the rules in science

As mentioned many times, it is the point that there is no evidence of the spiritual realm. It is the point that there is no evidence for good or evil. Faith is the point, freedom is the point.The original sin is when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That tree now is evolution theory, with it's assumptions about morality. That you insist on evidence, means evolution theory is your morality.

Adam and Eve are a tribal myth. So is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (When it comes to tribal myths I prefer the Coyote stories myself. They are at least entertaining. Would you like me to post some for your edification and amusement?)"Original sin" is one of the silliest concepts ever cooked up by religion. I can see why it was done though--to keep people under the domination of the shamans. If people are inherently sinful, they need the shamans to intercede for them. (Does the expression "whole cloth" mean anything to you?) More nonsense. Do you realize that many or most of those who are convinced by the evidence supporting the theory of evolution already have a religious faith, and that the two are not in any way the same?(Where do you get this stuff?)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Debating with you is like arguing with a parrot. Albeit a parrot with an impressive vocabulary by general parrot standards.
You make some assertions. People reply with questions, points and even refutations. You ignore the questions, points and refutations to re-assert your original assertion. You might even add a couple more assertions based on your original ones. People reply with more questions, points and refutations. You ignore all of these questions, points and refutations. You then reword your various assertions......And so it goes on.I will not be rejoining this particular merry go round. But I do want to point out one thing. No example of any research where science professes to conclude any form of preferred morality has been cited by Syamsu. The problem he is so fearful of seems to exist only in his head.Science can and does study how human morality has evolved and with this seeks to explain the morality that humans are found to actually have or have had in different cultures and at various times in the past. Both of these are fully able to be investigated by empirical means.However I have yet to see any scientific research into the morality that we "ought" to have on the basis that it is "good" or "better". These things are not empirically determinable. However that is hardly cause to give them the meaningless label of "spiritual realm" to provide some sort of false seperation.There is no "rule". Just the limitation of science to study the empirical.Scientists like all humans will have moral values and views. I would speculate that scientists and advocates of science in general are more likely to be moral relatavists than absolutists in fact. If true this would rather refute Syamasu's ongoing assertion that all scientists necessarily believe in some sort of rigid objectified deterministically mechanistically derived inhumane form of morality based on his misconceptions of evolutionary theory and the phrase "survival of the fittest".Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You should not abuse my freedom, by misusing religious mythology to try to force on me what ought and ought not.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Right, my argument is very simple, it's also tradition within science, because it is the main idea which occasioned the scientific revolution. You have no argument, there are a great many scientists who obey this rule in science, they are not unscientific, it is the right thing to do. Your evolutionist ideas about blind, pitiless indifference are pseudoscience, obviously.

I am saying the ought and ought nots are free, you are saying they are evolutionist morality, or something like that.I don't know precisely what pseudoscientific morality you espouse, and I don't have to know precisely to accuse you. I can see that you don't acknowledge a separate category from the material. So then if you don't acknowledge a separate category, then therefore your morality is material, because then all you acknowledge is material, and all material things are subject to science, and therefore you have a pseudoscience of morality.And as before, insisting on scientific evidence for the spiritual as you people do, means insisting on a science of good and evil. So we can know that you are all pseudoscientists, eventhough it's rather vague what each of you individual perversity specifically says.

The believers that accept evolution do so on the basis of the understanding that the spritual decides everything. Like so, in between the alternatives of there coming to be an elephant, and there not coming to be an elephant, it was decided from the spirit that there would be elephants. A believer will always look to every single last thing in terms of freedom, here the freedom between the mentioned alternatives, and the decision coming from the spiritual realm.What decided is spiritual, unevidenced, it is always spiritual for every single last decision. Now that it is spiritual does not mean neccessarily that God did it, because there is evil in the spiritual realm too.

We don't "insist on scientific evidence for the spiritual." Most of us don't care what you believe.But when you start making claims, most as vacuous as if pulled out of thin air, we do ask you to support your claims. That's when belief, revelation, and scripture seem to come in--as if any of those constituted evidence. That's when we ask you to provide real evidence for your claims. And you have none. I am sure science or other fields of investigation are doing just fine with good and evil. We don't need the help of revelation and other unverifiable sources. In fact, they are more trouble than they are worth. They amount to "Trust me!" That was cute when Indiana Jones said it; its not so cute when said by shamans to back up some of the most outrageous claims imaginable. You want science to leave ought etc. alone; why don't you practice what you preach and leave both scientists and science alone?You clearly know little about it and have shown us that your opinions in that regard are of little value.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Yup. Same assertions. Slightly different words. No supporting argument made. No points, or refutations addressed. No questions answered.Same old, same old.As predicted.

You don't have any argument, much less a refutation. It is perfectly alright for a scientist to make subjective comments about beauty, and goodness and such, and attribute it to the spiritual, even in a science paper. But it is wrong for Darwin to talk about the less fit as less good, and the more fit as superior, because then he has blended ought with is. It is wrong for science popularizers to talk about the good being inherent in us by evolution as some kind of statement of fact. It is wrong for scientists to assert goodness, or the attribution of it, as a brainfunction. While ofcourse one can investigate things like the words used in morality, they are material things. But the words are used in reference to what decides, and scientists can't know about what goes on in people's hearts, except by judgement.

Syamsu writes:

quote:

---

You don't have any argument, much less a refutation. It is perfectly alright for a scientist to make subjective comments about beauty, and goodness and such, and attribute it to the spiritual, even in a science paper. But it is wrong for Darwin to talk about the less fit as less good, and the more fit as superior, because then he has blended ought with is. It is wrong for science popularizers to talk about the good being inherent in us by evolution as some kind of statement of fact. It is wrong for scientists to assert goodness, or the attribution of it, as a brainfunction. While ofcourse one can investigate things like the words used in morality, they are material things. But the words are used in reference to what decides, and scientists can't know about what goes on in people's hearts, except by judgement.

---

Yup. Same assertions. Slightly different words. No supporting argument made. No points, or refutations addressed. No questions answered.Same old, same old.As predicted.[I hope you don't mind the use of your words, Straggler.]Might you provide a single piece of documentation to support your assertions?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Well it seems I am back on the merry-go rouund again. Some people never learn I guess......But it does seem that after over a hundred posts we are within touching distance of finally discovering that which you are actually objecting to in vaguely meaningful terms. Finally. Either cite a specific example (publication and page number) of where Darwin, or indeed any specific piece of scientific research, has equated biological superiority in terms of survival with moral goodness or stop making these false assertions.Either put up or shut up. Who gave you the right to decide what is right or wrong?Science is limited to investigation of that which is empirical. Beyond that practical limitation there is no "rule". Your assertion that such a "rule" exists is borne of your own misapprehensions and nothing more.Either tell us where this "rule" is stated and by whom it was decided upon and agreed or stop making these false assertions.Either put up or shut up. Who has stated this as "fact"? If there is empirical evidence for such a conclusion then science has every right to draw that conclusion.Your fear or dislike of that conclusion is neither here nor there. Show me a non-brained entity that is demonstrably making moral choices and I'll start to listen. Until then yours is just an assertion that not only defies all of the available evidence it also defies common sense to the point where even your fellow creationists, I suspect, have trouble following you ("evil planetary orbits", "loving paper-clips", "decision making toothbrushes" to cite just a few of your more deranged previously made assertions). You could be given a mechanical heart replacement and still continue to be both you and to make moral choices as you. Try doing the same after a brain replacement.If physical brains are as irrelevant to morality as you suggest please explain why physical effects on brains seem to have such significant correlating effects on the ability of beings to make moral choices.If you do not attempt to directly address each of the key points that have been boldened, in turn, and instead just continue to make false and unsupported assertions then I really will not bother answering you again in this thread.If you want to address points and form a debate that is fine. If you want to tell me what I think and continue to make false and unsupported assertions then I would rather leave you to debate with yourself and any other poor sucker that takes on your futile little crusade.

Evolution theory does not deal with the origin of life, so evolution does not equal no creator. There are a few things that stand out in arguments on EvC:1. People are misguided to think that if the Bible or certain religion is wrong, then there is no creator.2. People are wrong to think that evolution deals with the origin of life and that there is no creator if evolution is true.3. People are misled to think that an eternal(Big Bang - Big Crunch) universe precludes a creator.4. People misinterpret science conclusions(subjective as they can be) as claiming there is no creator.5. People misunderstand science as claiming science has answers to the most fundamental questions of our existence.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

I already said, the blind pitiless indifference example was good enough, there is no use in bringig up more examples of evolutionists blending ought with is.Your argument is just proving my case, you say there is no rule in science to distinghuish the spiritual from the material. Well that just proves that you are blending ought with is. I mean you do it in a roundabout way. First you say scientists must be objective, subjective statements are not part of science, so far so good. But then you slip through the backdoor a science about the subjectivity itself, by which the morality becomes objectified. So you say, "the beautiful moon", is not science about the moon but subjective, and then you turn around and have an objective science about how this subjective statement came to be.I can tell you how such statements came to be, they were decided, and all decisions are from the spiritual realm. It cannot possibly come from the material, because new information is introduced at any decision, the information which way the decision turned out. So you cannot make a logical progression like; first came this and then it caused that. That logic can't be, because the information is new, so the information can't pre-exist in any cause. And at this point people in general refer to the spiritual realm, as the origin of what is new, and they do so in a subjective way. That's the way it all works, we can distinghuish ought from is, and science can progress, unhindered by argument about what is really beautiful or not, or for that matter if or not the universe shows bpi.

It's because there is no theory about free will in science, that everything to do with freedom is misinterpreted, misunderstood, neglected etc. So that includes creation and a creator, because creation is a free act. And scientists fail to comprehend morality in terms of freedom etc. etc.But tell me Agobat, do you in general obey the rule that you refer all questions about what ought and ought not to the spiritual? Making a clear distinction between is and ought, material and spiritual, or do you allow to mix it up?