Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
You might chalk it up as just a mistake, since debates about religion would normally appear in a religion forum.
But the problem is that FR religion threads are held to very high standards of personal conduct -- no insults, no hint of profanity, etc. -- and anyone willing to defend the science of evolution is not likely to visit a religion forum where they are condemned as promoting a:
By contrast, "news-activism" forums usually allow more free-wheeling discourse, with blunter, rougher language -- language which might even approach in its mocking, insulting tone that of the article above.
And just in case we don't use such language here, then YHAOS has prepared a list of alleged insults against Christians from FOUR YEARS AGO to "prove" the point.
So, my guess is they classified it as News/Activism for the purpose of inviting folks like you and me to defend science, in the hopes of provoking us into language that is as insulting to them as their article above is to us.
Somehow, this makes them happier.
Having already considered those two possibilites, it seemed polite to pose the question and provide the opportunity for clarification if it was a simple mistake.
Defend Science? ... Bwahahahaha ... thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning!
Clearly, you do not. Or, perhaps more accurately, you choose not to.
“And in the FOUR YEARS since, you can produce no new quotes?”
In the above, you allege no new quotes, and you set the standard to be less than “FOUR YEARS.” Prove what you allege.
In the meantime, typical of the propagandist, you evade the serious remarks of Miz boop’s (in her post #175, this thread) to focus on the trivial. Let us see if you can address yourself to the remarks of Miz boop’s that you’ve left unanswered:
* Do you object to the “Universe” being portrayed as “the Creation,” and being characterized as a process that unfolds in space and time, from a beginning, progressively developing its potentialities as it “evolves.” Why?
* The Theory of Evolution is a biological theory. Do you object to the word “evolve” (in any of its derivations) being used in some other context? Why?
* Do you disagree with the proposition that randomness cannot serve as an organizational principle governing the evolutionary process?
* Do you disagree with the proposition that randomness cannot cease to be “random,” and actually evolve into “something”?
* Can you state, without equivocation, that the purpose of “Evolution” is to achieve “reproductive fitness”?
* Can you state, without equivocation, that Man is a “vicious predatory animal”? Why?
* It is at this point that Miz boop observes that “dogmatic, bitter-ender, materialist” Darwinists and “thoughtful” Christians cannot see “eye-to-eye” because they do not even stand on the same “ground of Being.” Do you agree or disagree?
* Miz boop goes on to observe that Christians (and I would add Judeo-Christians) do not believe the universe is a random development. Do you agree? Disagree?
* She states further that, “What I find truly fascinating is that recent findings in scientific physical cosmology seem to corroborate God's statements in Genesis 1.” Agree or disagree? Why?
Other than that, you’re doing great!
But you're not "anti-science", right?
I look forward to reading the answers to betty boop’s questions, dear YHAOS!
Don’t hold your breath.
“But you’re not “anti-science”, right?”
Spirited: There was a time when science was properly seen as a systematic search and acquisition of testable explanations concerning how things work here in this world. No one worshipped science, they did not make an idol of it, thus they would never consider an accusation against someone on the grounds of being “anti-science” as rational, certainly not sane.
Was that a “Yes”, or a “No”?
Indeed, I wandered into an evolution thread in the Religion forum a few days ago. I didn't realize where I was and violated the standards with my second post, as the mod was quick to point out. I usually look to see before I wade in.
Absolutely not! In fact I applaud Science for discovering the vagaries of God’s Creation! It’s an amazing piece of work for less than seven days in the making, don’tchathink?
Indeed. Which makes finding the idea of defending science being laughable at once seem very odd.
Which reminds me of something one of our departed evolution supporters was fond of posting: "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord." This is, I believe, the position of most "theistic evolutionists"--that evolution has proceeded throughout history more or less the way science has discovered, but none of it was any surprise to God, who knew exactly what to do to get the results He wanted.
I suspect that even atheistic evolutionists wouldn't object to substituting "unpredictable" for "random" (so long as it was understood that "unpredictable" doesn't mean "whimsical"). Another word I've heard used is "stochastic." The point being that there are some constraints on output imposed by input conditions, but nevertheless the specific output is unpredictable.
But it also seems to me that that offers an answer of sorts to betty's concern that randomness cannot produce its own organizational laws. If evolution is not truly random--if it has unpredictable but probabilistic outcomes, outcomes in fact that may be highly determined if we knew as much as God does, then perhaps the organizational laws can arise "on their own."
Obviously, both are true, and were recognized as such as early as St. Thomas Aquinas, who has been quoted several times on this thread.
But Aquinas insisted, and in his time it was true, that the two could not contradict each other -- that truth discovered by the senses must support truth revealed by the Bible.
But within a few hundred years that claim was challenged on several specifics, most famously by Galileo, and since then on many more specifics.
One of those specifics is evolution theory, for which the Catholic Church, at least, has made the obvious accommodation, choosing to accept what's called "theistic evolutionism" meaning: whatever science may claim about "random" mutations, it's obvious that G*d directs the entire process, from alpha to omega.
This seems to me entirely reasonable and faithful to both the Bible's account of Creation, and the various theories (i.e., Big Bang, evolution, radiometric dating, etc.) advanced by science.
So, what exactly is your problem with it?
Sorry, I intended to address you all in my previous post, so feel free to respond... ;-)
I couldn't find a word in your post #170 to disagree with, FRiend.
That is also how I see it, FRiend.
FRiend, I have no idea, merely quoted from the article above.
I share your admiration for CS Lewis, but have not by any means read all his works, and so assume he may have said some things I'm not familiar with.
So I would invite you to contemplate both sides of the question: first, what if the article's quote is more-or-less accurate and Lewis did intend to mean what it says?
And second, what if the quote is highly distortive of Lewis' real outlook on science in general and evolution theory in specific?
If the quote is accurate (which I rather doubt) then it means Lewis blamed science for problems which I think have other roots.
But if the quote is inaccurate, then what does that tell us about the article's author?
betty boop: "Would you kindly give me the cite for the above statement?"
I simply copied and pasted those words from the above article, 5th paragraph from the bottom.
betty boop: "The Darwinian claim that Christians find objectionable is that evolution is fundamentally a random process.
This is not to say Christians deny that there is a certain amount of randomness in nature."
Exactly, and I refer you to "chaos theory" with its "butterfly effects" and "strange attractors".
What these tell us is that even scientifically, what appear to be "random" events are in fact, not so "random" after all.
But that's all science itself can say.
Theologically of course, we believe that even in those cases where it seems that "G*d plays dice", G*d's "dice" are always loaded to produce the results He intends.
betty boop: "Darwin's theory is not a theory of the origin of biological beings (i.e., the origin of life); it is a theory about how existent beings change morphologically, or speciate, over time."
Darwin's book is titled, "Origin of Species", not "Origin of Life", and indeed, so far as I can tell, we are not really any closer to unraveling the origin of life today than was Darwin himself 150 years ago -- lots of interesting hypotheses, no confirmed theories.
betty boop: "Thus we are left with the squishy proposition that the natural environment, which is itself ever changing, acts on a random flux of biological possibilities, for the purpose of — selecting for reproductive fitness.
How banal a final cause could there be than that?"
But, really, that is all that science itself can tell us, because once you begin positing that G*d intends this or that, now you have left the lowly realm of science and climbed up to the upper reaches of theology.
And that's the point I've been hoping to make here all along: by definition of the term, "science" is restricted to natural causes for natural processes, period.
Once you climb above that, it's not "science" any more, but theology, philosophy or one of those other big words. ;-)
betty boop: " 'Survival of the fittest' is a final cause, though a rather puny, paltry one.
I doubt many Darwinists would ever admit this, of course.
Just as they reject out of hand the idea there could possibly be "design" in nature, even if it very much looks like there IS design in nature."
First, I'm sure you know that Darwin himself did not coin the term "survival of the fittest", and when he finally did use it, it was as a synonym for "natural selection".
Second, any scientist worth his or her salt should be both humble enough and informed enough to know precisely where the scientific enterprise ends, and theological (philosophical, religious, etc.) beliefs begin.
To see a purpose in nature is simply beyond the scope of science, and I have argued and will argue: that's the way it should be!
If you doubt me, then just imagine for a moment that somehow or other science comes up with "proof of G*d", but it's not our G*d, it's Thor or Zeus or Zarathustra!
Obviously, that cannot happen, it will not happen, and that's just one reason why science must stay the h*ck out of religion.
betty boop: "So they say this is just "apparent" design.
Which is like saying that nature is engaged in a full-time job of fooling us; and yet Darwinists still place their faith in natural selection, even though nature itself has no lawful principle to stand on that Darwin's theory bothers to elucidate; and which seems to play the jokester in this "apparent design" business."
Once again, you must imagine that there are strict boundaries to "science", and indeed picture a cage all around science, and now make it a small cage, and now imagine that cage ever day is getting smaller and smaller.
And the scientists cannot get out of it!
But you can, and I can, and really so can they, if and only if they abandon the word "science".
That's the deal.
betty boop: "Notwithstanding all of the above, a whole lot of people out there think Darwin's theory is the sine qua non biological theory!
Worse than that, they believe it is a theory of man."
Sorry, but the simple fact is that evolution theory is absolutely, positively essential to biology, and is confirmed by findings in virtually every other branch of science.
In short, if evolution (and all it implies scientifically) is wrong, then all of science is "junk science", and I doubt highly that is the case.
And sorry again, but I've never heard of a scientific "theory of man".
Yes, in history we have a "great man theory", but that's as close as I've ever seen.
betty boop: "Contrast the characterization of man as a "vicious predatory animal"
The fact is that our ancient ancestors were quite proud and sang long songs about their prowess in both hunting and warfare.
They needed no excuses beyond hunger to go hunting and very little more for war: Helen, the face that launched a thousand ships.
Sure they could be tender and gentle, as wrathful Achilles doubtless was to his war-trophy Briseis -- he considered her his wife and she regarded Achilles as her husband, even though she had no doubt been originally abducted and raped.
betty boop: "It is just on that point that I aver that Darwin's theory is a very great lie, in that it falsifies not only the order of nature, but the order of man and society."
But that's the point you must grasp: it's not a "lie", but simply the working assumption of the scientific enterprise, which assumption strictly defines the dividing line between what is and what is not "science".
Of course, anyone including scientists are perfectly free to ask and answer questions beyond the limits of science, just don't pretend those are science.
betty boop: "Generally, Christians do not believe the universe is a random development."
"Generally?" No, no... absolutely.
If you cannot bring yourself to believe that G*d created the Universe, seriously, how can you call yourself "Christian".
I'd call that a first principle.
betty boop: "I could wish that modern-day biologists were so "open-minded."
As I've pointed out now many times, many scientists are also devout Christians, Jews or other religions which accept a Creator.
They don't have the problems you identify here.
BroJoeK: If the quote is accurate (which I rather doubt) then it means Lewis blamed science for problems which I think have other roots.
But if the quote is inaccurate, then what does that tell us about the article’s author?
Spirited: If evolution is the gradual linear and cumulative change of one kind of organism into another kind (macroevolution), the fossil record itself illustrates that evolution has not occurred. Nor has anyone ever observed it happening. Thus it is not difficult to see that evolution has achieved the status of a religion in western society.
The British moral philosopher Mary Midgely agrees. She described Evolution as a powerfully seductive creation myth, a religious experience on an escalator that begins at the bottom and smoothly progresses ever upward to Teilhard’s Hindu-pantheist Omega conception. Midgely asserts that the theory of evolution is not just an inert piece of theoretical science but is also a powerful folk tale about human origins.
Charles Darwin received this folk tale—the idea of evolution—from his grandfather Dr. Erasmus Darwin, a pantheist known to attend séances. As master of the famous Masonic Canongate lodge in Edinburgh he had close ties with both the Jacobin Masons, the organizers of the bloody revolution in France, and with the infamous Illuminati, whose diabolical cause was overthrow of the Church and destruction of Christendom. Thus Erasmus Darwin was an important name in European Masonic anti-religious organizations (where Lucifer was called the seething energy of evolution) engaged in revolutionary activism. Erasmus Darwin mentored his grandson Charles:
“Dr. Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802) was the first man in England to suggest those ideas which were later to be embodied in the Darwinian theory by his grandson, Charles Darwin (1809-1882) who wrote in 1859 Origin of Species.” (Scarlet and the Beast, Vol. II, John Daniel, p. 34)
It is more than obvious BroJoeK, that the essay under discussion not only offends your sensibilities but deeply disturbs them as well. So desperate are you to persuade yourself and betty that CS Lewis surely did not mean what he said that you are trying to cast aspersions onto the author and lead betty into joining with you in your unholy enterprise.
But why stop at Lewis, BroJoeK? Why not persuade yourself and others that Jonathan Tennenbaum, T. Rosazak, Henry Osborn, Michael Ruse and Mary Midgely didn’t mean what they said either?
LOLOL!
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.