Darwin's most vexing problem

[Nimos]

Judge Jones had an obligation to support the separation of church and state. You understand that, right? All the Kitzmiller side had to do, was keep stressing that ID was a religious view... which they did in superb fashion.

Judge Jones took note, and he was really left with no alternative.

That and that it weren't science. Don't know if you watched the documentary I linked? Which are with the actual people from the case from both sides.

“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”

Yes, but to say that, is simply to state that they won't take a position on whether the arguments or results that ID could potentially come up with, are true or not. Which I agree with, its not up to the court to guess about that. But simply whether it classify as science or not.

So, what may actually be truth, was not the important issue to the court.

Id say science neither.

You wouldn't expect the court to decide whether Einstein was right or not about his theories. It's not the role of a court or the Judge, its simply to decide whether or not something aligns with the law or not.

The scientific community reject ID, because it is not science. As also stated in the documentary, lots of the people that were against ID were/is active Christians.

 

[AlexanderG]

Hi all,
I admit to knowing very little about science, and no, I do not read the scientific news.
Nonetheless I live in the fantasy that I have half a brain and when I read a logical explanation that challenges a "belief" that is adopted by the majority on the basis that "everybody knows its a facts" argument, I begin to wonder if this "majority" is not influenced by propaganda.

If my premise is wrong and so trivially easy to explain why is it that not one commentary was able to address It?
As a laymen I was able to understand perfectly in simple terms one of the reasons for doubting evolution.
Should it not also be expected that a person that fervently believes in it is able to explain the reasons for supporting it?

Nonetheless I thank you for your comments

You admit to knowing very little about science, and yet you wonder if your poorly informed understanding gets to override the entire field of knowledge and the consensus of all the experts? I'd say that yes, you are living in a fantasy. We've explained why your ideas are wrong, and it's not our problem if you won't engage with our explanations.

Whoever provided you with your "understanding" and "logic" about biology did you a disservice. You are in fact miseducated, and you have been miseducated by actual propaganda, because the ideas you're raising were created by people who had their conclusion pre-selected before ever looking at the scientific evidence.

1. Scientists win a Nobel Prize if they discover new evidence and overturn the long-held theories of the prior consensus. They are rewarded. We have seen this happen repeatedly. If evolution were false, biologists of all stripes would be shouting it from the rooftops because it would be in their best interest to do so, and it would be an act of professional integrity. (Incidentally, there would also be demonstrable evidence that it is false, which there definitely isn't.) Academic freedom and the culture of science demand that the scientific consensus follow the evidence where it leads, and we have seen many examples of these large shifts in our understanding.

2. Professors and researchers at religious schools almost always sign a "Statement of Faith" as a requirement for their continued employment. These agreements stipulate than they can be fired for publishing any findings that go against the pre-existing religious doctrine of their institution. They are punished for overturning old ideas. In my opinion, if their doctrine were actually true then it wouldn't need to be protected from questioning.

Tell me, whose findings should I trust more? You are trusting the intellectual hostages and the post-hoc rationalizers, and I think you're putting your eggs in the wrong basket.

 

[ElishaElijah]

You really need a new song and dance.

That’s the problem with this generation… always looking for and following the next fad and new thing which is just repackaged lies. I’m not changing and my message is going to be the same.

 

[McBell]

That’s the problem with this generation… always looking for and following the next fad and new thing which is just repackaged lies. I’m not changing and my message is going to be the same.

So, you prefer the original lies over the repackaged lies?

 

[AlexanderG]

The direct question has been answered many times, a recruitment? Seems like you’ve already been recruited. Not only that but to believe there is no recruitment is naive. Satan is deceiving and recruiting and so are you. Am I recruiting? Wouldn’t put it like that because it’s God who does the “calling” and “saving”. My purpose is more like this:

““At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.”
‭‭Daniel‬ ‭12:1-3‬ ‭ESV‬‬
@SigurdReginson Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.”
‭‭James‬ ‭5:19-20‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

I'm pretty sure everyone here already knows what the Bible says and what Christians believe. Repeating this content to the unconvinced isn't adding anything to the discussion. It isn't how you convince people. What we would need is good evidence that these statements you're making actually correspond to the reality that we all share. You would need to point to some aspect of observable reality that specifically supports your claims to the exclusion of all other explanations. Merely stating what you believe is just restating your claim. To actually convince people then you need something besides subjective personal experience, emotional appeals, or further restatements of your claim. Please do better, for all our sakes.

This debate thread is about a scientific issue. Preaching your supernatural beliefs isn't really impactful here. Incidentally, most Christians accept the fact of evolution because of the comprehensive evidence that backs up its claims, so maybe you should take it up with them and sort out an official Christian perspective.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So I have asked twice, how is that relevant to my post?

I was mentioning the futility of science.

I thought blatant preaching was against forum rules?

No, it is not. Look at the posts from Bahais (apart from the posts from Christians).

Satan is deceiving and recruiting and so are you.

You still live in third Century?

 

[ElishaElijah]

I thought blatant preaching was against forum rules?

You got it going on as well as everyone else, just because people get around it by using IMO doesn’t change that.

 

[ElishaElijah]

So, is that a "yes"?

It’s a you don’t know what Truth is

 

[McBell]

It’s a you don’t know what Truth is

So a "no" then?

I sincerely do not understand why you are so afraid of answering.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I sincerely do not understand why you are so afraid of answering.

Who is afraid to answer? Have you stopped beating up little girls yet? Yes or No

 

[firedragon]

I was mentioning the futility of science.

Why?

 

[McBell]

Who is afraid to answer?

You are.

Have you stopped beating up little girls yet? Yes or No

I have never made any comment about little girls, beaten or otherwise.

You, on the other hand, flat out stated you refuse to use the repackaged lies.
Now if that is not what you meant, you should simply say so and move on.
But with all this dancing around it you are doing, makes it appear you feel you got caught red handed with your hand in the cookie jar and are trying desperately to get everyone to look away long enough to remove your hand.

 

[Polymath257]

*** Thread Closed For Staff Review ***

 

[Polymath257]

*** Thread Re-opened ****

 

[Hockeycowboy]

accepting solid science.

“May have”, “could have been”, etc., is not solid science. It’s guesswork.

What’s the difference - in your estimation - of science and “solid” science?
You put the adjective there, not me.
Oh, evolution is science — and solid, regarding some aspects of it. But to say all life evolved....that is assumption not verified by experiments.
Evolutionary processes can only alter existing information in the cell...creating them de novo, is only suggested, not a fact.

“...researchers have yet to work out how to definitively identify a gene as being de novo,”
How evolution builds genes from scratch

At least that’s honest.

Of course, evolution will always be expected to prevail despite any evidence, as long as naturalism is viewed as lord & king.

You always decry IC as evidence for design by intelligence......but please, how *could* the bacterial flagellum evolve? What pathways *could have been* taken to gradually build this nano machine? Or *could* it emerge suddenly?

(“Did” is better than “could” — it’s exact — but that’s ok.
Fortunately, we don’t accept “may have” and “probably” in criminal court cases as solid evidence. Courts require more substantial evidence.)

But I’m interested to understand why you’ve called it “sold evidence”.

 

[Polymath257]

“May have”, “could have been”, etc., is not solid science. It’s guesswork.

On the contrary, that is *precisely* how professional scientists talk: they are cautious about conclusions and always willing to look at new evidence, even when the current evidence is overwhelming.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

even when the current evidence is overwhelming.

I don’t dispute evolution, within family taxa.
What I take issue with, and so do many others, is this adamant conferring of limitless ability to create not just all life, but living systems including symbiosis and other facets.

It goes beyond the tangible. Like the numerous relationships between unrelated organisms.

IMO, it will be a great day indeed, when science divorces itself from materialism.


Take care, cousin.

 

[Polymath257]

I don’t dispute evolution, within family taxa.
What I take issue with, and so do many others, is this adamant conferring of limitless ability to create not just all life, but living systems including symbiosis and other facets.

It goes beyond the tangible. Like the numerous relationships between unrelated organisms.

IMO, it will be a great day indeed, when science divorces itself from materialism.


Take care, cousin.

And I see it as having been a good day when science divorced itself from adherence to religious dogma.

If you can show how to test ideas relating to anything non-material, please let some scientist know.

The crucial thing about science is testability, not materialism. But, we use material devices to do the testing.

 

[Heyo]

You always decry IC as evidence for design by intelligence......but please, how *could* the bacterial flagellum evolve? What pathways *could have been* taken to gradually build this nano machine? Or *could* it emerge suddenly?

If you prefer text to video, there are links to the sources in the description.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And I see it as having been a good day when science divorced itself from adherence to religious dogma.

Yes, I agree with you there.

(Religious dogma has been the source of so much pain! It’s alienated people one from another. But would that be God’s fault?
For instance, the Bible counsels Christians to love it each other. If they don’t live up to it, it’s not the Bible’s fault.)

But the issue is not related to dogma. Even Newton didn’t agree with the dogma of his day. In fact, his Biblical views were downright heretical.

But he did see an intelligence behind what is observed, with its order and structure. And of course, he had no idea of the elegant complexities found within the cell! It would’ve blown his mind.

If he had known that, do you really think he would have attributed their origin to physics alone, through chance & undirected mechanisms?

Take care.