Darwin Among the Believers (theory of evolution crucial for many fields)

Tech Central Station ^ | 07/22/2005 | Frederick Turner

[johnnyb_61820]

"Evolution and cosmology reach conclusions that conflict with certain specific statements in the Bible, and a subset of Christians find this unacceptable." Be sure to separate out "reaching conclusions" from "making presuppositions". Stephen Hawking's work on the Big Bang starts from the _assumption_ that, although observational data points to the Milky Way as being the center of the Universe, we must reject that on philosophical grounds and come up with a cosmology that rejects that. As George Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."(quoted from http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ quoting from a Scientific American profile on George Ellis). Likewise, Cornelius Hunter demonstrates the philosophical presuppositions of Darwinists in Darwin's God. People are not often aware of the assumptions underlying the conclusions, or even know which are assumptions and which are conclusions. Knowing where someone is coming from is just as important as knowing where they are going.

[Dimensio]

ID bias. Your tools are all ID based. How do you ensure that this fact doesn't taint your results?

How would this "fact" taint the results? Be specific.

No shred of evidence? Anytime that someone starts with a basic premise that ID should automatically be discounted, then the result very much reflects the conclusions.

Again, you fail to demonstrate your assertions. You merely make the same blanket assertion sans evidence.

[PatrickHenry]

Creationism first corrupts the mind; then -- by requiring denial of reality and constant lies -- it destroys the soul. Creationism is more than an embarrassing problem for conservatism; it's the sworn enemy of reason, and therefore it's a cancer on Western Civilization.

[b_sharp]

"The left or right? Or are you a middle-of-the roader?"

Those chickens that travel the middle-of-the-road end up getting run over.

[b_sharp]

"ID bias. Your tools are all ID based. How do you ensure that this fact doesn't taint your results? "

"Darwinism has to stand totally in a separate domain from that if ID"

You have done two things here that are logically suspect.

You are conflating the tools and processes used in science to simplify experimentation with the formalized attempt to identify potentially intelligently created phenomena. Just because ID can use the same techniques as other science does not mean that the techniques are ID.

You attempt to create a syllogism using the above false premise.

[b_sharp]

"People are not often aware of the assumptions underlying the conclusions, or even know which are assumptions and which are conclusions."

Do you bother to critically examine the philosophies of the authors you quote?

[chariotdriver]

I should have phrased my original statement better but in your case I'm not sure how much difference that would have made. Actually I don't reject both evolution and Biblical creationism like you think.

Your all over the place with a lot of things. Your writings reveal a lot of assumptions about me and presuppositions for you.

I am not a religious person. I don't think the Hindu description any more absurd than the Buddhist or Biblical. and I have read them all.

I'll just leave it at this. Whether Chariot chooses too or fails to convince-demonstrate anything to Dimensio is only a reflection of Chariots choices or abilities.

Now my original statement still stands (rephrased) and that is that the only thing more absurd than the idea that all of the universe and infinity life, and how man got here, what he is about etc with GOD, Is the idea that it all happened and is there without GOD.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

[csense]

Creationism first corrupts the mind; then -- by requiring denial of reality and constant lies -- it destroys the soul. Creationism is more than an embarrassing problem for conservatism; it's the sworn enemy of reason, and therefore it's a cancer on Western Civilization.

...Speaking of embarrasing problems, not to mention behavior, care to explain to me just what your logical basis is for assuming the existence of a soul absent special creation?

[dread78645]

I don't believe in evolution. Understanding the theory is crucial, not the belief. I still had to learn it to pass college biology but no prof is going to convince me I'm descended from a chimp.

Interesting.

Did your Priest / Pastor / Minister convince you that you're descended from dirt?
Maybe you can get your degree from them.

(BTW not 'descended from a chimp.' but rather :'I and chimpanzees share a common ancestor'.
They're your cousins)

[dread78645]

... the evidence of shared endogenous retroviruses ...

Hey! Watch your language in front of the youngsters.

[csense]

Interesting.

Did your Priest / Pastor / Minister convince you that you're descended from dirt? Maybe you can get your degree from them.

Yes....this response is very interesting in light of Patrick Henry's statement on reason, since,essentially, it is the view of science, and in particular, biology, that organic compounds such as carbohydrates, ammonia, quinones, amino acids, lipids, glyceraldehydes, and globulins, were synthesized from frozen protoplanetary nebulous dust.

It seems both our positions require a handful of dust, and arguably, a certain level of faith....although in your case, you can pretty much, quite literally, say that you're descended from dirt.

You should construct your pejorative arrows with a little more thought next time. Hopefully though, you'll decide just to be reasonable and not only show a little class, but display this enlightening command of reason I keep hearing about.

[dread78645]

... get a poodle full stop.

Which wouldn't be a bad thing.

[Physicist]

As George Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."

I'm not sure that Ellis's assertion still holds in the face of recent observations. If the Milky Way were at the center of a spherically symmetric distribution of matter, we would observe the outward velocities of the distant galaxies to be slowing down over the lifetime of the universe, but that's not what we see. They're speeding up.

Furthermore, while the universe would be geometrically flat here in the Milky Way, it would not be at the largest scales, because the universe as we see it (i.e., our Hubble volume) is very close to its own black hole density. Just recently we have been able to measure the geometry of our universe on the largest scale, and it's exquisitely flat.

Finally, I know of no model that gives you both a spherically symmetric distribution of matter AND a cosmic microwave background with the properties we observe. That's an extremely difficult hurdle for the model to face, as the Big Bang model gives an incredibly detailed, quantitative prediction for the structure of the CMB, which is borne out by detailed measurements. The spherically symmetric model as to do at least as good a job of reproducing that before anyone is under any obligation to take it seriously.

But don't worry: I waive all of those objections ,because they don't affect the statement of mine you quoted. Even that spherically symmetric distribution, insofar as it matches a bare handful of the observational facts of the universe, conflicts irreconcilably with the cosmology of Genesis. My comment still stands.

[dread78645]

... Now, some people argue that evolution and the Big Bang theories are "atheistic" in that they deny the existence of deities. ...

Which would be incorrect.

Evolution will occur with or without a god. In that sense it's agnostic.

The Cosmic Egg (big-bang) theory, on the other hand, was proposed by a Jesuit priest, Georges Lemaître, to counter the prevailing belief of a steady-state universe.
A universe with a beginning (and presumably an end) was welcomed by many religious groups that felt that a eternal, infinite, always-was and always-will-be universe left no room for God.

It wasn't until 1948 when the work of Alpher, Gamow, and Herman showed that a god is irrelevant to making a such a universe. So the "big-bang" universe is also agnostic.

[dread78645]

> Did your Priest / Pastor / Minister convince you that you're descended from dirt? Maybe you can get your degree from them.

... You should construct your pejorative arrows with a little more thought next time. Hopefully though, you'll decide just to be reasonable and not only show a little class, but display this enlightening command of reason I keep hearing about.

And hopefully, you might understand the argument first.

The point (that you missed) was that you learn chemistry from chemists, biology from biologists, and physics from physicists.

If you reject the teaching of the professor in his field, instead holding to a teaching of a religious leader, then maybe you ought to study for a theology degree.

[PatrickHenry]

Speaking of embarrasing problems, not to mention behavior, care to explain to me just what your logical basis is for ...

I see that you are a creationist. That's your choice; fine with me. But to answer your question ... No, I don't care to explain to you. I no longer take the time for such futilities. I do, however, present information from time to time, which is available to everyone. That's all I can do for you.

[chariotdriver]

There is no Cosmic Egg (big-bang) universe there is no steady-state universe.

I don't know who your Alpher, Gamow, and Herman are but I reject their work (as I reject the work of the best minds in the 3rd Reich when they concluded that Jews were sub-human).

But you go onto them if that is what you will. And I hope I will go onto the word of God.

[PatrickHenry]

Just let it go ...

[b_sharp]

"There is no Cosmic Egg (big-bang) universe there is no steady-state universe.

"I don't know who your Alpher, Gamow, and Herman are but I reject their work (as I reject the work of the best minds in the 3rd Reich when they concluded that Jews were sub-human).

The implication in this is that those scientists and mathematicians are related to the scientists of the 3rd Reich and by some sort of twisted association in your mind are as evil as well.

Because you feel them to be evil, thus falsifying their science, this allows you to justify making the statement - 'I reject your reality and substitute my own'.