Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [OriginsTalk] Re: How can Science for Speciation explain the diversity of life?

Expand Messages
  • Jim Goff
    HOW CAN SCIENCE FOR SPECIATION EXPLAIN THE DIVERSITY OF LIFE? Me: If a scientist says that life s evolution was undirected and a theologian says that life s
    Message 1 of 320 , May 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      HOW CAN SCIENCE FOR SPECIATION EXPLAIN THE DIVERSITY OF LIFE?

      Me: "If a scientist says that life's evolution was undirected and a theologian says that life's evolution was directed by God, then one of them is wrong."
      gluadys: "No, not so long as the scientist is speaking qua scientist, that is, saying that evolution, so far as can be determined by scientific means, is undirected.''
      Me: "As I previously said, theistic evolutionists must resort to a relativistic view of truth to defend theistic evolution. Only a relativist would say that two contradictory claims could both be true."
      gluadys: "No, it is not a matter of a relativistic view of truth. For example, you might ask a father if his teenaged son can drive the truck. And the father answers: 'Yes, he can. He knows how to drive it. I taught him myself.' Then you ask his mother if the son can drive the truck and she answers 'No, he can't. He's not old enough to get his licence yet.' Are they contradicting each other? This is the way it is with scientists and theologians (with respect to whether evolution was directed or undirected to bring life to its current state of diversity and complexity)."

      That's NOT "the way it is with scientists and theologians" when scientists aver that evolution was undirected and theologians aver that evolution was directed by God. For your question to be analogous to the question of whether evolution was directed or undirected, it should be framed in this way: "Did your teenage son drive the truck?" If the father (analogous to the scientist) says "Yes," and if the mother (analogous to the theologian) says "No," then they are quite clearly contradicting each other. Only a relativist would say that they could both be speaking the truth.

      Jim in Vermont


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Charles Palm
      Gluadys: How does ID help us know that a scrabble tile is designed and not a product of natural process? It is certainly not on the grounds of complexity,
      Message 320 of 320 , Oct 19, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Gluadys: How does ID help us know that a scrabble tile is designed and not
        a product of natural process? It is certainly not on the grounds of
        complexity, specified or not.

        Charles P: Evolution is easily recognized without knowing anything about
        "The Evolutioner". Natural selection is easily recognized without knowing
        anything about "The Natural Selector". Design is easily recognized without
        knowing anything about "The Designer".

        Perry Marshall: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/incompleteness/ G�del�s
        Incompleteness Theorem says: �Anything you can draw a circle around cannot
        explain itself without referring to something outside the circle �
        something you have to assume but cannot prove.�

        Science: http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position1.htm Science, by
        definition, is a method of learning about the natural universe by asking
        questions in such a way that they can be answered empirically and
        verifiably. If a question cannot be framed so that the answer can be
        tested, and the test results can be reproduced by others, then it is not
        science.

        Charles P: Evolution is inside the circle. Natural selection is inside
        the circle. Design is inside the circle. All three are easily recognized
        by the average reader without having to debate definitions. All three can
        can't explain themselves without referring to something outside the circle
        -- something we have to assume but can't prove.

        James A Shapiro: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29849 As
        I like to repeat, if Newton could not get it right, what hope is there
        for the rest of us? Vannevar Bush wrote that science is an
        "endless frontier." We never get final answers. But then, we never run out
        of fascinating questions to ask.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.