Posted on 12/19/2004 5:19:27 PM PST by bondserv
> What evidence does evolutionism provide for the arrangment and existence of information, i.e. how information comes into being?
Two simpl,e sources off the top of my head:
1: Replication errors leading to the redundant rreplication of genes
2: Direct insertion of genetic material into an existing gene stand by wayt of retrovirii (it's how they reproduce)
The arguement that information cannot be added is bunk.
> What is the probablity of information arising completely apart from intelligence or design?
One chance in one.
> What is the probability of an automobile arising apart from intelligence or design?
An automobile is a vastly more complex item than a self-assembling organic molecule. There's not a protein in the world that would take as long to describe in detail as, say, a single spark plug.
Your history is selective and simplistic.
Paul was not a "Platonist".
There was an Aristotelian thread and a Platonist thread in Christian thought from early on.
Aristotle himself was lost to the West for a while -- not because of some mythical "stranglehold" but because of the cultural disaster called the fall of Rome, which took centuries to recover from.
Greek was preserved by CHristian and Moslem scholars, then Aristotle was translated into Latin. The church set about incorporating Aristotle but Islam finally rejected him.
Aristotle was propogated, debated, and refined by Christian academics. There was at least two related but distinct debates going on concurrently: Platonic metaphysics vs. Aristotelian metaphysics, and Aristotelian logic vs. Aristotle's content. BOTH these debates occurred within Christendom.
Much of the tension over empirical methods was a debate between Aristotle and Aristotle: the implications of Aristotle's logic versus Aristotle's earlier "observations".
None of this is to say there was NO resistance on the part of the church to scientific conclusions which seemed to contradict scripture -- there was, but recognize that huge debates which CONTRIBUTED to the elaboration of the scientific method took place within the church, among men who were devoted sons of the church, and germinating scientists.
> Your history is selective and simplistic.
I'm sorry I'm not sufficiently "nuanced" for you.
>huge debates which CONTRIBUTED to the elaboration of the scientific method took place within the church, among men who were devoted sons of the church, and germinating scientists.
I'm not argueing that. But the claim that science was born of Christianity is just plain nonsense. If science was wholly compatible with the teachings of Christianity, it would not have taken 1200 years for Christendom to throw off the worst aspects of pagan Greek metaphysics.
And then, this:
"if science was wholly compatible with the teachings of Christianity, it would not have taken 1200 years for Christendom to throw off the worst aspects of pagan Greek metaphysics."
is a MAGNIFICENT non-sequitor.
What "pagan metaphysics" are you talking about? What official pronouncements of Christianity embody them? And precisely when did Christianity "throw off" said metaphysics? What were the good parts of pagan metaphysics?
And by the way -- what METAPHYSICAL conclusions does "science" demand? Were either Plato OR Aristotle materialists?
> What "pagan metaphysics" are you talking about?
The crap Plato came up with (the world can be better known through thinking about it than via experimentation). The Ptolomeic view of the universe that held sway in the Church until Copernicus and Galileo rediscovered what Greeks such as Aristarchos already surmised. The idea that mankind was created by a god or gods.
> And precisely when did Christianity "throw off" said metaphysics?
When did Christians accept that the Earth ain't the center of things? There is no one answer. Some Christians accepted that from the days of Galileo and Copernicus. Others took a little longer. Some still ahven't thrown off the shackles of Poofism, as can be amply seen in these threads.
> What were the good parts of pagan metaphysics?
I can't honestly come up with any good parts of "any" metaphysics. Physics is to metaphysics what astronomy is to astrology.
> Were either Plato OR Aristotle materialists?
No. That's why it's a shame that the early Church selected *them* rather than the likes of Aristarchos or, even better, Archimedes. Some yahoo who ponders the shapes of shadows on a cave wall is a midget next to someone who does actual experimentation.
You're an empiricist, and a materialist. You think the only valid knowledge is what is produced by experimentation. You think science will save the human race.
Good luck with all that.
You may be a good scientist (but only if you value "nuance" more than you just exhibited), but you're a fuzzy thinker, and a lazy historian.
> You think the only valid knowledge is what is produced by experimentation.
Anything else is unsubstantiated guesswork. If I decide that there is, say, a purple mansion on the other side of the next hill, based on nothing other than I just think it's there... that is not "knowledge." Only when I go and take a look will there be knowledge.
> You think science will save the human race.
If mankind has a future, it's because science will provide it. We will not colonize the universe by wishing real hard.
> but you're a fuzzy thinker, and a lazy historian.
I'm hurt. Truly I am. Imagine the utter depths of my pain and agony that you think that way of me.
As ususal, accurate and well-documented.
I can understand the embarrassment Hitler causes you evolutionists. Rather than mindlessly invoke the mindless Godwin, you folks would do well to admit that social darwinism is an undesirable consequence of atheistic evolution. That's really all you need to do.
Regarding Godwin, his principle is meaningless since the longer a thread continues, the more likely any subject will be raised. So selectively using it to avoid the Hitler embarrassment is intellectually dishonest. You evolutionists wouldn't want to get a reputation of being intellectually dishonest, would you?
As usual, I stand in awe of your scientific, though evolutionary, mind.
Hitler never mentioned Darwin. He claimed to be a Christian. The slogan was "Gott Mitt Uns" not "Darwin Mitt Uns."
What, other than physical survival, is the content in your word "future"?
So, in your scientific opinion, Hitler NEVER mentioned darwin. How could you KNOW that? The same way you know that evolution happened?
How, then, did the Nazis manage to hold that the Jews were less evolved than the mythical Aryans?
Was it against the poor, maligned Adolf's will?
How could the notion of a Master Race exist without a commitment to evolution?
BTW, did Hitler mention which Gott to which the slogan referred? The slogan was nothing but propaganda (you do believe that the Nazis were propagandists, don't you?). Or did Hitler never use the word "propaganda?"
I don't have any idea whether he did or not, but I am informed that the only source of knowledge is experimentation. I am about to test that hypothesis.
> How, then, did the Nazis manage to hold that the Jews were less evolved than the mythical Aryans?
The Nazis did not claim that the Jews were less "evolved" than the mythical Aryans... they claimed that the Jews were *made* that way, that they were a separate and lesser creation.
I read his book and others.
How, then, did the Nazis manage to hold that the Jews were less evolved than the mythical Aryans?
The claim was that Jews were created differently.
Hitler considered himself to be a Catholic. Most people think he failed in this.
Do you care to re-phrase that?
bump
LOL indeed. You are the funny one.
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.