meaning adaptations WITHIN species classes - i.e., finch beaks adjusting over time, etc.).

So, Pink, by YOUR standard, evolution (on the macro scale) is OUTSIDE the parameters of science.

» Brian Tubbs - Naturalism

In response to Having it both ways posted by pink101:

Your comment, based on the idea that "naturalism" is "a philosophical approach to science" is a quantum leap beyond logic if what you mean by "naturalism" is the natural sciences.

You can't win an argument by shifting terms around, Pink. Natural science IS a byproduct of naturalism. And that doesn't make "naturalism" more credible, which is what you seem to be arguing.

Natural science is called natural science, because it is based on the framework of naturalism. And naturalism IS a philosophical framework.

You ask me to prove that. Prove what? Prove that naturalism is a philosophy? If so, that's like asking me to prove that Islam is a religion. Or that the Pope is Catholic. Or that airplanes are made to fly in the air.

Naturalism IS a philosophy. It's a philosophy that rules out anything SUPER-natural. It is a philosophy that says we can and should focus all inquiry (esp, in this context, scientific inquiry) around what we can see, touch, taste, smell, and hear. Nothing outside of physical, natural reality is to be considered.

Pink, that's a philosophical premise. A truly open-minded and objective person, by contrast, will NOT rule out the supernatural, but will keep all possibilities on the table.

Otherwise, the resurrection of Jesus is AUTOMATICALLY determined to be myth, because NATURAL SCIENCE tells us that dead people don't rise from the dead. Therefore...case closed. Well, not so fast. An open-minded inquiry has to avoid rushing to judgment, simply because "natural science" has ruled out the possibility of divine intervention.

Do you see how this all plays out? Richard Dawkins is an atheist and a naturalist, because he has CHOSEN to reject the possibility of the supernatural. He is NOT an atheist, because science objectively and honestly led him to that conclusion. The same is true, btw, for ALL atheists!

» pink101 - Test Of Evolution

In response to Having it both ways posted by BrianTubbs:
.
So, Pink, by YOUR standard, evolution (on the macro scale) is OUTSIDE the parameters of science.
.
Like I posted, I am no expert on evolution; but, I read a lot.
.
I don't see why evolution is discounted for not being able to prove that one species evolves out of another. Science is able to demonstrate evolution within a species. So, that proves that evolution does take place.
.
Does that prove that human beings evolved from some other species? I don't think so; but, that isn't the test of evolution, is it?
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Test Of Evolution

In response to Test Of Evolution posted by pink101:

I don't see why evolution is discounted for not being able to prove that one species evolves out of another. Science is able to demonstrate evolution within a species. So, that proves that evolution does take place.

Let me be clear. Charles Darwin deserves ENORMOUS credit for discovering the evolutionary dynamic in nature. I am NOT anti-evolution. I am against the ARROGANCE so often demonstrated by those who enthusiastically embrace evolution - and extend it beyond what has been scientifically established.

Science HAS established adaptation within species. It has NOT established the evolution of one species into another. And, yet, it nevertheless lays claim to the "high ground" in academia - ruling out discussion or examination of any other theory pertaining to the origin of the universe.

» pink101 - Test Of Evolution

In response to Test Of Evolution posted by BrianTubbs:

.
"...[science] ... lays claim to the "high ground" in academia - ruling out discussion or examination of any other theory pertaining to the origin of the universe."
.
I think you are misrepresenting the truth here, Brian. Science, by its own definition, can not rule "out discussion or examination of any other theory pertaining to the origin of the universe".
.
But, to open this discussion up a bit, do you have any "theory" in mind? If you're thinking of Creationism, it is NOT a theory.
.
And you've expanded the discussion beyond evolution to include the "origin of the universe" or, was that a typo? Did you mean "origin of the species"?
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Test Of Evolution

In response to Test Of Evolution posted by pink101:

With respect to evolution, I mean origin of the species. With respect to natural science in general, I refer to BOTH the origin of the species and the origin of the universe. With natural scientists and evolutionists like Dawkins, the lines are blurred -- by them.

» pink101 - A Person of Influence

In response to Test Of Evolution posted by BrianTubbs:
.
The subject is of human origin maybe the most mysterious of all we can imagine.
.
Pretty much, conjecture seems to rule.
.
To me, the very idea of existence itself, that is, looking out the window and seeing the slope down to the lake and the woods and sky is overwhelming. The fact that I am here to take it all in blows my mind and it lays me out.
.
Who am I to come up with any answers about any origins? But, the more I think about it the more I am convinced that the primitive people of the Bible were taken in by the shamans who claimed to ~ know ~ the creator of all that is. And, for us to follow some line of thinking because it has been around for thousands of years as though time can make it true is nothing less than superstition. The nature of time demands it never has a beginning or an end regardless of our existence; so, that means what ever is or was must go back kazillions of eons. The galaxies must have been pulsating on and off for ever and ever time without beginning. So, it seems to me that an omniscient being must have evolved. It is convenient to think that humanity is the central work of such a God, especially when it comes to being a person of influence over ones peers. I know people like that who are honored as being godly.. But, they don't float for me.
.
Is there a God?
.
If all this has been around for billions of years and we have developed to the level where we now exist, can we assume that some being has developed beyond our present state?
.
My biggest problem with organized religion is that the main ones want to impose their ideas on the rest of society for the purposes of control. Which means that they want me to believe that they have found a force outside of human being to take command of who it is that we can be. In other words, what we do and how we think is outside our ability. So that we are either led by the Good Forces of their God or we are led by the Evil Forces that are in opposition to their God.
.
This sets up a dichotomy within each gullible person that can convince them that if they aren't committed to the ~ good ~ force, then they belong to the ~ evil ~ one. So, when they are confronted with some temptation that may not be good for them, they can give in to the baser side by acting as though they don't have any control over their inner drives, etc.
.
Thus, it is difficult for individuals to gather in groups where they are able to negotiate a better future for human society.
.
It's a problem with which we all must struggle. At least this is true until we come to a place where we can discuss such things without being denounced by religious bigotry.
.
I hope all is well with Migisi.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - A Person of Influence

In response to A Person of Influence posted by pink101:

.
I hope all is well with Migisi.
.
It is. Thanks for asking. Speaking of hoping all is well... has anyone heard from Brother Jones lately? I know his health wasn't the best, and he's been MIA here for a long time. Hope nothing's happened to the Ol' Timer for the Lord.

-- posted by Migisi