“The theory of evolution, as Darwin first formulated it, and as it has been refined in the ~170 years since, works very well as a framework for biological investigation. If it didn’t, we (scientists) would have ditched it... just like we abandon every theory that turns out to be incorrect.”
Spirited: First of all, evolutionism is not empirical science, as even Karl Popper was honest enough to admit:
“Imagine There’s No God-—only evolution” http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/2787047/posts
Evolutionism, whether a spiritual concept such as Teilhard’s or a material concept such as Darwins’ is a metaphysical program purpotedly answering the ultimate question of origins. However, it ultimately implodes into nihilism.
Next, the taproot of Darwin’s concept stretches back to the most ancient evolutionary conception so far translated, that is the Enuma Elish.
Man is fully capable of deceiving himself and deceiving others. And when men do not want the true, living God to exist they inevitably turn to evolutionary conceptions and then mock, scoff, and belittle those who refuse to follow them into their folly.
betty: The fact is I am losing patience with trying to engage with people who do not live in the same world that I do, who speak an entirely different language, who think like machines. (I am not a machine!) This being the case, real communication is impossible.
Spirited: “It is better for a man to meet a bear robbed of her whelps, than a fool in his folly.” Proverbs 17:12
Lacking free will a bear does what a bear must do. Fools freely choose folly and then rationalize on its’ behalf.
Spirited: First of all, evolutionism is not empirical science, as even Karl Popper was honest enough to admit: “Imagine There’s No God-—only evolution” http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/2787047/posts
And who is Karl Popper? Is he some great biologist, who discovered some seminal concepts of biology that help to shape the study of biological science as we practice it today?
No, according to Wikipedia, he was a philosopher trained in psychology, who worked at an economics school. Why should some non-scientist's philosophical musings hold more weight than the observations of actual scientists?
Evolutionism, whether a spiritual concept such as Teilhard’s or a material concept such as Darwins’ is a metaphysical program purpotedly answering the ultimate question of origins. However, it ultimately implodes into nihilism.
Next, the taproot of Darwin’s concept stretches back to the most ancient evolutionary conception so far translated, that is the Enuma Elish.
Man is fully capable of deceiving himself and deceiving others. And when men do not want the true, living God to exist they inevitably turn to evolutionary conceptions and then mock, scoff, and belittle those who refuse to follow them into their folly.
This, in a nutshell, is why I jump into the creationist threads. I honestly don't care how anti-science you are, as long as your brand of anti-science doesn't kill people. But it is *extremely* annoying that literal creationists have to invent religions that they then claim scientists all adhere to. You have no proof whatsoever that scientists follow whatever your imaginary religion is, whether you call it "evolutionism" or something else, yet you have no compunctions whatsoever about categorizing us as devotees of that religion.
I believe that that practice is an example of bearing false witness. That's breaking one of the ten commandments, isn't it?
If you have concrete evidence that science is, in fact, just another religion, and that performing experiments is no different than worshipping in a church, present that evidence. Don't go around quoting obscure philosophers as "proof" of your claim that scientists are practicing some oddball religion, because it is not. Proof, in this case, would be a survey of a random sample of scientists large enough to be sure the sample is statistically significant.
As long as you're providing proof that we follow your invented religion, how about also providing proof that you know anything about our motives for becoming scientists? Nothing you said indicates that you have any clue about that, either, although that didn't stop you from saying nonsense about it.
I don't care what your motives are, but lying or repeating lies about people you know nothing about is a sin.