Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?

very good articlee cii. Sttarted packin yet?

0 Replies

Yeah, Got all of my Antarctic clothes packed. Tried on the trousers of my tux last night, and found I need to get it expanded at the waist a couple of inches. It's rather tough packing for this trip because we're spending three days in Buenos Aires where the temp will be in the 80s, and drop down to the 20s while sailing the Antarctic, and we're limited to 70 lbs on our check in baggage. I'm also taking my two Olympus cameras, because the 10X optical zoom camera has a slow shutter speed, and the other one takes great pictures without much light at night. We'll probably have over 20 hours of daylight, but I don't want to be fooling with my one camera trying to get pictures depending on lighting conditions.

0 Replies

Ive found tthat digittal cameras suck batteries in extreme cold. sO for my field work in Canada Ivee been taking a small Pentax IQ zoom. I miss taaking all the lenses of the Minoltas but as for the digital cameras , I feel more secure with film in extreme cold. Just keep tthe cameras warm ttill your ready to shoot.

0 Replies

Thanks for that advise. Didn't know about keeping digital cameras warm, just dry. Wink

0 Replies

Hi Wand,

wandeljw wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
I feel scientists can perform their research without relying on naturalism as a philosophy.

How could they do this?

By using naturalism as a methodology only (not as a philosophy).

Scientists are not required to believe naturalism, only to draw conclusions within its bounds.

wandeljw wrote:

Rosborne, I am sorry to quibble like this, but you even talked about a naturalisitc worldview. That worries me.

I'm not sure how to answer your concern here Wand. I don't know why it worries you. Naturalism has been at the foundation of science since its inception.

wandeljw wrote:

(In my opinion, the strongest argument for giving creationism equal time is that evolution also represents a worldview.)

I don't mind if they give any "ism" equal time, as long as it isn't in science class. Just because philosophy and theology classes are not commonly considered a valuable use of time in public high schools, doesn't mean we should squeeze them into classes which don't fit them.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I...think it is a pervasive practice of religion.

I agree Frank. I do not accept this blind faith and seek a facility that accepts me with all my questioning. I think those types of churches are growing.

Frank Apisa wrote:

So tell me, Jason, when people in the churches you frequent question whether or not there is a God...and whether or not even if there is a God, whether or not we know anything about that God...

...what do the ministers or elders say in response.

I still hear (generally in my classes) of others who get fear, shunning, and talks of 'just gotta have faith'. However, I from the last dozen or so younger ministers and preists I have dealt with have said that they understood and that I should keep searching - or to 'give it a try and see if it works for me'.

I think that those are much more constructive responces than talk of blasphemy and the like.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Religion simply asks people to blindly accept that there is a God...that we know what that God is like...that we know what pleases that God and what offends that God.

It asks that people blindly accept all that.

I do feel that Christianity in particular has taken Jesus's admonishment of Thomas and the 'blessed are those who do not see and yet believe' entirely too far in thier dogma. But there are more and more churches that seem to realize that Jesus performed miracles for a reason - in order for those who did not believe to have evidence in order to believe.

My pastor last night gave a sermon on searching for evidence in God. There have been dozens of books recently talking about evidence for - and and arguments for God through science. "Case for Christ" is a good one, "Case for the Creator" is another, "Faith on Trial" is not bad. These take Journalistic, Scientific, and Legal methods for giving arguments for God - not blind faith.

Thethinkfactory wrote:

Science rejects these causes out of hand. Science looks for the truth it can see and it can measure with a spectrum relative to human senses (and the tools the human can invent).

Frank Apisa wrote:

Well...I cannot speak for all of science...but what I ask is...Why blindly accept something like religions ask people to blindly accept?

I hope that religions are not asking this - I don't think it will continue to fly with the younger generations. However, if they are - they are making a similar mistake to what science does if it thinks that it's processes are the way to all truths. This appears the dogma of some science.

I hear everything you are saying Frank - and I think they are valid complaints - but I think that religion is working very hard to overhaul itself from its Catholic roots - even Catholocism is trying to do that.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I think science not only understands its limits...it regularly acknowledges those limits.

Why do you think otherwise?

Because I hear statements from Scientists that are as dogmatic as a religion. One that comes to mind is Stephen Hawkings statement against God's omnipotence by stating that Heisenbergs principle of uncertainty seems to hold.

This statement only seems to make sense if God needs visable evidence to see where sub-atomic particles are and where they are going. Hawking modified his statment in a future book - but only because others stated that his statement was very dogmatic.

TF

0 Replies

Jason

Origninally, you wrote:

Quote:

I think Catholocism did a lot to beat free inquiry out of people. However, there has been a lot of work done since Luther posted his theses. The churches I frequent encourage the free inquiry of a lot of things - sure they fight what they are used to - but it is a lot better than 'the pope said so'.

In response to this, I asked:

Quote:

So tell me, Jason, when people in the churches you frequent question whether or not there is a God...and whether or not even if there is a God, whether or not we know anything about that God...

...what do the ministers or elders say in response.

In response to that, you just wrote:

Quote:

I think that those are much more constructive responces than talk of blasphemy and the like.

Jason...do you not see that you have made my case for me?

You allege a certain enlightenment in the churches you frequent...but when I ask you how they treat the most fundamental questions..."Is there a God?" or "If there is a God...do we know what that God is like?" or "If there is a God...do we know what pleases that God and what offends that God?"...

...you talk about those questions as though they are blasphemy.

That is my point.

Not only does religion not encourage questions...it actively discourages them.

According to you...they now view it as blasphemy. In other days...they not only considered it blasphemy...they would put people to death for it.

The churches you freqent, Jason, are not substantively different with regard to questions...from the Vatican.

It may be difficult for you to see that...but it is so.

0 Replies

Rosborne,

Regarding your response to my last post, unfortunately we are missing each other's points. I do not want any "ism" taught in science class. I was cautioning that linking evolution to a philosophy encourages the unwanted request of equal time for creationism.

I may be wrong but it seems to me that you are using naturalism to both represent a philosophy and a methodology. As a methodology, it makes sense. Do you agree that a distinction should be made between naturalism as a methodology and naturalism as a philosophy?

0 Replies

I can answer the questions below, but I think you're right, somehow I'm missing your point...

wandeljw wrote:

Rosborne,

Regarding your response to my last post, unfortunately we are missing each other's points. I do not want any "ism" taught in science class. I was cautioning that linking evolution to a philosophy encourages the unwanted request of equal time for creationism.

I didn't make the link. Evolution (The Modern Synthesis to be specific) is a scientific theory, and science is limited to naturalistic cause and effect.

wandeljw wrote:

I may be wrong but it seems to me that you are using naturalism to both represent a philosophy and a methodology. As a methodology, it makes sense. Do you agree that a distinction should be made between naturalism as a methodology and naturalism as a philosophy?

I'm not sure what you mean. Naturalism is a philosophy, by Definition. It can be used as an assumption to bound science, but it is an assumption, it cannot be proven to be true.

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

Natural Disasters have confounded religion for years.

Nearly as many years as Miraculous happenings have confounded science.

TF

There are some people who believe that "Natural Disasters" are "Divine Judgments" - which is the complete opposite view point of suggesting that all that happens on this planet is as the result of natural processes.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Very well put, rosborne. Your claims of evolution agrees with almost everything I have read about the subject. That scientists can now trace the DNA from Africa to Australia, through Asia and Europe is not a supposition, but fact. The 13 Darwin finches is another fact. The 100 or so scientists that now does research at the Charles Darwin Research Center on the Galapagos Islands see first hand how evolution works. People who refute evolution does so, because they can't accept the fact that humans are a progeny of primates they may find unacceptable for religious' reasons. That tall fence is too difficult a climb for many.

This is FAITH in action, not FACT.

Tracing DNA is not evidence of Evolution. It is evidence of variation within humans. This does not explain how the DNA or RNA came to be.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

I can answer the questions below, but I think you're right, somehow I'm missing your point...

The confusion is my fault. I wrongly treated philosophy as a synonym for dogma. That led me to make a bunch of comments that now do not make sense.

Bibliophile, please do not quote anything I said in the last few days.

0 Replies

Quote:

Tracing DNA is not evidence of Evolution. It is evidence of variation within humans. This does not explain how the DNA or RNA came to be.

And, Isuppose, it would be too much to ask for you to read about this very subject. Then , perhaps you would be able to discuss substance rather than
preach your own personal dogma.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Bibliophile, please do not quote anything I said in the last few days.

Ha, now that's pretty funny Laughing

0 Replies

Quote, "Tracing DNA is not evidence of Evolution. It is evidence of variation within humans. This does not explain how the DNA or RNA came to be." What is proves is the fact that all of us have a common ancestry from Africa. Why some of us ended up with green eyes and white skin proves that evolution has taken place. Most of the changes were necessary for survival in the different climates and environment.

0 Replies

c i, dont get yourself worked up. for someone who says hes read all tthe pertinent literature, Bibs arguments areent very compelling. theyre justt the constant repetition of one or two phrases. Im geettttin bored . HE IS good at writing headline copy tthough, ya have to admit that his title of this thread makes it sound more than it is.

oh well, it isnt the first time tthat someone suckers us into a thread that , while sounding like the promise of decent discussion, turns into nothin. The input from you wandlejw and TTF and Rosborne have made it worthwhile .
TTF gives opinion from a theistic point which, to me, is honest and additive to the threads content. nothing wrong with diffeering points of view when they are well presented.
Bibs arguments remind me of NY ZInger on abuzz, not much substance but plenty of upper case invective.

Im gonna bail and get back to work < Im still busy in Canada and itt takes a lot longer to get to my projectt sites. if we dont talk till you leave, you have a great time and dont get seasick south of the FAlklands

0 Replies

Thanks, farmerman. Wink

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Jason

Origninally, you wrote:

Quote:
I think Catholocism did a lot to beat free inquiry out of people. However, there has been a lot of work done since Luther posted his theses. The churches I frequent encourage the free inquiry of a lot of things - sure they fight what they are used to - but it is a lot better than 'the pope said so'.

In response to this, I asked:

Quote:
So tell me, Jason, when people in the churches you frequent question whether or not there is a God...and whether or not even if there is a God, whether or not we know anything about that God...

...what do the ministers or elders say in response.

In response to that, you just wrote:

Quote:
I think that those are much more constructive responces than talk of blasphemy and the like.

Jason...do you not see that you have made my case for me?

You allege a certain enlightenment in the churches you frequent...but when I ask you how they treat the most fundamental questions..."Is there a God?" or "If there is a God...do we know what that God is like?" or "If there is a God...do we know what pleases that God and what offends that God?"...

...you talk about those questions as though they are blasphemy.

That is my point.

Not only does religion not encourage questions...it actively discourages them.

According to you...they now view it as blasphemy. In other days...they not only considered it blasphemy...they would put people to death for it.

The churches you freqent, Jason, are not substantively different with regard to questions...from the Vatican.

It may be difficult for you to see that...but it is so.

You misunderstood me Frank... To quote myself I said:

"However, I from the last dozen or so younger ministers and preists I have dealt with have said that they understood and that I should keep searching - or to 'give it a try and see if it works for me'.

I think that those are much more constructive responces than talk of blasphemy and the like."

What I was trying to say - and apperantly did not say too clearly - is that there is a younger generation of church and church goer that encourage finding experiential data to back up the claims that religion is trying to make.

When I spoke of blasphemy - I was trying to say that other responses I have heard have treated free inquiry as being blasphemous - which I agree is... well... crap.

TF

0 Replies

Thanks Farmerman for the kudos. I appreciate it.

I think Bib has an argument in his posts but he cannot set his zeal aside long enough to post it. And when it is challenged anger and rage take over and his arguments fall instantly into ad hominem trash.

Bib - take a deep breath and post what your finding are. If God is there brother - these athiests and agnostics don't scare him.

Well maybe Frank - but have you seen that guy first thing in the morning? Wink

TTF

0 Replies

Farmerman,

I thank you also for mentioning my input.

Since I am not a science professional, my approach is this:
1. I simply prefer scientific theories that explain their subject well.
2. Since science is so specialized, I take it for granted that I should rely on the consensus of experts.

0 Replies

Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know