Joralex: Tentativity or Dogmatism?

Quetzal:I read your post (in a bit of a hurry) and couldn't really see what the essence of your conflict with me is. I suspect that it is multi-faceted but, nonetheless, that it stems from a basic, singular disagreement. I would also bet that this source is metaphysical in nature - your post provided me with many hints of this.I couldn't help but notice the nature of the sources that you used as references (I'm talking about Ruse, Free Inquiry and Isaac Asimov). This by itself revealed to me a great deal about your mindset.Although I am generally very reluctant to talk about myself, I think it necessary that you should know a little bit about me : Entered college at 16. Majored in physics, mathematics and philosophy (took me 6 years). U. S. Air Force for just over 7 years primarily in a research capacity (theoretical pattern recognition and AI; surveillance satellites and space weapons with DARPA; non-nuclear warhead development; nuclear weapons test monitoring). At age 25 was awarded the Air Force Scientific Achievement Award for (classified) work. After the USAF, worked with private industry including at Cape Canaveral, Florida doing guidance systems development for Poseidon Missiles. MS degree from Florida Institute of Technology. Began PhD - discontinued to pursue business interests. Said business interests are in developing measurement instrumentation for radiation oncology, radiology, nuclear medicine and PET and have occupied me for the last 12 years up to the present.Communication is best when at least something of the audience is known - so now you know.It is tiresome for me to have to listen to the repeated parroting of the myth "creationists don't know/understand science". I've been at this webite for just a few weeks and, sure enough, I've already heard it in one way or another many times.I've been privileged to know a large number of outstanding scientists that were also dedicated, faithful Christian creationists. I met many of these people in places such as Los Alamos, Sandia, DARPA, A/N/AF Weapons Laboratories, and basically all over. When are you people ever going to accept that one thing has very little to do with the other? The source of your conflict with us isn't scientific it is spiritual!You cite Asimov... here's an excerpt :Asimov : "The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.

​

However, I don't think that's so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts... "This is Asimov, the same guy that was one of the signers of the Humanist Manifesto and regarded himself as a dedicated Humanist - a religious stance (by their own admission) that clashes head-on with Christianity.Here Asimov is very clearly exposing part of his metaphysic - "there are no absolutes; right and wrong are fuzzy/relative." I am not surprised at all by this statement - I have a copy of all three Humanist Manifestos and Asimov is here merely promoting part of the Humanist religious doctrine.Now, I openly admit that I promote my religion - Christianity. What the Atheist needs to come to terms with is that they are also deeply religious and promote a worldview that is just as religious as any other. The "we are not religious, we stand on evidence" is one of the biggest crocks yet devised.Again, now you know a little more. Feel free to ignore any part of the above and plainly state what it is that you wish to argue for. Thanks.BTW, I sincerely hope that my abbreviated biographical data isn't used for anything other than the sole purpose that I intended - to facilitate communication.In Christ,
Joralex

"The error you make here is to imagine that all the people you subsume under "atheist" think the same. I think that is possibly even less so than lumping all monotheistic people as "the same" - Shiites, Mormons, Copts, Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostal, Hasids, Southern Baptists..... It's not so."I wouldn't dream of saying that all Atheists "think the same" - you have clearly misunderstood my meaning. No two communists think the same; no two capitalists think the same; no two Christians think the same... etc.However, to belong to a group - be it Atheist, Christian, or whatever - then certain doctrine/beliefs must be shared. A Christian that did not believe in Jesus Christ but rather in Buddha is not truly a Christian though he may promote himself as one. In the sense of having this basic requirement, all Christians "are alike" (by definition). Beyond this, differences rule.I hope this clears up my meaning.In Christ,
Joralex

"And the other error he makes is to subsume under "atheist" all who accept the theory of evolution. Many who accept evolution, including me, are not atheists."Where did I ever say "everyone that accepts evolution is an Atheist"? Show me...I am well aware of the many groups of people that accept evolution and yet also believe in some other metaphysic. Progressive creationists, theistic evolutionists, and other groups come to mind.Heck, any sufficiently knowledgeable creationist accepts evolution (I certainly do). 'Evolution' in the sense of change, variations, mutations, etc. is observable, testable science. To deny this would place a person into one of Dawkins' categories (ignorant, stupid, wicked...).But what most people cannot seem to see / understand is that this is not what is actually being promoted. Even intelligent, educated and faithful Christians have been blinded to the big picture. This 'big picture' that I'm referring to is that the science of evolution is what is dangled but it is the metaphysic of materialistic naturalism that is actually being promoted. Huge difference!In Christ,
Joralex

Joralex writes:
Where did I ever say "everyone that accepts evolution is an Atheist"? Show me..."You weren't equating those who accept materialistic naturalism with Atheism?"Absolutely I was, and do. But that's not what you attributed to me. Read the above 'Joralex writes' as well as your own previous post. There are many people that accept evolution that are not Atheists. But anyone that fully accepts materialistic naturalism and thinks of himself as anything but an Atheist doesn't understand what materialistic naturalism is."But people accept more than one worldview and switch between them as necessary. My science worldview holds that only that which is in some way apparent to one or more of the five senses is real. My religious worldview holds that there is a Creator who loves and cares for us. I do not confuse the two. In other words, there is no religion in my evolution, and I am not a theistic evolutionist."I respect your right to your views/position. However, I will suggest to you for your musing the possibility that such a position isn't really possible. A metaphysic is, by definition, all-encompassing. Those "Christians", for example, that hold that Christ is Lord in (only) certain segments of their lives but not in others are either ignorant (of the fact that He is either Lord of ALL or Lord of none) or lying hypocrites (knowing the truth but distorting this truth to accommodate their own preferences). There is no softer way to say this.I have been professionally involved in science for over three decades and have never once had any conflict with my science and religious views. You seem to think that these two realms need to be compartmentalized - each with its own domain. I experience only one realm, all under His Lordship, fully integrated and consistent. Why you feel the need for segregation is beyond me.As for your comment "there is no religion in my evolution" - I could interpret this in one way and fully agree with you; but if I interpret it another way I would have to disagree.I see 'evolution' occur and realize that this was part of His overall plan. There is no conflict whatsoever with that 'evolution' and God. I am referring, of course, with the 'evolution' that involves studying the changes in allele frequencies in populations - this is science. The conflict arises when the realm of scientific evolution is exceeded and now the metaphysic of evolution is introduced."I accept the theory of evolution because it best explains the evidence. I accept science as the best way to learn about the natural world because of its long and continuing record of success. It seems to me that all you're doing is pinning the "religion" label on evolution in the hopes that it will stick without having to argue the evidence, and simply because it contradicts your own religious views."Not at all. Again, my views have no conflict with the science of evolution, it is with the metaphysic of the evolutionary paradigm - a servant of materialistic naturalism - that I have a problem with, as well I should.Evolution as the causing agent for the earth's entire biota clashes head-on with the Biblical account of creation. Evolution as the mechanism by which man came to be forces a 'special' interpretation of Scripture which cannot be reconciled with either consistency or with God's character. Herein lies the rub.In Christ,
Joralex

"Whether or not an atheist needs to agree that they are religious or not is utterly irrelevant to the central question of this thread - is evolution metaphysics or science?

​

Please attempt to address the actual topic. Thanks."The question you pose "is evolution metaphysics or science?" was puzzling to me (I thought I'd been perfectly clear earlier). Anyhow, here's my take on this again :There is a 'science of evolution' (SE) and there is also a 'metaphysic of evolution' (ME) and the two are definitely not the same. Repeatedly one sees the SE being used as 'bait' when it's the ME that is actually being promoted.[BTW, I am not insinuating a conspiracy here - it only sounds that way.]I have asked this question several times now and have yet to get an answer so let me try it again this time directed at you : when you promote evolution, do you promote the SE or the ME?If you promote the SE then we have no conflict at all. If you promote the ME then we have a metaphysical conflict and/or a theological conflict and/or a scientific conflict. Without specifics I can't say any more than this.I can't be any clearer than this.Before I leave this post, I can't let this one go by : you ask why I thought part of my bio was relevant. I very clearly stated that it was solely to facilitate communications (reread my earlier post if you wish to confirm this). Your response made it sound as if there was a "sinister / ulterior" motive in my posting part of my bio - there wasn't. In Christ,
Joralex

"It seems to me that if you can't say more without specifics, and you also cannot be clearer then you need to go away and come up with some specifics. Personally, I can't follow your reasoning at all."To this point I've been mostly presenting our view without attempting to 'convince' anyone (via reasoning). Maybe that's why you haven't been able to 'follow'.If you have a specific question that would clear things up for you, try asking.In Christ,
Joralex

"Since we're not yet convinced that there's any such thing as an ME, it might make sense to spend more time discussing it. It seems that what you call a metaphysic is merely that which you think insufficiently supported by evidence, and which happens to contradict your religious views. I see several problems with your position as I understand it at present:"Yes, as you've defined it I would certainly have many problems... thing is, your definition isn't valid.In concise, layman's terms a "metaphysic", a.k.a. a "worldview", is a fundamental foundation in whatever activities people conduct - science, math, any of the arts, politics, war, economics... anything! I'd posted this earlier to help out (from the World Book 2001 Encyclopedia) : "Metaphysics is concerned with the basic nature of reality. Its aim is to give a systematic account of the world and the principles that govern it. In contrast to the natural sciences, which study specific features of the world, metaphysics is a more general investigation into the fundamental features of what exists."That there is a metaphysics of evolution (ME) as well as a science of evolution (SE) is known to anyone that has studied this matter with any seriousness and especially to those that have been active in the creation-evolution debate. I am forced to ask (and with all due respect), where have you been that this common fact appears to be a major revelation?"You haven't yet established that evolution is insufficiently supported by evidence."Again, are you talking about SE or ME? Se is very amply supported by evidence - observable, testable, falsifiable, etc. But the ME is a whole 'nother matter."A scientific hypothesis which does not have sufficient evidence to be called a theory is not a metaphysic."I never said it was - that is not what a metaphysic is. See above."A scientific theory that opposes one religious view or another is not a metaphysic.""Agreed again. But, my learned friend, science serves a metaphysic (NOT the other way around).Here's an example that I'll present but not elaborate (it would be a dissertation onto itself): Communism (a social-political paradigm) is, by its very foundation, atheistic. Now, it should be quite apparent that a 'science' defined in such a way that it excludes at the outset anything but a materialistic view of nature wholly supports this social-political paradigm. A 'science' as, say, Isaac Newton would have defined it would not have been "acceptable" to the Communist Party. Science is but a pawn, a supporting cast, to the metaphysic that founds it.The difficulty is that there is a feedback loop in this relationship. I'll not go there."I don't think we can be certain how you mean the term metaphysic in this discussion, and I wonder if you can't find a more common term whose meaning isn't so ambiguous to non-philosophers."Hopefully my brief words above have clarified things a little.I suspect that you et al. won't but I have to ask anyway : take my word for it, there is a ME. If you happen to live close to a university just wander on over to the philosophy department, find a science philosopher and pose the question. If you get anything but a resounding "Of course!", feel free to have them contact me via email.In Christ,
Joralex

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a 'science of evolution' (SE) and there is also a 'metaphysic of evolution' (ME) and the two are definitely not the same. Repeatedly one sees the SE being used as 'bait' when it's the ME that is actually being promoted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"An interesting assertion. Do you have evidence to back this up? Perhaps an example?"See Message # 28. Also, I'd like to give you more but I'm out of time for today. Please prompt me and I'll be happy to provide you with further "evidence to back it up". Thanks.In Christ,
Joralex

I continue to be puzzled over so many people being seemingly unaware of the fact that there is a metaphysic of evolution (ME) as well as a science of evolution (SE). I can't shake the feeling that I'm being played here.In any event, a complete presentation - including historical, philosophical, social and scientific foundations - of this topic would be far too lengthy. I haven't the time for something like this but I can certainly present the punch line.I remind you of something that I posted earlier :In concise, layman's terms a "metaphysic", a.k.a. a "worldview", is a fundamental foundation in whatever activities people conduct - science, math, any of the arts, politics, war, economics... anything! I'd posted the following earlier from the World Book 2001 Encyclopedia : "Metaphysics is concerned with the basic nature of reality. Its aim is to give a systematic account of the world and the principles that govern it. In contrast to the natural sciences, which study specific features of the world, metaphysics is a more general investigation into the fundamental features of what exists."The essence of any metaphysic (the bolded part above) is to provide fundamental, underlying principles that govern reality. Explicitly or implicitly, all metaphysics seek to answer certain key questions such as questions on origins, purpose and ultimate destiny. Atheism, for example, would answer, respectively : materialistic, none, oblivion.Biologically when we speak of evolution we are talking about the change in allele frequencies in populations but in the broadest sense 'evolution' deals with changes in some non-random direction.*********** SYNOPSIS OF THE ME *********** Somehow, someway, the primordial essence of matter-energy (whatever that may be) became the common matter-energy that we know today. Maybe this occurred in what is called the Big Bang (?). Through gravitational condensation (of the lightest element, H) stars formed. These stars then 'evolved' through what is called 'stellar sequences' and, in the process of so doing, nucleosynthesis produced the heavier elements. Eventually some of these stars exploded spilling these heavier elements into space. Again through gravitational condensation, planetoids and planets formed. Through matter-energy interactions planets evolved to eventually acquire certain environments (e.g., Earth, Mars, Venus, etc. each has their own characteristic environments). Some environments are conducive to the emergence of life and, somehow, life got started on earth. The earliest life was extremely simple. This life began to evolve and become more and more complex and diverse. Eventually man emerged from this plethora of organisms on a spiral of complexity/diversity. Man continued to evolve and in time developed a sophisticated culture. Man began to discover some fundamental laws that govern the matter-energy universe that he is a part of - things like 'gravity' and 'conservation of energy'. One of these things that he learned he called 'evolution'.All things 'evolve' : life 'evolves' (from the simplest organisms to a very complex and diverse biota); languages 'evolve'; economic and political systems 'evolve'; human relationships 'evolve'; businesses 'evolve'... heck, everything 'evolves'. Thus, it appears that evolution is an underlying aspect of reality by which all things ought to be interpreted. One cannot truly understand anything without viewing it through the eyes of 'evolution'.******************* END OF SYNOPSIS *******************All things in our universe change, there is no doubt about this. Also, there is definitely a scientific side to the study of this change with regards to biology (changes in the allele frequencies in populations) - this is the SE. It is this scientific aspect that most people associate with 'evolution'. Let me emphasize that this scientific aspect is completely real and legitimate.However, just as real as SE is ME. I have little doubt that the synopsis presented above was recognized. Setting aside theistic/progressive evolutionists, when all other evolutionists promote 'evolution' they aren't just promoting SE, they are actually promoting ME - the completely materialistic, naturalistic worldview of the universe as summarized above.Now, if you are not a theistic/progressive evolutionist, and disagree with the last paragraph above, then show me and I will stand corrected. Otherwise, I trust that this matter is now cleared up.In Christ,
Joralex

Quetzal :You wrote : "... Again, I want to approach the question from the science, vice metaphysics side. Where are the limits to "science"? After that, we can see whether or not evolution is within the realm of science or strays into the realm of metaphysics."I'm not trying to avoid your question(s) but from the above (bolded) I gather that you are missing the fundamental point here. There is a SE and it is definitely within the realm of science. Anyone that knows what they're talking about - naturalists, creationists, and Vulcans included - will agree to there being a bona fide SE. I say again, there is an 'evolution' that unquestionably is within the realm of science.But that's not the point nor the source of the controversy.[OTOH, maybe I'm not seeing what you are driving at.]Feel free to correct me but attributes of science include observability, testability, and "falsifiability". That last one is far more elusive than most people know thus the quotation marks. What I'm getting at is that the SE is far exceeded - beyond the realm of science and into the realm of a metaphysic - as soon as it becomes an operational model for the naturalistic metaphysic.Plainly : the naturalist must have a mechanism with which to explain the observable facts. The Christian has the same requirement (and our ultimate answer is God - science serves only a minor role). That naturalistic mechanism, if you give it some thought, can only be one : the evolutionary mechanism. Unless one is to assume the spontaneous emergence of life, diversity and complexity then there has to be something that made these things possible. For the naturalist that something is 'evolution' and this 'evolution' replaces the creative/supportive role that God has for the Christian. This is a metaphysical role, not a scientific one.You do pose an extremely interesting and profound question : "where are the limits of 'science'?" On this I'll just say that long ago I wondered about that question myself and this helped me to finally 'get it'.In Christ,
Joralex

"Since you have asserted that there is no dispute between S.E. and creationism..."That's because there isn't."... and that the dispute between creationism and evolution is not science versus religion but a clash of metaphysics..."Not the dispute between 'creationism and evolution', but rather the dispute between creationism and the metaphysic of evolution. It's very important to get the terms straight."... it follows that you hold that ANY part of evolution that contradicts mainstream creationist views is part of M.E."The essence of what you're saying is correct but the details and application are difficult. For example, I surmise that you would agree that 'natural selection' is a "part of evolution". Yet, natural selection doesn't contradict creationism at all.So, what are we to interpret by "a part of evolution"? Also, what do you mean by "contradict"? The SE doesn't 'contradict' creationism in any way since the SE is composed of objective facts and ideas/concepts/theories founded on those facts. It is the interpretation of those facts via the naturalistic worldview that generates the evolutionary paradigm."However you refuse to support these claims."I do? What then are my umpteen previous posts doing? The fact that I don't address certain posts may be due to several reasons such as :1. I have limited time (as I'm sure you do also).
2. I find the point being brought up uninteresting/irrelevant.
3. I find other points more interesting/relevant.
4. Combining 1, 2 and 3 entails that I am forced to be selective."So let us go back to the issue you refuse to address - the ancestry of whales from land mammals. By inference it appears that you regard this as part of M.E. but I see no reasonable justification for considering it anything other than part of S.E."Here's a perfect example of a # 2. Briefly let me say why I find the topic of "whale evolution" a complete waste of everyone's time : there is a vast number of unknowns; the 'evidence' is scarce and very much controversial; there is a great deal of conjecture interwoven into what very little is known; and, last but not least, there is already a presupposition that whales evolved from land animals - GIGO.Look, let's not waste any more time, please. It's really very simple : I provided a synopsis of the ME. When you speak of 'evolution', are you solely promoting the study of changes in allele frequencies in populations? If you are then we have no dispute. BUT, if you are promoting the ME (as in the synopsis I provided) then you are promoting a metaphysic (i.e., NOT a science) that happens to clash with my own metaphysic (Christianity). Only then would there be a dispute.So, which is it?"Do you wish to accept that this is part of S.E. ? or explain why you believe it to be part of M.E. ?"Are you referring to "whale evolution from land mammals"? If so, I've already that answered above. In case you missed it, NOT a part of the SE."Or would you rather go on evading the issue ?"I see no "issue" - only an 'pseudo-issue' based on misconceptions.In Christ,
Joralex

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I'm getting at is that the SE is far exceeded - beyond the realm of science and into the realm of a metaphysic - as soon as it becomes an operational model for the naturalistic metaphysic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"You are saying that the operational model (whatever that is) for a metaphysic is a metaphysic?"You appear to be mystified by certain concepts that I'm employing here. Watch : you are undoubtedly familiar with "philosophical naturalism" (PN). PN is a purely philosophical position. Then of course there is "methodological naturalism" (MN). MN is an operational formulation of PN.In a similar sense, the evolutionary mechanism represents the operational model in which the naturalistic metaphysic finds its scientific support. But there's more...Your statement displays confusion (hopefully not sarcasm) and this confusion is understandable. What happens is that there may exist (and in this case definitely does exist) feedback between the philosophical and the operational aspects. Hence the two (evolution and naturalism) "feed" off of each other and, as you say, a metaphysic (operational model) is supporting another metaphysic (naturalism) and vice-versa.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plainly : the naturalist must have a mechanism with which to explain the observable facts. The Christian has the same requirement (and our ultimate answer is God - science serves only a minor role).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"A mechanism to explain what observable facts - that is the problem you are not addressing.

​

One could quite easily hold a view about the interactions of matter, which could be scientific, highly speculative and naturalistic. However that is not metaphysics. Metaphysics is only marginally concerned with the issue of how matter behaves - it is more interested in the issue of whether matter exists, and if it does what such existence consists in, and why such existence consists in that manner. How the matter behaves is physics, leading to chemistry, leading to biology.

​

The science of evolution deals with that how. There is no necessary account of the whether, what or why."I mostly agree and you have done a splendid job of summarizing the science of evolution (SE).But then there is the metaphysic of evolution that most definitely DOES attempt to enter into realms that exceed scientific frontiers...Let's cut to the quick, shall we? I'll ask you the same question that I've asked several others (most recently 'John') : when you promote evolution are you solely promoting the study of changes in allele frequencies in populations? If you do then there is no dispute (at least not with me).However, if you are actually promoting the ME (as in the synopsis that I presented in a previous post) then you aren't promoting science at all but rather a metaphysic that happens to clash head-on with my own metaphysic (Christianity). That would be a dispute.So, which is it?"Thus, for example, a Deist could hold a metaphysical view that the existence of matter was entirely dependent on God, and that the reasons for matter's existence are to be found in His Will, without for a moment dropping a naturalistic belief in how matter interacts.

​

Salty, if you read his papers, supports both a creationary metaphysic (albeit positing a very impersonal God) and an evolutionary science."Yes, I know of theistic and progressive evolutionists. My dispute with them is mainly theological although also scientific and philosophical. BTW, any sufficiently knowledgeable creationist will fully agree with evolutionary science - I certainly do. 'Evolution' was part of God's plan given the fall of man due to sin. But this 'evolution' was NOT how God went about "creating" man; i.e., man did not emerge from a primate."Unless one is to assume the spontaneous emergence of life, diversity and complexity then there has to be something that made these things possible. But the emergence of life is not necessarily a subject for evolution."You are correct - the emergence of life is not a subject for evolution, the science of evolution. But it is definitely a subject - in fact, it has to be a subject - for naturalism and the ME."There are many evolutionists, including some on this board, who take a metaphysical view of the what it means to be "alive" which is rooted in theism. But there are others (who may be on this board) who would deny that the nature of life is a metaphysical issue. Still others might take a thorough positivist view and deny meaning to any metaphysics at all."Yes, I have found that many people would like to believe themselves free of "metaphysical considerations". Those are the 'scary' ones - the ones that believe that such a thing is even possible."You seem to be caught in the common trap of assuming that denial of your metaphysics is itself a metaphysical position. This is a simple, but seductive, fallacy."Oops... looks like you're another of those 'scary' ones.I've been working on a paper for some time... let me give you the punch line : it is impossible for a person to be without a metaphysical foundation. 'Nuff said.In Christ,
Joralex

"Let me try to sum up your problem here. You are insisting on a metaphysic of evolution, but you have totally failed to explain clearly what that metaphysic consists in."In an earlier post I gave a very brief synopsis of the ME - did you miss it?One more time : among other things, a metaphysic seeks to provide a foundation for all of reality... a metaphysic is a sort of filter through which all events are interpreted and studied as a unified 'whole' ('cosmos' or 'universe').Thus, the Christian metaphysic provides a foundation for interpreting life, death, art, science, ethics, culture, pain and suffering, war, joy, sorrow, etc... etc.Through the ME one is also able to interpret life, death, art, science, ethics, culture, pain and suffering, war, joy, sorrow, etc... etc. If you don't agree then go to any hardcore evolutionist and as an example ask : "In light of evolution, how do you explain ethics?" I guarantee you, you'll get an answer. The ME is a metaphysic by which all things may be viewed, just as is Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc.Clear as daylight, Mister Pamboli.By the way, I must point out that I've asked the question four times now to four different people - still no response. Do you promote solely the SE or are you really promoting the ME?If it's the former then we have no dispute. If it's the latter then you are promoting a metaphysic that clashes with the Christian metaphysic and that is the source of the dispute.In Christ,
Joralex