Posted on 04/07/2016 11:56:15 AM PDT by Heartlander
Excellent post and I appreciate your concise clarifications. I would disagree regarding macro-evolution, but that’s just my view.
>>Just to clarify - the fact that experts in the field and even Darwin himself disagree with you is irrelevant?<<
Appeal to authority. How quaint.
Show me where in TToE it states anything about these issues. I will not waver from this request.
Or just admit defeat, since from the get go all you have presented are logical fallacies.
>>Put another way, one cannot claim that Darwinism made our brains but has no bearing on the brain’s contents. This is what makes Darwin’s theory unique to science as most people familiar with his theory know.<<
That is a conclusion, not part of the theory. And you are clearly not familiar with the Theory at all, merely others’ thoughts on it. I can read E.F. Codd’s life story, including his thoughts on 3VL, and know nothing about the Relational Theory.
That sidesteps the true issue. Can you show where science has attempted to refute evolution, itself?
Evolution, insofar as the kind that would confute intelligent design, has never been demonstrated in an experimental environment.
But as for your question, here's one: why would Prigogine get a Nobel prize for his theories regarding self-organizing systems if there were not a prior philosophic commitment to finding a materialistic cause?
Furthermore, the invariable answer to the insolubles (my personal favorites are irreducible complexity and instinctive behavior) of evolutionary theory are ALWAYS a) you're religious, so you don't care about facts, b) we haven't figured that out yet, or c) offer up a scientific gnat as the basis for swallowing the theoretical camel.
I am absolutely convinced the systematic indoctrination of "evolution" is the sociological model being used to legitimize AGW.
I think there are two proper times to "play the abiogenesis card" as you put it.
First, if someone argues that the evidence for the theory of evolution implies that the question of how life came about without a super natural agent has been fully explained. I have heard this kind of equivocation before. There are certainly no shortage of naturalists to whom the "theory of evolution" when being examined to see if it holds up does not include abiogenesis. But before you can blink they will use it to as if it explained how life came about when arguing for naturalism. I am not going to ask such people to explain everything, I just ask them that if you are going to try to say that science has shown that life can come without supernatural help, you must include the evidence for the actual hard part of the problem.
The problem for the naturalist is interesting on this score. In Darwin's time the idea of abiogenesis seemed very plausible. Modern science has shown it not to be plausible, at the same time common origin has been shown to be plausible. Naturalism needs both to be true to support itself.
The second way that the card is reasonably "played" is simply as a stand a reason to be dubious about naturalism. It would not be fair to call it a disproof of naturalism, only as a reason to be dubious.
In neither "play" should one try to demand the naturalist have a theory of everything. Nor to make out that this is completely fatal to naturalism. It just makes naturalism seem less likely.
Naturalism is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one. Just as super naturalism is a philosophical theory. But scientific progress can be helpful or detrimental to philosophical theories sometimes. The theory of evolution has been helpful to Naturalism, but the discovery of the implausibility of abiogenesis and failure to replicate it in labs by people determined to do so is helpful to Super Naturalism.
>>That sidesteps the true issue. Can you show where science has attempted to refute evolution, itself?<<
TToE is indeed falsifiable. Where has science tried to refute it? The question is a non-sequiteur and betrays our ignorance. When has science attempted to refute physics? Biology? Mathematics? The question makes no sense,
>>Evolution, insofar as the kind that would confute intelligent design, has never been demonstrated in an experimental environment.<<
It has been shown many times — not quite sure what ID has to do with anything here. A simple example: flies which are denizens of the NY Subway system are unable to breed with flies in the upper world. They have evolved away from each other. Viruses are evolved all the time. Pests who become immune to pesticides evolve. ToE is a major tool in all these areas and more.
>>But as for your question, here’s one: why would Prigogine get a Nobel prize for his theories regarding self-organizing systems if there were not a prior philosophic commitment to finding a materialistic cause?<<
All science is in the material world. Science is a tool to explain the material world. If you want tools for other realms, use philosophy, theology, etc.
>>Furthermore, the invariable answer to the insolubles (my personal favorites are irreducible complexity and instinctive behavior) of evolutionary theory are ALWAYS a) you’re religious, so you don’t care about facts, b) we haven’t figured that out yet, or c) offer up a scientific gnat as the basis for swallowing the theoretical camel.<<
This is an argument absurdum. Start with the actual TToE as a basis for your argumentation. And before that start with an understanding of what a Scientific Theory is and the Scientific Method.
You need much knowledge, padwan.
I am not going to refight the crevo wars here so that is my last word on the subject.
You are truly daft - I’ve already supplied what you requested yet you refuse to see... Just go - really - go... I see know reason why anyone one this thread show waste time with you - I will not. ( you can claim victory in your mind - I’m willing to bet you do this often)
I suggest you study the Scopes Monkey trial, and understand that the roles have been flipped 180 degrees. Ironic really.
I CAN’T be ‘scientifically wrong’ or ‘scientifically right’, since its only an unproven theory.
>>n neither “play” should one try to demand the naturalist have a theory of everything. Nor to make out that this is completely fatal to naturalism. It just makes naturalism seem less likely.
Naturalism is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one.<<
Agree on all points. My arguments are always within TToE — Naturalism as a philosophy is neither my POV nor an area of my expertise.
To summarize: we live in a natural Universe that can be explained that runs by rules, but that Universe exists within something much, much larger and inexplicable. Inexplicable until you come to God through His Son.
>>I CAN’T be ‘scientifically wrong’ or ‘scientifically right’, since its only an unproven theory.
<<
Lean what a Scientific Theory is. They are neither proved nor unproved.
>>You are truly daft<<
For not buying logical fallacies? If you can’t meet my challenge (hint: you can’t) you really now end with the only arrow left in your quiver: ad hominem (a normal termination argument for people like you).
May you have a good and blessed evening.
Um...ok. I think you must live on a different planet than me.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
Yeah. Atheists always come out with “well what about dinosaurs?”
>>A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.<<
OK, that is confusing. You found it and quoted it — good. But you are standing by your “unproved” statement earlier? Or was it someone else (It does happen in these kinds of threads).
Do you see the incongruity?
confirmed = proved
I feel like I’m watching a Bill Clinton deposition.
>>confirmed = proved<<
Doesn’t change your statement. Where in the definition you posted (a quick summary btw and far from a full definition) do the concept of “confirmed, proved” or any other similar term even apply? These apply to NO theory.
You make no sense and speak in non sequiturs. You posted the definition, you posted the opinion. How does one fit with the other?
I feel like I am being interviewed by chrissie mathews or keith oberman.
>>Being an evolutionist, I presume you also an Darwinist.<<
Neither term exists, except in the minds of a scad few and even then there is no agreement as to their meaning.
>The term exists, except in the minds of a scad few who don’t like being called, or labeled, “evolutionist.”
>>The term exists, except in the minds of a scad few who don’t like being called, or labeled, “evolutionist.”<<
As I said, it has no agreed-upon meaning and is frequently an epithet. If by evolutionist, you mean a biological scientist who specializes in the field of evolution, fine. But you don’t mean that, do you?
As I said, no fixed meaning and thus non-existent.
Following the WORD tells the reader exactly how imperfect we flesh bodies are. The WORD is our instruction guide in how to receive the blessings and protection for the individual, family and nation. And the WORD tells us what God said would be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.