Evolution vs Intelligent design/creationism

[Subduction Zone]

I am all for science and its methods. But I do not subscribe to scientism, the thinking that science is the only way to learn about nature.

From what I have seen "scientism" is an attack on science by creationists. Science may not be able to answer all questions, but it can clearly answer some.

I know from my decades of study of the so-called paranormal that dramatic things do lie beyond the reach of current science. I am also certain from my study of eastern (Hindu) and western esoteric wisdom traditions that they can tell me in considerable detail about this ‘more’ beyond the reach of mainstream science. I have studied certain advanced souls/masters in considerable detail.

In my experience when closely studied the paranormal goes away.

Even science tells us 85% of the matter in the universe (so-called dark matter) is not directly detectable by our physical senses and instruments. I believe the psychic senses of the masters and the gifted can perceive things our physical senses can not.

Fine, what evidence do you have that supports this belief? I can believe that there is a magic teapot orbiting halfway between Earth and Mars. That belief does no good without support.

I will add that I believe that science should remain agnostic to my spiritual beliefs. But again, I do not learn about reality solely from physical science.

How do you learn about reality aside from science? What reliable tests do you have?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am all for science and its methods. But I do not subscribe to scientism, the thinking that science is the only way to learn about nature.

I know from my decades of study of the so-called paranormal that dramatic things do lie beyond the reach of current science. I am also certain from my study of eastern (Hindu) and western esoteric wisdom traditions that they can tell me in considerable detail about this ‘more’ beyond the reach of mainstream science. I have studied certain advanced souls/masters in considerable detail.

Even science tells us 85% of the matter in the universe (so-called dark matter) is not directly detectable by our physical senses and instruments. I believe the psychic senses of the masters and the gifted can perceive things our physical senses can not.

I will add that I believe that science should remain agnostic to my spiritual beliefs. But again, I do not learn about reality solely from physical science.

I don't see the application of science or the knowledge we acquire from it as meaningless or warranting dismissal because science is limited to what we can see and quantify. If you what you have learned from these "masters" is real, then it falls under the vision and application of science. Otherwise, you are expressing a position of faith. Without evidence of high powers, science has no way to be in a position that favors any deity or creator or favors against them. It is neutral in that regard.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

From what I have seen "scientism" is an attack on science by creationists. Science may not be able to answer all questions, but it can clearly answer some.



In my experience when closely studied the paranormal goes away.



Fine, what evidence do you have that supports this belief? I can believe that there is a magic teapot orbiting halfway between Earth and Mars. That belief does no good without support.



How do you learn about reality aside from science? What reliable tests do you have?

Terms like scientism are used to dismiss science in my experience.

The paranormal that has gone unexplained, that I'm aware of doesn't have enough evidence to support the claims that believers attribute to it either. Where there is something to work with using close study it disappears as you say. So it either disappears under scrutiny or where that fails is so open that any claims can be applied with equal meaninglessness.

 

[George-ananda]

From what I have seen "scientism" is an attack on science by creationists. Science may not be able to answer all questions, but it can clearly answer some.

No, I am not a creationist but I attack scientism. Dictionary:

sci·en·tism

1. thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
   • excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

Basically 'scientism' is saying the science is the only way we can know about reality.

Fine, what evidence do you have that supports this belief? I can believe that there is a magic teapot orbiting halfway between Earth and Mars. That belief does no good without support.

I agree with that statement. But my beliefs were formed by decades of study into the paranormal and spiritual. I did not start with the beliefs and then look for support. I looked at the evidence and formed my beliefs from that.

How do you learn about reality aside from science? What reliable tests do you have?

From observation of paranormal and spiritual phenomena and the teachings I have judged to be of immense value in understanding the nature of our reality. Some things can not be tested by the scientific method at this time. Science is still growing and I believe also that certain enlightened and advances souls do know things beyond the reach of current science.

 

[George-ananda]

I don't see the application of science or the knowledge we acquire from it as meaningless or warranting dismissal because science is limited to what we can see and quantify.

I agree with that statement. I said science is to be highly valued but that it is not the ONLY way to learn about reality.

If you what you have learned from these "masters" is real, then it falls under the vision and application of science.

I agree. I think all things come under the domain of science but science at this time is limited to only what is detectable by our physical senses and instruments. I believe there is more to reality than the physical.

Otherwise, you are expressing a position of faith. Without evidence of high powers, science has no way to be in a position that favors any deity or creator or favors against them. It is neutral in that regard.

Yes, as I said science should be agnostic on these issues. But once again, I personally also learn from those whose wisdom traditions I believe extend beyond science's current reach. Science can not yet comment on these things.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree with that statement. I said science is to be highly valued but that it is not the ONLY way to learn about reality.

What are the other ways?

I agree. I think all things come under the domain of science but science at this time is limited to only what is detectable by our physical senses and instruments. I believe there is more to reality than the physical.

That may be so and is what I think too, but I don't leap to speculation as to what an answer might be based on my beliefs. That is speculation at best and practically worthless.

Yes, as I said science should be agnostic on these issues. But once again, I personally also learn from those whose wisdom traditions I believe extend beyond science's current reach. Science can not yet comment on these things.

I'm not saying that people can learn from any source. I think they can, but I don't arbitrarily attribute that knowledge as outside current science just because. It might very well be and no one has bothered to apply it. There are mysteries in this world, but not all of them require us to leap from unidentified flying objects to massive extraterrestrial civilizations as an explanation. Sometimes an unidentified flying object just wasn't identifiable and is nothing more than that.

If you are looking for wisdom, I don't think it matters whether the knowledge can be teased apart by science or not. Even if I think it can, that doesn't discount the value of the wisdom. I don't see wisdom and knowledge as the same thing. One is the information and the other is how you apply it usefully. You can get wisdom from a fakir just as easily as you can from a scientist and nothing about either implies that they are each the only possible source of wisdom.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The global flood need not be an actual event for me to acquire wisdom from the biblical narrative.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, I am not a creationist but I attack scientism. Dictionary:

sci·en·tism

1. thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
   • excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

Basically 'scientism' is saying the science is the only way we can know about reality.
I agree with that statement. But my beliefs were formed by decades of study into the paranormal and spiritual. I did not start with the beliefs and then look for support. I looked at the evidence and formed my beliefs from that.


From observation of paranormal and spiritual phenomena and the teachings I have judged to be of immense value in understanding the nature of our reality. Some things can not be tested by the scientific method at this time. Science is still growing and I believe also that certain enlightened and advances souls do know things beyond the reach of current science.

I would need more evidence to evaluate what you claim to have seen. You'll pardon me if I rely on physical evidence to persuade me. I don't even know that you don't have it, but I do know that no one making similar claims has revealed any.

I think you are mixing different concepts here. A miracle that turns out to be easily explained by science could still be a source of gaining wisdom. I don't deny that. If a person can find peace and openness and eventual understanding from a study of nonstandard traditions and methods, I don't deny it or disqualify it. I just wouldn't make sweeping claims that it is outside of science without knowing that to be the case.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree with that statement. I said science is to be highly valued but that it is not the ONLY way to learn about reality.
I agree. I think all things come under the domain of science but science at this time is limited to only what is detectable by our physical senses and instruments. I believe there is more to reality than the physical.


Yes, as I said science should be agnostic on these issues. But once again, I personally also learn from those whose wisdom traditions I believe extend beyond science's current reach. Science can not yet comment on these things.

Would you agree that we have only our senses to review, evaluate and make determinations about the world around us? I can't discount the possibility that there are certain senses outside the traditional five senses and that in some people these possible senses may be heightened. Of course I can't determine that extra senses exist and that people that allegedly have them are not actually better able to process the information that they get from the standard set of senses. That is a possibility too. You can take ten people for a walk that runs from a suburban setting to a parkland and some will notice things that others don't. Some will make decisions based on objects, conditions, scents and sounds that others don't. I remember an administrative assistant in the department I did my graduate work at. She was married to a highway patrolman. Once when they were out for a walk in the twilight of the evening, he stopped them at a corner that had a high shrub blocking visibility around the corner. She wandered why and he peered around just in time to catch a person walking quickly away. When it was clear they were safe, he showed her the still smoldering cigarette he had smelled and she had missed. It may have been just a person out for a smoke, but the point is that she learned to tune her senses to details that she previously ignored. Maybe that is all that some people are doing and are better tuned to the input they receive.

It's interesting. I don't discount that you have received wisdom from your studies, I just can't agree with your conclusions about the nature of the source of this wisdom without further evidence. I admit that I have doubts about the nature that you apply to the sources, but that doesn't mean I think you are on a false path for the goals you may be trying to achieve.

 

[George-ananda]

I would need more evidence to evaluate what you claim to have seen. You'll pardon me if I rely on physical evidence to persuade me. I don't even know that you don't have it, but I do know that no one making similar claims has revealed any.

When I say evidence, I am talking about the analysis of the human paranormal and spiritual experiences like the Near Death Experiences, Childhood Reincarnation memories, religious miracles, spirit communication etc., etc..

I think you are mixing different concepts here. A miracle that turns out to be easily explained by science could still be a source of gaining wisdom. I don't deny that. If a person can find peace and openness and eventual understanding from a study of nonstandard traditions and methods, I don't deny it or disqualify it. I just wouldn't make sweeping claims that it is outside of science without knowing that to be the case.

Well I hold many genuine experiences are beyond current science's understanding and will in the future cause science to accept some things we now think of as spiritual (non-physical bodies, spiritual realms, etc.).

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I am not a creationist but I attack scientism. Dictionary:

sci·en·tism

1. thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
   • excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

Basically 'scientism' is saying the science is the only way we can know about reality.

Tell me how else that we can know about reality? And I have only seen creationists abuse that term. But we have been over this before. You do not seem to understand the burden of proof, and who it lies upon.

I agree with that statement. But my beliefs were formed by decades of study into the paranormal and spiritual. I did not start with the beliefs and then look for support. I looked at the evidence and formed my beliefs from that.

But yet when requested you could not support your beliefs. And I sincerely doubt your claims. The prejudice was probably deeply buried.

From observation of paranormal and spiritual phenomena and the teachings I have judged to be of immense value in understanding the nature of our reality. Some things can not be tested by the scientific method at this time. Science is still growing and I believe also that certain enlightened and advances souls do know things beyond the reach of current science.

What "observation"? Do you understand that term? Observations need to be repeatable to be of any value at all. When you have something sold then your beliefs may be valid. Right now they clearly are not well founded at all.

 

[George-ananda]

Would you agree that we have only our senses to review, evaluate and make determinations about the world around us? I can't discount the possibility that there are certain senses outside the traditional five senses and that in some people these possible senses may be heightened. Of course I can't determine that extra senses exist and that people that allegedly have them are not actually better able to process the information that they get from the standard set of senses. That is a possibility too. You can take ten people for a walk that runs from a suburban setting to a parkland and some will notice things that others don't. Some will make decisions based on objects, conditions, scents and sounds that others don't. I remember an administrative assistant in the department I did my graduate work at. She was married to a highway patrolman. Once when they were out for a walk in the twilight of the evening, he stopped them at a corner that had a high shrub blocking visibility around the corner. She wandered why and he peered around just in time to catch a person walking quickly away. When it was clear they were safe, he showed her the still smoldering cigarette he had smelled and she had missed. It may have been just a person out for a smoke, but the point is that she learned to tune her senses to details that she previously ignored. Maybe that is all that some people are doing and are better tuned to the input they receive.

It's interesting. I don't discount that you have received wisdom from your studies, I just can't agree with your conclusions about the nature of the source of this wisdom without further evidence. I admit that I have doubts about the nature that you apply to the sources, but that doesn't mean I think you are on a false path for the goals you may be trying to achieve.

Science is what we can learn through our 5 physical senses and instruments. I also believe there are those that experience with so-called psychic senses and we can consider (neither blindly accept nor blindly reject) what they say. It is this consideration that has formed my beliefs. Also, I have certainly spent more time than most carefully studying the paranormal and psychic and spiritual/religious phenomena. I have digested enough to give me my beliefs as to what is most reasonable. I think part of the challenge to acceptance by others is an academic and cultural bias against serious consideration of the 'beyond the normal'. The evidence is there I believe, but there is a bias against it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When I say evidence, I am talking about the analysis of the human paranormal and spiritual experiences like the Near Death Experiences, Childhood Reincarnation memories, religious miracles, spirit communication etc., etc..

I know that "Near Death Experiences" have largely been explained. It is not a good sign when your first claim has been refuted.

Well I hold many genuine experiences are beyond current science's understanding and will in the future cause science to accept some things we now think of as spiritual (non-physical bodies, spiritual realms, etc.).

Strange, if you had "genuine experiences" one would think that you could support that claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science is what we can learn through our 5 physical senses and instruments. I also believe there are those that experience with so-called psychic senses and we can consider (neither blindly accept nor blindly reject) what they say. It is this consideration that has formed my beliefs. Also, I have certainly spent more time than most carefully studying the paranormal and psychic and spiritual/religious phenomena. I have digested enough to give me my beliefs as to what is most reasonable. I think part of the challenge to acceptance by others is an academic and cultural bias against serious consideration of the 'beyond the normal'. The evidence is there I believe, but there is a bias against it.

Again, what "psychic senses"? If they exist then they should be testable. We may not understand how they work, but if real their is a way to test one's claims.

 

[George-ananda]

Tell me how else that we can know about reality? And I have only seen creationists abuse that term. But we have been over this before. You do not seem to understand the burden of proof, and who it lies upon.

(I hope you caught that I am not a creationist)

I express my beliefs after consideration of all the evidence and argumentation. I have no burden of proof because I don't claim 'proof', just my position as to what is most reasonable to believe after consideration of all the evidence and argumentation. Yes, it is just my position as your position is only yours.

We can also learn about reality from considering (neither blindly accepting nor blindly dismissing) and analyzing the 'beyond the normal' experiences of mankind. I listed above well considered subjects like the Near Death Experiences, Childhood Reincarnation memories, religious miracles, spirit communication etc., etc..

 

[George-ananda]

I know that "Near Death Experiences" have largely been explained. It is not a good sign when your first claim has been refuted.

Nothing of those things I listed have been satisfactorily explained by skeptics is my strong opinion. Each of those is a separate thread topic in themselves.

Strange, if you had "genuine experiences" one would think that you could support that claim.

I personally have only had some average experiences that certainly can never be shown to anyone else. My consideration comes from the full body of human experiences and the argumentation and analysis regarding them.

 

[George-ananda]

Again, what "psychic senses"? If they exist then they should be testable. We may not understand how they work, but if real their is a way to test one's claims.

There are many successful tests in parapsychology that have proved beyond reasonable doubt the existence of psychic senses (telepathy, remote viewing, etc.) at phenomenal odds against chance. I feel they are established and I have heard the skeptics arguments and feel they have failed to explain the phenomena.

 

[Subduction Zone]

(I hope you caught that I am not a creationist)

I express my beliefs after consideration of all the evidence and argumentation. I have no burden of proof because I don't claim 'proof', just my position as to what is most reasonable to believe after consideration of all the evidence and argumentation. Yes, it is just my position as your position is only yours.

We can also learn about reality from considering (neither blindly accepting nor blindly dismissing) and analyzing the 'beyond the normal' experiences of mankind. I listed above well considered subjects like the Near Death Experiences, Childhood Reincarnation memories, religious miracles, spirit communication etc., etc..

Even though you are not a creationist your understanding of the burden of proof needs some work. If you make a positive assertion then you automatically put the burden of proof upon yourself. When you claim that you have no evidence then you automatically make your claims worthless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are many successful tests in parapsychology that have proved beyond reasonable doubt the existence of psychic senses (telepathy, remote viewing, etc.) at phenomenal odds against chance. I feel they are established and I have heard the skeptics arguments and feel they have failed to explain the phenomena.

Not that I have heard of. If that were the case your beliefs would not be qualified as "Woo". Please note if anything was proven beyond a reasonable doubt then they could have easily have won James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge.

Once again you make a positive assertion. Where is your evidence?

 

[George-ananda]

Even though you are not a creationist your understanding of the burden of proof needs some work. If you make a positive assertion then you automatically put the burden of proof upon yourself. When you claim that you have no evidence then you automatically make your claims worthless.

The only claim I am making is what my personal analysis has shown me to be the most reasonable beliefs. I am not making any scientific claim that would require a burden of proof.