The Reluctant Religious

More than once I provided, albeit ultra-condensed, what the metaphysic of evolution was about. More than once I also cited a secular source of what a metaphysic is and showed that the naturalistic evolutionary worldview satisfies this definition, i.e., there most definitely is a metaphysic of evolution.Finally, on half a dozen occasions I asked different people if they were promoting solely the science of evolution (SE) - the study of changes in allele frequencies in populations - or if what they were really promoting was the metaphysic of evolution (ME) - evolution as the mechanism by which naturalism's universe is actualized... evolution as a metaphysical position and not a scientific one.I never received a single reply to this question from any of these people.Mind you, I know exactly why this is so - they've been made.Most naturalists will figuratively die before admitting to the world that theirs is a religious position since to do so would set them on equal footing with all other religions. This they cannot have.But wait, there is one group of naturalists that is honest and educated enough to know better - I'm referring to the Humanists. In their Humanist Manifestos (I,II, and III) they openly declare themselves as holding a religious position (which, of course, they do).The rest of you naturalists ought to learn from this group and admit to yourselves and to the rest of the world that you are every bit as religious as the rest of us are. While there is undoubtedly a science of evolution (one that creationists embrace as much as anyone else), most evolutionists are actually religious naturalists - a metaphysic that clashes with many other metaphysics. It would do you well to learn to live with this fact.In Christ,
Joralex

quote:

---

More than once I also cited a secular source of what a metaphysic is and showed that the naturalistic evolutionary worldview satisfies this definition, i.e., there most definitely is a metaphysic of evolution.

---

And more than once I explained that evolution does not come close to meeting the requirements for being a metaphysic. ( Several other people did the same. ) You have ignored those posts, despite my repeated requests that you respond. Now you start a new thread restating the same debunked garbage? That doesn't speak well for your integrity.

quote:

---

I never received a single reply to this question from any of these people.

---

More BS. It should be obvious from the discussion that you've abandonned, that few, if any, of us believe that there is an ME. So how is it that we can promote it? On top of that, did you ever read a description of evolution from an evolutionist that read differently from "Descent with modification through time" or thereabouts?

quote:

---

Most naturalists will figuratively die before admitting to the world that theirs is a religious position since to do so would set them on equal footing with all other religions. This they cannot have.

---

LOL... this is precisely why the religious NEED science to be a religion. It puts all belief on the same level. Thus, one can believe as irrationally as one wishes.

quote:

---

The rest of you naturalists ought to learn from this group and admit to yourselves and to the rest of the world that you are every bit as religious as the rest of us are.

---

There are quite a number of reasons why the term 'religious' is inappropriate, but since you don't seem to be willing to actually discuss anything and since I am likely to be ignored, I don't see the point of elaborating.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

albeit ultra-condensed, what the metaphysic of evolution was about.

---

I asked about this elsewhere. I still haven't received any clarification. Several people have asked about the demarcation between the "SE" and "ME". I can't find it in any posts.Could you help by either repeating the material or by refering to the places where you have clarified it?You keep saying you have. If we honestly don't get it then if you wantto be able to communicate you will have to do more than give an "ultra condensed" form. You may have to lead us through it step by step. I may not be bright enough to get it in condensed form for example.Are you actually trying to communicate or not?

Not.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Jorelex,I still maintain, as I have from the start, that you haven't sufficiently defined - in detail - where the line between metaphysic and science is drawn. Without that, there can be no discussion beyond "is so, is not". You provided a brief synopsis of what you consider a "metaphysic", which apparently those who are versed in that arena say is inadequate. On the other hand, we only began to explore what you think science is (the other side of your dichotomy). Unless, of course, you accept my clarifications/expansions of your three criteria.Beyond that, I don't see anywhere in any of the threads in which you have been involved where you've shown that any specific element of the theory of evolution is metaphysical. Certainly, you've asserted that many times. But you have not shown it with anything resembling either reasoned argument or evidence. To move the discussion forward, perhaps you could do so.As it stands, the answer to your question is: No - I do not promote any metaphysic, since you have not shown any reason for me to accept that such exists.edited to add: And by the way, what on Earth does the Humanist Manifesto have to do with the theory of evolution?[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 04-07-2003]

quote:

---

More than once I provided, albeit ultra-condensed, what the metaphysic of evolution was about.

---

This may be root of your difficulty here. "Ultra-condensed" in this case seems to mean something like "hopelessly generalized" - I certainly found your definition to be virtually useless as a starting point for discussing a particular metaphysical claim at any level beyond the most general.

quote:

---

More than once I also cited a secular source of what a metaphysic is and showed that the naturalistic evolutionary worldview satisfies this definition, i.e., there most definitely is a metaphysic of evolution.(Pamboli's emphasis)

---

I would be really interested to see where you think you fulfilled the latter claim. I see several unsupported assertions about an evolutionary world view, but no susbstantive response to any challenge on this.

quote:

---

Finally, on half a dozen occasions I asked different people if they were promoting solely the science of evolution (SE) - the study of changes in allele frequencies in populations - or if what they were really promoting was the metaphysic of evolution (ME) - evolution as the mechanism by which naturalism's universe is actualized

---

Not quite, mostly you committed the fallacy of the missing question (when did you stop beating your wife) because you did not establish any concensus or compelling case that there is an ME.

quote:

---

I never received a single reply to this question from any of these people.

---

Please read again: http://EvC Forum: Joralex: Tentativity or Dogmatism? -->EvC Forum: Joralex: Tentativity or Dogmatism?So the answer to your question, now that we have clarified it sufficiently for me to feel I can answer (which was all I was waiting for) is a resounding "no."Perhaps this was not clear enough for you? This gives me no confidence whatsoever that you are debating in good faith or with attention to the other posters. For now, I will construe your claim that you received no reply as an oversight rather than a lie.However, in the future, you would do better to address the objections raised to issues rather than just repeating them with further unsupported assertions. I have searched your posts and can find no where where you demonstrate or explain why evolution requires a naturalistic metaphysic. I would be delighted if you could point out where you did so, as I would very much like to debate this point with you in detail.

This thread duplicates the Joralex: Tentativity or Dogmatism? thread and will be closed. Please continue discussion on this topic at that thread.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator