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

Evolution and Science

Expand Messages
  • Kamran
      Gluadys: There is no real scientific controversy over evolution. There is a huge controversy over what the science means to people of faith     Kamran:
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 1, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
       
      Gluadys: There is no real scientific controversy over evolution. There is a huge controversy over what the science means to people of faith
       
       
      Kamran:  Well I don’t know if all "people of faith" can be painted with the same brush.  But anyway, it is simple, those who form their faith in a unified Creator as a result of viewing the world through logical inference of scientific facts and findings, are sensible enough to recognize that there are inevitable interface points or stop-go points between the acts and interventions of the Creator and the endowed workings of the physical/material world.  Therefore they utilize scientific facts and traverse the scientific path in order to identify those interface points.  They don't presuppose that man's materialistic boundaries for science will or must succeed in explaining each and every physical phenomenon without ever hitting a wall where an interventionist act by the Creator becomes the only plausible explanation by virtue of sound logic, science-based reasoning and the process of exhaustive elimination.  They don't suffer from a preemptive
      ideological dogma that it is always too early or always unwarranted to reach a point where the inherent capabilities of the physical world end and the additional role and input of the Creator becomes indispensible.  So there is definitely a scientific controversy over evolution because evolution is one of those points that certain scientists decided, even in this modern day and age, to market a fairytale story to the unsuspecting public long after science had stopped dead in its tracks in providing viable materialistic or naturalistic explanations that could substitute for an interventionist or superseding act by an intelligent, purposeful Creator.   
       
       
      ************************
       
      Gluadys: Look at how sweeping opposition to evolutionary science becomes.
       
      Kamran: OK but so long as you recognize that story telling and writing fables is not a branch of science; it classifies as a branch of literature.
       
       
      ********************
       
      Gluadys: Not only is biology disputed …..
       
       
      Kamran:  Biology is not at all disputed.  If biology tells us that there is a DNA molecule in every cell, that’s not in dispute.  Countless other scientific facts revealed through biological research is not in dispute.  The building of the evolutionary story in contravention to the nature and properties of those facts is in dispute.     
       
       
      ********************
       
      Gluadys: ...  but geology (because of the fossil record), basic physics (because of radiometric dating), logic (because rationality is deemed to be tainted with "presuppositions" like `nature behaves similarly in similar situations') epistemology (because sensory experience only sees the `apparent' world not the `real' world) and so on. These ardent opponents of evolutionary science often claim to be defenders of Christianity and scripture, but they attack one science after another, one base of knowledge after another until they have embraced a thorough-going relativism worthy of the most exteme post-modernists.
       
       
      Kamran: You conveniently take an unrepresentative sample from the opposing camp and build your case around that, right?  Like if I point to an atheist evolutionist and equate evolution with atheism.  This is despite the fact that as Jim has explained atheism has considered evolution as its silver bullet.  Now can you please point to any one of my posts and show how I have attacked one science after another?

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • gluadys
      ... They can t be. That is why there is a theological controversy. Different Christians take different positions. There is no single voice either among
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 3, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Kamran <forkamran@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Gluadys: There is no real scientific controversy over evolution. There is a huge controversy over what the science means to people of faith
        >
        >
        > Kamran: Well I don't know if all "people of faith" can be painted with the same brush.
        >
        >

        They can't be. That is why there is a theological controversy. Different Christians take different positions. There is no single voice either among Christians who oppose evolution or among Christians who accept evolution. So we can hardly paint all these with the same brush. All we can say is that theologically the meaning of evolution for Christian faith is a matter of intense controversy.




        > ************************
        >
        > Gluadys: Look at how sweeping opposition to evolutionary science becomes.
        >
        > Kamran: OK but so long as you recognize that story telling and writing fables is not a branch of science; it classifies as a branch of literature.
        >
        >

        You need to catch up on developments in the philosophy of science. Theories are being recognized as narratives which play an important role in science.




        > ********************
        >
        > Gluadys: Not only is biology disputed. . .
        >
        >
        > Kamran: Biology is not at all disputed.
        >
        >

        Maybe not on the particular points you mentioned, but there is certainly dispute on various aspects of biology. You, for example, apparently dispute the existence of mutations and natural selection although both have been extensively observed.


        > ********************
        >
        > Gluadys: ... but geology (because of the fossil record), basic physics (because of radiometric dating), logic (because rationality is deemed to be tainted with "presuppositions" like `nature behaves similarly in similar situations') epistemology (because sensory experience only sees the `apparent' world not the `real' world) and so on. These ardent opponents of evolutionary science often claim to be defenders of Christianity and scripture, but they attack one science after another, one base of knowledge after another until they have embraced a thorough-going relativism worthy of the most exteme post-modernists.
        >
        >
        > Kamran: You conveniently take an unrepresentative sample from the opposing camp and build your case around that, right?
        >

        It is a composite portrayal. Most individuals will affirm some elements and reject others, but I have personally seen all these positions espoused by one anti-evolutionist or another.
      • Kamran
            From:gluadys To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2011 3:12 PM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Evolution and
        Message 3 of 3 , Nov 6, 2011
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
           
           
          From:gluadys <g_turner@...>
          To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2011 3:12 PM
          Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Evolution and Science
          >
          > Gluadys: Look at how sweeping opposition to evolutionary science becomes.
          >
          > Kamran: OK but so long as you recognize that story telling and writing fables is not a branch of science; it classifies as a branch of literature.
          >
          Gluadys: You need to catch up on developments in the philosophy of science. Theories are being recognized as narratives which play an important role in science.
           
          Kamran: Yes I fully agree with this dimension of scientific paradigm and I consider it as a valued progress, but what I mean was that your story still has to have necessary ingredients of evidence and reason in order to be fit for the scientific paradigm, and depart the boundaries of a fable.  As I have explained, considering the observed and indisputable features and constraints of the machine of life, the evolutionary story qualifies as a fable. Just by repeating the term evolution and referring to it as a process does not make it so.  You have to explain the process layer by layer with valid evidence and reasonable argumentation. 

          > ********************
          >
          > Gluadys: Not only is biology disputed. . .
          >
          >
          > Kamran: Biology is not at all disputed.
          >

          gluadys: Maybe not on the particular points you mentioned, but there is certainly dispute on various aspects of biology. You, for example, apparently dispute the existence of mutations and natural selection although both have been extensively observed.
           
          Kamran: Excuse me but I have to say: only in your dreams.  How does a bacteria's DNA "mutate" within minutes of its life cycle in order to merge it into a cooperative state with other bacteria that are supposedly experiencing different and matching mutations in the same time frame of minutes in order to successfully begin a path of creating a eukaryotic cell, just before all those original bacteria grow and replicate as they had done billions of years prior to that imaginary event?  What in the world is the nature doing as the selector agent in those minutes???  How has the evolution process even begun to explain the formation of multi-cell organisms or organisms with billions and trillions of cells from single eukaryotic cells?  It is exactly for this reason that I insist that the term "mutation" needs to be scrapped. This is a vacuous term that attempts to make something out of nothing at all.  Unlike what you claim, no experiment has shown the
          generation of new functional code or a new programmed quantum mechanical system in the machine of life, or even a pathway towards it, that has externally manifested itself to be screened by that even more vacuous agent: "natural selection."  If an evolutionary outcome has to be built in numerous genetic increments before it actually generates a physical appearance, how could nature select anything at all before these genetic increments consummate and their phenotypic manifestation come in touch with nature?  In this imaginary process, what makes sure the initial increments are preserved in ensuing reproductive events, and every new increment matches the previous increments and is itself the right increment for the ultimate functional outcome?  All I can say is that you, my friend, are simply trapped in an intellectual dream and need to snap out of it.

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