Posted on 04/05/2009 8:10:35 PM PDT by betty boop
Rejection of natural selection, methodological naturalism, and acceptance of occult pantheism is not what is happening in the scientific community.
Nature is rational and predictable, this in no way suggests that I do not have faith in Jesus the Christ or am dependent upon magical thinking.
It is those that suggest that nature needs some sort of helping hand to keep things moving that are engaging in magical thinking.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
snip: I think your problem is with the definition of predictable.
If I state that the sun will come up tomorrow is that a prediction or an observation? I would call it an observation that the earth is spinning. If I state that you will die at some time in the future, again, is that on observation or prediction? I would call that an observation that everyone dies.
Spirited: You are cutting hairs. To predict is to foretell events. We can only foretell events-—however imperfectly— because past (historic) observations have fallen into certain patterns, thus allowing us to predict. If Darwinism is paradoxically true and all things happen by chance, then it stands to reason that the sun for instance, ought to behave erratically rather than predicatably.
snip: With that definition in place, is Darwinism (and Science in General) based on prediction or observation
Spirited: Darwinism needs to be separated from true science, for Darwinism is in fact an ‘anti-creation mythos’ based on a miraculous event-—life spontaneously created itself from nothing— that occurred long before time began. All who believe in Darwinism-—as you do-— do so by faith-—blind faith.
Of course, but we are talking about two different definitions of predictions. The hallmark of science is that observations are replicable. That is if it is observed that the earth is spinning, then sunrise times are predictable. F=MA means that the trajectory of a bullet is predictable. These are all predictions based on observations of what is.
Religion on the other hand uses the term prediction and prophecy synonymously. These 'predictions' are not replicable and may not even be observable.
We are using terms that don't mean the same thing between the scientific and religious uses of the words.
Prophecy is MUCH more vague, something along the lines of “Sometime in the future, after event A, event B will happen” with both A and B being rather vague.
Science is predictive not just on things that have already been observed, but also allows one to hypothesize the existence of factors that have NOT been observed.
Observation tells me that the Sun will come up where I am sometime around 6 am local time. That observation is not dependent upon me having any understanding of gravity.
An understanding of gravity however will allow me to predict the orbital velocity of a hypothetical object placed in a known orbital distance from a known mass.
That isn't the religious definition of prediction. Religious predictions are from faith.
If Darwinism is paradoxically true and all things happen by chance, then it stands to reason that the sun for instance, ought to behave erratically rather than predicatably.
The observation is that the Earth is spinning and that it will continue to spin unless acted upon by an outside force. That observation allows predictions to be made from general observations to specifics. The same applies to the theory of evolution, it allows specific predictions following general observations.
Darwinism needs to be separated from true science, for Darwinism is in fact an anti-creation mythos based on a miraculous event-life spontaneously created itself from nothing that occurred long before time began. All who believe in Darwinism-as you do- do so by faith-blind faith.
That is simply a straw man argument.
The theory of evolution doesn't say anything about the origin of life and it doesn't attempt to explain it. Similarly the theory of relativity doesn't say anything the origin of the Universe or attempt to explain it.
Such relations are not "material" in any way; they are not "physical." What they are, is: Phenomenal (i.e., are capable of being modeled and evaluated on the basis of evidence). And as such, seem like proper subject matter for science to me. Provided there is a willingness to slip out of the straightjacket of the "mechanistic model" for a time, if only hypothetically....
Until/unless biologists are willing to do this, a prediction: The creation of a living organism from non-living matter will remain the pious yet ever elusive pipedream of doctrinaire Newtonians.
Historically, some biologists sought to make biology an island of scientific investigation - as if to isolate themselves because they did not accept the relevance of physics and especially, mathematics. To paraphrase Pattee, "we have the facts, we don't need the theory."
Information Theory, btw, is a branch of Mathematics - and Mathematics is not a Science.
Even so, Physics and Mathematics image each other, e.g. Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics (Wigner)
As the "biology is an island" mentality gives way to the big picture (and I believe it must) - then I do expect the biologists' Newtonian paradigm to give space to Quantum Field Theory and Relativity - and the biologists' physicality to give space to mathematics especially information theory (Shannon), geometry (form, mirror imaging et al) and theories of complexity.
We already see this in the successful application of Shannon's theory in pharmaceutical and cancer research.
I don't believe it will be long before the biologists become as interested in the rise of autonomy, form (geometry), semiosis and complexity as the mathematicians and physicists.
Again, that is from the general to the specific. Einstein predicted, based on his observation that space-time was curved that light would follow that curvature. Then scientists went out and verified that 'prediction/observation'. In science the two terms go together, they don't in religious usage.
But yes, I agree. Prediction in science is not prophecy.
Prediction is based upon factors that anyone can know and understand. Prophecy is based upon someone receiving a legitimate revelation from God.
All of the foregoing not only shows the glaring contraditions inherent in Darwinism, but its need for magic-thinking and self-delusion.
Excellent post! The entire premise of Darwinism is predicated upon the absurd assumption that all sorts of random particles began to interact with each other one day and everything seemed to turn out okay because we are here today.
The irony is that the people who believe this worship science and everything we know about science tells us that the likelihood of everything going wrong is almost infinitely higher than everything turning out alright.
But ultimately, Darwinism has NOTHING to do with science or evolution or how the universe came about or anything else that they purport to care about. Darwinism is nothing more than an atheistic attempt to prove that nothing is more powerful than mankind's intellect and that those with the most "advanced" intellects somehow "deserve" to rule over the "lesser" intellects.
Man is not the measure of God.
The irony is that the people who believe this worship science and everything we know about science tells us that the likelihood of everything going wrong is almost infinitely higher than everything turning out alright.
snip... Religious predictions are from faith.
Spirited: I see we are agreed. Just as my predictions are from faith, so too are yours. I however, have no problem admitting this truth. You on the other hand, believe that what you believe is somehow ‘empirical’-—within the sensory realm-—when in fact, beliefs, presuppositions, assumptions, ideas, primary numbers, theories, reason-—all exist in the unseen (metaphysical) realm. Yet you persist in believing that what you believe magically exists in the sensory realm. There’s a term that describes this condition: cognitive dissonance.
snip: The theory of evolution doesn’t say anything about the origin of life and it doesn’t attempt to explain it. Similarly the theory of relativity doesn’t say anything the origin of the Universe or attempt to explain it.
Spirited: Indeed it does not. In this it is in accord with all ancient pagan mythos, as it would be, for Naturalism is but neo-paganism revised, revamped, and made palateable to certain Westerners-—those who are offended by mans’ transcendant Creator and His universal moral law.
Americas’ founding Christian worldview, which bequeathed to man the most enlightened definintion of man this long-suffering world has ever known, has been pushed aside and replaced by the anti-creation mythos of scientistic Darwinism and its dehumanized, debauched view of ‘unman’, the soulless meat machine. And we wonder why our political class ignores us and does whatever it wants to do.
snip: The entire premise of Darwinism is predicated upon the absurd assumption that all sorts of random particles began to interact with each other one day and everything seemed to turn out okay because we are here today.
Spirited: Yes, and where did these particles come from? For that matter, ‘what was it’ in which they suddenly materialized? Not only are we to believe that nonlifebearing, noncognitive matter spontaneously-—but accidentally, of course— generated itself, but that life, time, cognition, laws, and all else eventually emerged out of it. Begin this improbable tale with “Once upon a time” and suddenly it comes into focus as what it really is: a fairytale for angry, rebellious adults.
Very true.
Can you provide a single, accurate, verifiable prophecy that has occurred?
I have issued this challenge a number of times and no one has ever succeeded in providing that prophecy.
LOL Yes through my senses I can observe reality. You on the other hand are insisting that you are aware of another reality not accessible by our senses. Can you say projection?
SOMETHING GOOD, THAT IS... '-)
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.