Evolution: Just A Reminder *sigh*

[Valjean]

Both sides infer their positions from the evidence. So it's a philosophical debate.

What empirical evidence does the religious side have? I see only folklore.
The religious side does no research, in fact, it discourages research. It does no testing. It's not falsifiable. It's not predictive. It lacks peer review, indeed, it's historical record on that score is pretty gruesome.

 

[osgart]

What empirical evidence does the religious side have? I see only folklore.
The religious side does no research, in fact, it discourages research. It does no testing. It's not falsifiable. It's not predictive. It lacks peer review, indeed, it's historical record on that score is pretty gruesome.

Religion is about finding meaning and purpose in life. I would not expect that it has anything in common with science. There is only that one cross over point about the nature of consciousness, and intelligent agency in nature. Otherwise it's a totally different pursuit.

Of course with science we can now refute the literal interpretations of Abrahamic religions. And I am glad to see those religions go personally. Anyone invested in those religions are going to turn a blind eye to actual science. They can't admit they are wasting their lives on it. It would be a great emotional letdown for them.

I think religion does have a worthy set of meanings to explore; the nature of love, morality, conscience, spirituality, charity, benevolence, personal relationship, subjectivity, inspiration, and other such things.

 

[shunyadragon]

Both sides infer their positions from the evidence. So it's a philosophical debate.

Actually no, scientific view regardless of religious belief is based on objective verifiable evidence. Those theists that oppose science lack the objective verifiable evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

Religion is about finding meaning and purpose in life. I would not expect that it has anything in common with science. There is only that one cross over point about the nature of consciousness, and intelligent agency in nature. Otherwise it's a totally different pursuit.

Of course with science we can now refute the literal interpretations of Abrahamic religions.

The reality is the cross over is the degree of harmony ones sees between religion and science, Of source the literalist view sees no harmony between science and religion, but than again, the doctrine and beliefs in Christianity as described in the New Testament and the testimony of the Church Fathers who approved of the final composition of th eNT depend on a literal Genesis Flood and Adam and Eve, Islam is equally problematic if one considers a literal interpretation.

Jews for the most part accept science and reject a literal interpretation of Genesis, and not base don their belief need not advocate a literal interpretation,

I believe in the evolved nature of Revelation in the relationship between God humanity and Creation. There is always a human cultural influence on scripture in the world of when they revealed. The progression of belief from early Judaism to Contemporary Judaism and Christianity reflect this evolution. Islam and the Baha'i Faith are a part of that progressive evolving nature of this relationship between God humanity and Creation, which both physically and spiritually evolves.

And I am glad to see those religions go personally. Anyone invested in those religions are going to turn a blind eye to actual science. They can't admit they are wasting their lives on it. It would be a great emotional letdown for them.

The religions of the world no matter how ancient they are should be considered our spiritual heritage.

I think religion does have a worthy set of meanings to explore; the nature of love, morality, conscience, spirituality, charity, benevolence, personal relationship, subjectivity, inspiration, and other such things.

. . . but this nature of religion needs to evolve and change as humanity evolves, and you cannot use the moral standards of the Old Testament for today's moral standards.

 

[osgart]

Actually no, scientific view regardless of religious belief is based on objective verifiable evidence. Those theists that oppose science lack the objective verifiable evidence.

I know methodological naturalism is pure science. But naturalism applied to the big existential questions is still philosophy. It could be that the laws of nature do not come from mindless processes. And theism isn't the only religion.

 

[LuisDantas]

Which began with the alleged precursor organism of all life. The evolution of chemicals i.e. changing characteristics, is not considered. The source of the information in the genes of every organism is irrelevant.

OK, you have avoided some unanswerable questions with this dodge.

It's all good though, you can set the rules however you choose.

Interesting that your rules determine who is "moderately well informed". Apparently someone is not moderately well informed when they ask an evolutionist why they believe in abiogenesis, or elves, as the source of the precursor organism.

This belief is sacrosanct, and cannot be questioned, got it.

You know, it is attitudes such as this that lead so many people who value intellectual honesty to leave Christianity or even Theism as a whole.

 

[shunyadragon]

I know methodological naturalism is pure science. But naturalism applied to the big existential questions is still philosophy. It could be that the laws of nature do not come from mindless processes. And theism isn't the only religion.

The only way that science can go beyond Methodological Naturalism is acknowledge the harmony of science and religion, and not see the contradiction, and reject science. The problem with the existential questions of philosophy is that they are subjective and anecdotal in nature and subject to variable interpretations.

 

[osgart]

The reality is the cross over is the degree of harmony ones sees between religion and science, Of source the literalist view sees no harmony between science and religion, but than again, the doctrine and beliefs in Christianity as described in the New Testament and the testimony of the Church Fathers who approved of the final composition of th eNT depend on a literal Genesis Flood and Adam and Eve, Islam is equally problematic if one considers a literal interpretation.

Jews for the most part accept science and reject a literal interpretation of Genesis, and not base don their belief need not advocate a literal interpretation,

I believe in the evolved nature of Revelation in the relationship between God humanity and Creation. There is always a human cultural influence on scripture in the world of when they revealed. The progression of belief from early Judaism to Contemporary Judaism and Christianity reflect this evolution. Islam and the Baha'i Faith are a part of that progressive evolving nature of this relationship between God humanity and Creation, which both physically and spiritually evolves.



The religions of the world no matter how ancient they are should be considered our spiritual heritage.



. . . but this nature of religion needs to evolve and change as humanity evolves, and you cannot use the moral standards of the Old Testament for today's moral standards.

I agree that the nature of religion needs to evolve. And in a universal direction.

Perhaps evolution and psychology could explain the nature of our spiritual heritage far better then just the religions themselves. I would like to believe that humanity is becoming wiser, and more compassionate. Growing out of a primitive mindset.

 

[Valjean]

Religion is about finding meaning and purpose in life. I would not expect that it has anything in common with science. There is only that one cross over point about the nature of consciousness, and intelligent agency in nature. Otherwise it's a totally different pursuit..

Meaning and purpose? No! Abrahamic religion is an assertion of absolute, objective, metaphysical truth. It's not a social club or self-help modality. It's goal is to get you to Heaven, not improve your life.

 

[osgart]

Meaning and purpose? No! Abrahamic religion is an assertion of absolute, objective, metaphysical truth. It's not a social club or self-help modality. It's goal is to get you to Heaven, not improve your life.

I'm not defending Abrahamic religion. I know it's false. I don't think anyone needs science to refute it, but it helps. Abrahamic religion is destructive.

I was talking about religion in general.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not defending Abrahamic religion. I know it's false. I don't think anyone needs science to refute it, but it helps. Abrahamic religion is destructive.

I was talking about religion in general.

I will take exception to the condemnation of all Abrahamic religions, because the Baha'i Faith is an Abrahamic religion. I agree ancient abrahamic religions have many destructive aspects, because of their ancient tribal heritage, ancient laws for human relationships, and ancient perspective of others who believe differently.

 

[osgart]

I will take exception to the condemnation of all Abrahamic religions, because the Baha'i Faith is an Abrahamic religion. I agree ancient abrahamic religions have many destructive aspects, because of their ancient tribal heritage, ancient laws for human relationships, and ancient perspective of others who believe differently.

I really don't know how to draw any positives from it. Any positives in it would run contrary to the whole of what is written. Those religions denounce those who live and believe differently. If there is a God message in those religions humanity mangled it and twisted it to serve their own needs.

I have enjoyed a lot of those Ba'hai writings right up until they talk about those Abrahamic Messengers. Somehow Ba'hai's find a unifying message in all religions, and I find that Christianity, Judaism, Islam only want to obliterate the non believers. I wouldn't care so much if it was at its roots meant for peace. But Jesus said He came to draw a sword. Koran talks about the punishment of infidels, and Judaism is extremely tribal as their God often commands to kill heathens, and perform sacrifices. So I take offense to those religions because they draw a sword against me if I do not ever conform to their God.

 

[shunyadragon]

I really don't know how to draw any positives from it. Any positives in it would run contrary to the whole of what is written. Those religions denounce those who live and believe differently. If there is a God message in those religions humanity mangled it and twisted it to serve their own needs.

Religions need to be put in the context of their time, and the dark side of human nature, which is with us throughout history regardless of religion.

I have enjoyed a lot of those Ba'hai writings right up until they talk about those Abrahamic Messengers. Somehow Baha'i's find a unifying message in all religions, and I find that Christianity, Judaism, Islam only want to obliterate the non believers. I wouldn't care so much if it was at its roots meant for peace. But Jesus said He came to draw a sword. Koran talks about the punishment of infidels, and Judaism is extremely tribal as their God often commands to kill heathens, and perform sacrifices. So I take offense to those religions because they draw a sword against me if I do not ever conform to their God.[/QUOTE]

I believe we are evolving spiritually and in reality the violence is decreasing, though sometimes it does not appear this is the case. The Baha'i principles are also indeed being slowly being adopted world wide.

 

[Skwim]

Religion is about finding meaning and purpose in life.

If anything, religion is about announcing meaning and purpose in life.

I would not expect that it has anything in common with science.

Well, both do make pronouncements of truth.

.

 

[osgart]

If anything, religion is about announcing meaning and purpose in life.


Well, both do make pronouncements of truth.

.

Religion must grow beyond its current condition. Knowledge without wisdom is a train wreck waiting to happen. Religion is an expression of mankind's yearning for meaningfulness, and greater purpose.

I dare say you will never eradicate it. It will evolve. Science will fuel its evolution.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, in fact. It is common. We don't need to have understanding of *everything* in order to understand *some things*.

That especially if with emphasizing. Especially because sometimes, often times, learning about the some parts helps us to better understand the everything, even if we find what we previously thought about the small things is wrong.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I would not expect that it has anything in common with science.

If religion is true, the two would be inherently and deeply entwined, with science become a literal study of god's creation and mechanisms that drive it. But, many scientists disagree with your claim anyways.

Religion is about finding meaning and purpose in life.

Seems to me its more about having it handed to and having your hand held through it all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which began with the alleged precursor organism of all life.

Which itself was a living thing. Yes. Exactly.
Evolution starts with life already existing.
Meaning that it doesn't address the origins of life. It addresses the changes life went through after it already existed.

OK, you have avoided some unanswerable questions with this dodge.

It's not a dodge. It's just a scope of explanation.
Origins of life simply is another field of inquiry.

Why is this so hard to comprehend? You even said it yourself in the very first sentence of your post. Evolution starts with already existing life.

It's all good though, you can set the rules however you choose.

Well, rules of engagement are important in discussions and debates. One such rules is honesty. It's not really honest to complain that plate tectonic theory doesn't explain the formation of the solar system. Just like it's not honest to complain that a theory concerning the evolution of existing life, doesn't explain the formation of life itself.

Interesting that your rules determine who is "moderately well informed".

Not that interesting... I mean, understanding the scope of the explanation one wishes to argue about, seems rather basic.... if the scope isn't even understood, how could you ever claim to be "well informed"?

Would you say that someone who thinks that plate tectonic theory includes an explanation for the formation of the solar system, is "well informed" on the subject of plate tectonics? I sure wouldn't....

Apparently someone is not moderately well informed when they ask an evolutionist why they believe in abiogenesis, or elves, as the source of the precursor organism.

Being honest about the point that is being addressed is also a form of honesty.
The OP speaks about the scope of evolution theory. It speaks about creationists dishonestly demanding evolution theory to explain something that lies outside of its scope.

The OP isn't saying that people can't ask questions about whatever subject.
It's merely saying that the subject of "first cause" or the origins of life etc, are NOT within the scope of evolution theory. As in: not knowing the answers to questions about those fields of inquirey, doesn't have any impact on the validity of evolution theory.

Just like not knowing how the solar system formed, doesn't prevent one to know about and understand plate tectonics. How the solar system formed, has no relevancy to the validity and accuracy of the model of plate tectonics.

This belief is sacrosanct, and cannot be questioned, got it.

No, you didn't "get" it. Not even remotely.

And I'll bet 1000 bucks that you're still not getting it.
Your psychological defenses prevent you from getting it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Both sides infer their positions from the evidence. So it's a philosophical debate.

No, religion does not assert its position based on "evidence".
This is why religions demand "faith" - which is the thing you need when you have no evidence, yet still want to believe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What empirical evidence does the religious side have? I see only folklore.
The religious side does no research, in fact, it discourages research. It does no testing. It's not falsifiable. It's not predictive. It lacks peer review, indeed, it's historical record on that score is pretty gruesome.

8000 years of religion brought us stone buildings, wars fought with sticks, stones, swords and arrows and turned to praying, exorcisms and things like bloodletting (wich has some exorcist sauce on it) as cures for "desease", horse with chariot as the best land transportation and pidgeons as the fastest way of long distance communication.

300 years of science trippled life expectancy, brought infant mortality to a ridiculous all-time low, cars with the power of 1000 horses, airplanes, the internet, robots, satelites and humans on the moon.



This is the difference between "faith-based" and "empirical evidence-based" belief systems.