Interesting video about evolution and origins.

[Brian2]

He did no such thing. He should know better. He only made an irrational argument.

And here is how you made an appeal to false authority and just admitted to it. He based his authority on the fact that he is an expert in genetics. I have no argument with that. He was the one that brought science into this, and you brought science into this by using him as a source. Don't accuse others of your sins.

All of his arguments were logical fallacies and all were related to his work. That makes what he was spewing pseudoscience.
Don't accuse me of scientism when that was your sin.

Are there other ways of showing that a god exists besides science? Possibly, but I have never seen a valid argument. I do get tired of the hypocrisy of some believers when they are the ones that appeal to science to prove their faith and then they are the ones that accuse others of "scientism" when their science is proven to be crap.

My science is not proven to be crap since Garte was not doing science in his talk.
He was however making reasonable observations about science.
If I say that Garte is an expert, that is just the truth and all I am doing is saying, go and argue with the expert.
And really? Are you really saying that I and Garte are making an appeal to authority because he is a professor of biochemistry?
So when I use sources that you say aren't qualified, you say the sources aren't qualified so the argument is no good.
Than when I use a source that is qualified that also means the argument is no good.
Hmm. OK. You're the expert on what is crap.

 

[Brian2]

The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a Christianreligious organization of scientists and people in science-related disciplines. The stated purpose is "to investigate any area relating Christian faith and science." The organization publishes a journal, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith which covers topics related to Christian faith and science from a Christian viewpoint.
(American Scientific Affiliation - Wikipedia)



This from the ASA website:
(https://network.asa3.org/page/ASAAbout)


Our Statement of Faith

1. We accept the divine inspiration, trustworthiness and authority of the Bible in matters of faith and conduct.
2. We confess the Triune God affirmed in the Nicene and Apostles' creeds, which we accept as brief, faithful statements of Christian doctrine based upon Scripture.
3. We believe that in creating and preserving the universe God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, the basis of scientific investigation.
4. We recognize our responsibility, as stewards of God's creation, to use science and technology for the good of humanity and the whole world.

The above makes cognitive bias obvious….
Actual science doesn’t align itself to any particular religious viewpoint.

Which part of what you wrote about Sy Garte and the organisation he belongs to, makes cognitive bias obvious?
Are you saying that if a scientist aligns him/herself with a particular religious viewpoint then they are cognitively biased?
Would this also include atheist/skeptic scientists who claim not to align themselves with any particular religious viewpoint?

 

[Valjean]

No he says that evolution and the Bible can be compatible and so any use of evolution by atheists/skeptics to deny God is unwarranted.

Doesn't strike me as of much use in denying God.

He claims that science is full of comments by scientists that there is design and mentions Dawkins also who says this but claims it is just an illusion that it looks like design.
Garte says that atheist have a rational process to hang their hat on, an intellectual reason, with evolution, to say that there is no God. But it does not work when the Bible does not disagree with evolution.

My lack of belief in God has nothing to do with evolution, nor does my Biblical skepticism, for that matter.

It is the origins of life through chemical evolution which is not scientifically sound in his opinion.

So let him propose an alternate mechanism.
Have you read about the research into chemical biogenesis?

 

[Valjean]

Mechanisms can be postulated easily enough I suppose, but his problem seems to be chemicals actually evolving in nature when it is hard enough in a controlled environment to get the results hoped for.

Chemicals are easily observed assembling into components of life, and reproducing.

If Dennis Noble is correct then goals have been observed and are testable.
There seems to be a goal in the evolution process to preserve what has evolved already, hence the checking and correction chemistry in the Genetic system.

How do you observe a goal? A goal is an intent; a thought. I've never observed a thought.
Evolution and biochemistry might be observable functions, but they're not observable thoughts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My science is not proven to be crap since Garte was not doing science in his talk.

Yes, it has been. You know it, I know it. You made a false accusation of scientism when if anyone was guilty of that you were.

He was however making reasonable observations about science.
If I say that Garte is an expert, that is just the truth and all I am doing is saying, go and argue with the expert.
And really? Are you really saying that I and Garte are making an appeal to authority because he is a professor of biochemistry?
So when I use sources that you say aren't qualified, you say the sources aren't qualified so the argument is no good.
Than when I use a source that is qualified that also means the argument is no good.
Hmm. OK. You're the expert on what is crap.

More nonsense where you ignored all of the corrections given to you by everyone again.

When you make mistakes those are opportunities to learn if you acknowledge them.

 

[Valjean]

My science is not proven to be crap since Garte was not doing science in his talk.
He was however making reasonable observations about science.

And we explained why his conclusions were unfounded.

If I say that Garte is an expert, that is just the truth and all I am doing is saying, go and argue with the expert.
And really? Are you really saying that I and Garte are making an appeal to authority because he is a professor of biochemistry?
So when I use sources that you say aren't qualified, you say the sources aren't qualified so the argument is no good.
Than when I use a source that is qualified that also means the argument is no good.
Hmm. OK. You're the expert on what is crap.

His attribution of magic and a magical agent has nothing to do with the science. It an abandonment of science, and an emotional, incredulous fallback on magic.

 

[Valjean]

If we are viewing evolution theory as a design process, which it clearly is, then the term "goal" applies, as the result of design is the goal of the design.

"Design" implies conscious intention. Noöne views evolution as a conscious process, or a conscious goal.

It seems to have interested you. But I guess if you see design in nature and that the direction science is going to find answers is futile then that might explain it to a certain extent. You would have to read his book on why he became a believer really

Huh? Who's seeing design in nature, or futility in science?
I think he made it pretty clear why he believes in God and magic in the original link.

He quotes Dennis Noble as saying in his book about the blind watchmaker, that there is observable goals in organisms and communities of organisms.
He does not go into detail about most things but seems to think that one goal would be the preservation of good mutations, this being done by correction mechanisms in the Genes to make sure copying is correct.

But it's not a goal. The process is blind.

I think the idea was that the evolution of life and the origins of life are completely different things. He was not speaking against evolution and he seems to think that evolution happened from Luca onwards.

LUCA was the original life, wasn't it?, and evolution is change in existing life.

That is no doubt how science does explain those things, but Garte says there are no mechanisms to these things to have devoloped.

And here's where he abandoned the search for explanation and fell back on a childlike faith in magic and an invisible magician.

Basically it is presumption that evolution can explain everything and is not backed up by the science.

Evolution is an observation, and the ToE is entirely derived from demonstrable evidence.
Explains everything? That's a tall order. If everything were explained biologists would pack up their microscopes, go home, and binge-watch Dr Who.

I think incredulity and awe is a good thing when looking at nature and what science has discovered about nature, if one is to break free from slavery to a belief that science can find all the answers if they are to be found at all.

I'm all for awe, but inventing a facile, Goddidit! "explanation" is an abdication of the search for explanation.
Again, noöne's talking about finding "all the answers." You're constructing a straw man.

I suppose you have seen some of the correction mechanism in DNA reproduction.

So...?

Yes I see it being used regularly by atheists/skeptics and I know when I do it, it proves nothing.
I seem to be replying to a lot of people who have not even heard what Garte says.
BTW what you just said is ad hominem at creationist sources, saying that what they say must be incorrect because of who they are.
But of course you have not heard what Garte says and probably do not realist that he is pro evolution frpm Luca and sees it as fitting with the Bible.
He has an issue with chemical evolution as a viable way to get to Luca however.

I slogged through his whole presentation, and commented on it. I believe my observations were correct.
Ad homs would get us nowhere. We point out a clear failure to meet the burden of proof. The creationist error is not in who they are, but in their failure to meet their burden or demonstrate a God.

 

[Valjean]

But you don't get to decide that for anyone else. Mostly because you can't know it to be so, or show it to be so.

Design implies intent. The intent to achieve a specific goal. As an atheist you may not like this logic, but it is logical.

You're making the claim. You have the burden. Explain how a mushroom can consciously formulate goals or plan.

Makes no difference when none of us can prove either way to be the 'right' way.

Physical existence is the result of very complex design that results in a very intricate and specific outcome. This implies that the outcome is the intent. It doesn't prove it, of course, but it certainly does imply it, and there is no honest, logical way around that.

Please stop it with this "design." The intricacy is the result of a blind, automatic mechanism. If the outcome is the intent, who is the intender?
There's neither need nor evidence of an intender.

Sorry.

 

[Valjean]

Of course the evolutionary process has a goal. The goal is the continuation of life by the successful adaptation of life forms to the environment they inhabit and that effects their survival. The whole process is designed to achieve that goal.

Whose goal is it? Who formulated this plan?

Your comment here indicates an absurd bias that has no basis in reason or reality.

?????

When a specific process results in a specific outcome, we can logically surmise that the specific outcome was the intended result of the specific process. And the term "design" refers to the parameters (possibilities and limitations) of that process. What about this can't you accept?

There is nothing logical about it. Water runs downhill., golf balls in a bathtub arrange themselves in a perfect lattice. There's no intent or design involved.
Natural, automatic processes produce unplanned, unintended, yet functional results.

 

[Brian2]

The bias lies in the uncritical acceptance of a God-premise constraining subsequent, 'scientific' conclusions and interpretations of evidence.

You seem to be wanting him to be doing science in the video so that you can accuse him based on the current scientific paradigm and methodology of science.
But he was not doing science. He was doing theology/apologetics and showing, because of his expertise in science, where he sees science as pointing to a designer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem to be wanting him to be doing science in the video so that you can accuse him based on the current scientific paradigm and methodology of science.
But he was not doing science. He was doing theology/apologetics and showing, because of his expertise in science, where he sees science as pointing to a designer.

No, people just want him to drop his pseudoscience claims.

And every case of "apologetics" that I have seen is just Lying For Jesus. And yes, I do agree that it looks as if he was doing that. Why you seem to think that is praiseworthy is beyond my understanding

 

[Brian2]

Correct.

When an organization claims to be “scientific” and then includes a “Statement of Faith” as quoted in post #58…..

Also putting out a journal whose first edition announced its purpose as being includes:
“it is hoped that it will be instrumental in helping the organization achieve its primary purpose of witnessing to the truth of the Scriptures and elucidating the relationship of both the ideology and fruits of science thereto.”
(Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith - Wikipedia)

It has tipped it’s hand that it is attempting to apply christian apologetics to science…..


As you have conceded:

Would you not agree that “Christian” is a “particular religious viewpoint”?

It is very obvious that it is (as quoted in post #58)
“a religious organization”, not a “scientific” organization despite the fact that some of it’s members are scientists or people in
science-related disciplines.

Everyone wants to discredit an organisation because of it's links to religious beliefs and in this case, it's desire to show that science and religion are nor really at war.
But yes it is a religious organisation which does science and if it's science, or it's insights on science are true, accept them and if not then reject them.
As I said, True science doesn't align itself to any particular religious viewpoint. and as I further said science has people of all religious viewpoints.
If you want to say that they are lying about the science because of their religious viewpoint you can do that but in that case you would have to say that biology as a science is biased because 89% of the biology scientists are atheists who would lie about their science rather than admit it points to a God.
It is no doubt true however that bias and lying does come into science no matter which religious viewpoint you hold, and if it is science that is being done, this can be weeded out.
It is the opinions that are not real science, even though based on science, so the Dawkins and Gartes of the world are left to do what they do,,,,,,,,,, outside the realms of what is considered science.

 

[Brian2]

None; you can’t prove a negative.

However, you should be able to prove a positive….
Which part of science shows that a God DOES exist?

Since atheists/skeptics like using science to show it points to no God, then that pointing must be in science.
But that pointing can be easily dismissed because God is a spirit and science cannot study or test God or for God.
That however does not stop or slow down the atheist insistence on verifiable evidence.
It looks rational and scientific even but is really philosophy pasted over the top of science and wanting to discredit theology.
Belief in God, who is a spirit, is a faith and God's existence is not proven by science, as I have said, but if you did listen to the video then you should have heard a couple of places that point to the existence of a designer, and so away from the idea that there is no designer. BUT whichever way you want to go, towards or away from God, it is opinion about the evidence.

 

[Brian2]

You may be using a black and white fallacy. No one has been claiming that science shows that God does not exist. Science is neutral on God. That was the problem with the whole video. There is no evidence for God. He did not present any. He only gave poor arguments for God that would only convince those that could not reason rationally. The best that science can do is to reject specific versions of God.

But in general if anyone claims that certain observations prove or disprove a general God they have no clue and are not arguing rationally. It is a shame when one misuses the respect and authority that one has earned over the years to do so. That is one of the fastest ways to lose that respect and authority.

Which parts of science show that the Bible God does not exist?

 

[Brian2]

They would not have had to work well, necessarily, just work. From then on the adaptive advantage from reliable replication would take care of it.

Reliable replication presumably did not exist way back at the start of evolution.
And these reliable replication mechanisms appears to be targetted specifically on reliability for some reason.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which parts of science show that the Bible God does not exist?

What? I never made that mistake. You are the one that was guilty of trying to bring God into areas where he does not fit. There is no scientific evidence for God. You want their to be. That is why you linked that ridiculous video. I never made the mistake of claiming that science supported or opposed God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reliable replication presumably did not exist way back at the start of evolution.
And these reliable replication mechanisms appears to be targetted specifically on reliability for some reason.

It would not have been needed back then. Evolution works on "good enough". Once a possible life form arose (and it does appear to be through a process of chemical evolution from my understanding) it would have worked on "good enough". That is how evolution has always worked.

At the beginning there was no competition for resources. So any offspring that could self reproduce was "Good enough". It was not until live got well enough established that various organisms would have been competing with each other that accuracy mattered. And we have had 3.8 billions of years of evolution to develop reliability since then.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Which part of what you wrote about Sy Garte and the organisation he belongs to, makes cognitive bias obvious?

Did you fail to read the ASA’s Statement of Faith?……..
or do you not understand cognitive bias?
In this case predominantly confirmation bias.

Try reading the Statement of Faith (particularly #3).
Now look up confirmation bias…..
Maybe start with:

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

“Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes.”

I’m afraid it can’t hardly get any more blatantly obvious.

Are you saying that if a scientist aligns him/herself with a particular religious viewpoint then they are cognitively biased?
Would this also include atheist/skeptic scientists who claim not to align themselves with any particular religious viewpoint?

I’m not clear here how you mean “aligns him/herself with a particular religious viewpoint”.

If a scientist has a personal religious affiliation or not is inmaterial…… so long as that religious affiliation remains personal and doesn’t attempt to incorporate it into the scientific work they do.
If they are unable to compartmentalize their religious beliefs from their scientific work, they run a high risk of biasing and thereby discrediting their work.

As for “atheist/skeptic scientists”:
Scientists generally require skepticism, if they are to be effective, since science relies on demonstrable, repeatable, testable evidence in order further its base of knowledge.
A main goal of the scientific method is to weed out bias and self deception.
Ever hear of a double blind study?

As for the atheist part….
explain to me what bias you perceive might be generated by a lack of belief in something that hasn’t demonstrated any evidence to validate it.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Everyone wants to discredit an organisation because of it's links to religious beliefs and in this case, it's desire to show that science and religion are nor really at war.
But yes it is a religious organisation which does science and if it's science, or it's insights on science are true, accept them and if not then reject them.
As I said, True science doesn't align itself to any particular religious viewpoint. and as I further said science has people of all religious viewpoints.
If you want to say that they are lying about the science because of their religious viewpoint you can do that but in that case you would have to say that biology as a science is biased because 89% of the biology scientists are atheists who would lie about their science rather than admit it points to a God.

Yes as you admit, it is a religious organization.
As far as discrediting them…..they did it themselves in the scientific world.
However within the religious realm, you apear to credit them nonetheless.

We both agree that actual science doesn’t align itself with any particular religious viewpoint.
We also agree there are scientists that have wide variety of religious faiths.

I never said anything about them lying about the science for any reason, much less their religious viewpoint….. so please try to refrain from trying to strawman or misconstrue my point.

You listed Sye Garte’s bona fides as including his association with the ASA.
I said the ASA is a religious organization and pointed out their obvious biases.
The video posted in the OP was Garte at a christian apologist convention.

To see how that can effect the credibility of the science that any member that professes that they “believe that in creating and preserving the universe God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, the basis of scientific investigation”, see my post #118

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Since atheists/skeptics like using science to show it points to no God, then that pointing must be in science.

Not sure where you are getting this……another strawman or misconstruing of actual points?

Science is a method of gaining knowledge about the way things work by eliminating biases and seeking objective, demonstrable, repeatable, testable evidence to support hypothesis that explain it.
God doesn’t factor into it since there has never been any evidence of one that meets that criteria, and everything that has been discovered about how things work has never been in need of one.

But that pointing can be easily dismissed because God is a spirit and science cannot study or test God or for God.

Please explain what is a “spirit” and demonstrate how you know God to be one.

If God has an effect in the universe, then that effect should be objectively detectable.
Please show where that has been done using objective evidence.

That however does not stop or slow down the atheist insistence on verifiable evidence.

Nor should it:
for atheists, theists, or any rational person who cares whether what they believe can be trusted to be accurate/true.

It looks rational and scientific even but is really philosophy pasted over the top of science and wanting to discredit theology.

Atheists that I am aware of aren’t “wanting to discredit theology” (it tends to discredit itself) but rather asking for verifiable objective evidence that the god/s that any given theology is based on actually exists.
The fact that theists can’t provide that, is a problem for theists….not for atheists.

Belief in God, who is a spirit, is a faith and God's existence is not proven by science,

Please explain to me then, why theists (such as yourself) vainly try to do so.

but if you did listen to the video then you should have heard a couple of places that point to the existence of a designer, and so away from the idea that there is no designer.

I gave it 5 to 10 minutes;
I didn’t waste my time going through the whole thing to drag out the ever so tired god of the gaps argument from a religious apologist (who happens to have a degree in science) at a christian apologist convention attempt to insinuate that because he has a degree in science that it somehow lends credence to the aforementioned god of the gaps presentation.
I’m sorry it’s just not impressive to anyone not sharing your apparent confirmation bias or faith and manages to look at the world rationally.