|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 1 From: Austin, TX, US Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems with evolution? Submit your questions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Things not yet explained are ... things not yet explained. Pretending there was some intervention is simply silly until you present the model of exactly how the intervention was done. There are some things that do not have natural models.As Anthony Flew wrote: "It's time for me to lay my cards on the table, to set out my own views and the reasons that support them. I now beleive that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I belive that this universe's intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source.Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half centrury? The short anwser is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science. Science spotlights three dimensiions of nature that point go God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature. But it is not science alone that has guided me. I have also been helped by a renewed study of the classical philosophical arguments. My departure from atheism was not occasioned by any new phenomenon or argument. Over the last two decades, my whole framework of thought has been in a state of migration. This was a consequence of my continuing assessment of the evidence of nature. When I finally came to recognize the existence of a God, it was not a paradigm shift, because my paradigm remains, as Plato in his REPUBLIC scripted his Socrates to insist: 'We must follow the argument wherever it leads" From "There is a God" by Anthony Flew pp. 88,89. Edited by shadow71, : No reason given. Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
How does a lack of a known natural mechanism indicate that the supernatural was responsible? Well if there is no natural mechanism and something exists, can one not consider a supernatural? I see on this board a resistance to think about philsophy or any other discplines other than natural science. There are other ways to solve problems and reach conclusions besides science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
If you wish to present some problem with evolution, doing a copy-n-paste of some philosophic ramblings about an old man's opinions carries no weight. If you wish to claim that there was some planning or intervention in this specific incident then you need to bring the planner in and sit him on the table to be examined and for him to demonstrate the method used to intervene. That is really a silly answer. I have presented what I believe are problems with Darwinian & neo-Darwinian theory that were raised by scientists, and you just want to say, produce proof of God. I have already stated I can't produce God. By the way Anthony Flew was probaobly the first spokesman for atheism, adored and glorfied by Dawkins and Dennett. When he follows the evidence he is just an old man.Philosophy is, if you didn't know, a very respected and productive discpline that has enriched many men and womens lives. Take a little time to read some Philosophy, broaden your horizons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
There are other ways to solve problems and reach conclusions besides science. Any evidence for this? Democracy comes to mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Well if there is no natural mechanism and something exists, can one not consider a supernatural? No, one cannot. Do you have proof for that statement?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
That's because science works. What do you suggest we put in its place? Armchair philosophising? Having a really hard think about something? Reaching for answers from tomes of myth? Inserting comforting fictions into the gaps in our knowledge? Forgive us if the rest of us stick with science. The problem is you belileve science is the answer to everything. There are other ways to solve problems. I know some on this board rely on Psychology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Point of order: Psychology is a science. One of the mandatory courses in a psycholgy degree is the philosophy and practice of the scientific method. How else donyou think we do our experiments? No disrepect meant Larni. That was an inside joke. On another message post Granny diagnosed me with cognitive dissonance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Well if there is no natural mechanism and something exists, can one not consider a supernatural? How do you determine if there is no natural mechanism? We would have to have complete knowledge of nature to determine this, wouldn't we? Last I checked, we do not have this level of knowledge yet. I see on this board a resistance to think about philsophy or any other discplines other than natural science. There are other ways to solve problems and reach conclusions besides science. Our resistance is to bad philosophy, such as the God-of-the-Gaps philosophy that you are pushing. You seem to think that the best place to find God is in our ignorance. That doesn't seem very inspiring to me. As to "other ways to solve a problem", when has a supernatural explanation ever turned out to be right? It would seem to me that science has found non-supernatural explanations for thousands of things that used to be credited to the supernatural. Why shouldn't we expect this trend to continue? "Feeling the Future: Experimential evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect."Daryl J. Bem Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Is this one of science's great explanations for things that used to be credited to the supernatural? "The editor of the journal, Charles Judd, a psychologist at the University of Colorado, said the paper went through the journal's regular review process. Four reviewers made comments on the manuscript, he said, and these are very trusted people. All four decided that the paper met the journal's editorial standards, Dr. Judd added, even though 'THERE WAS NO MECHANISM BY WHICH WE COULD UNDERSTAND THE RESULTS.' I'll stand on my conclusion that God created the universe and all we know is a scientific conclusion. I thought I was just told by many on this board that if I cannot show evidence of creation it was not acceptalble to the scientific world? Edited by shadow71, : sorry cite does not come up, but google asp paper Edited by Admin, : Fix link.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
I thought I was just told by many on this board that if I cannot show evidence of creation it was not acceptalble to the scientific world? Dr. adequate writesYes, quite so. Why do you mention it? I read about Dr. Bem's paper "Feeling the Future: Expermential evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on congnition and affect" to be published in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, a copy of said paper can be read by going to Dr. Bem's web site at Cornell. What concerns me are several quotes about the paper. This from the NY times on 1-6-2011 In response to the publisher stating we decided to publish the paper "...even though there was no mechanism by which we could understand the results." "But many experts say that is precisely the problem. Claims that defy almost every law of science are by definition extrardinalry and thus require extrordinary evidence." My question is why isn't the hypothesis that God created the universe and all that is in it, a scientific hypothesis according to the test above? I can produce many people who will testify that the Lord has helped them and some swear to miracles beyond scientific proof. The bible has many such exhibits in the Gospels. Thus even though this hypothesis may require extraordinary evidence, it should according to the tests for the above article be allowed to be studied by science and not rejected out of hand. Edited by shadow71, : No reason given. Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Hi Percy, thanks for fixing the link.
I just posted about the paper in my reply to Dr. Adequate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
As for whether the journal should have accepted the paper - I leave that to the editors. It's not entirely unreasonable to publish uncertain results, and then expect other scientists to attempt to replicate the work. The journal cannot be expected to run its own lab and attempt to replicate before accepting. On the other hand, there's a long history of such psychic claims, with marginally positive results. And there's an equally long history of failure to replicate such claims. I'll admit to being surprised that the paper was accepted. My thoughts are that this was not an appropriate paper for a scientific journal.Bluejay 541, percy 552 coyote 554 and others, I agree I got off the OP. Sorry.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024