OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 17, 2014, 08:13:02 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Origin of Species -- Origin into Schools  (Read 3491 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Asteriktos
Pegleg J
Protostrator
***************
Offline Offline

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,239



« Reply #45 on: November 11, 2009, 01:04:12 AM »

Thank you, though fwiw I found the book you're speaking of on Amazon.com. That was the first book by Mr. Chalmers that came up, though when I saw the $45 price tag I was a bit deflated. However, there is an older (used) edition of the book for a few bucks on Amazon.com as well, so I'll hopefully be able to get it by Christmas.
Logged

I'll bet I look like a goof.

"And since when have Christians become afraid of rain?"
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #46 on: November 11, 2009, 01:05:32 AM »

It seems a little weird to say in some things you trust science and in others the Church. It kind of implies that the Church says some things you shouldn't trust because science says things differently. Is that really what you meant?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,958


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #47 on: November 11, 2009, 11:06:29 AM »

I wouldn't say that lack of belief in something other than the natural is the same as making a leap of faith that there is nothing other than the natural. For example, would you say that you make a leap of faith in there being no leprechauns running OC.net? Or would you simply say that there is no evidence for such a belief, and thus you lack a belief in such a thing? But perhaps you consider the evidence for God to be so obvious that you believe naturalists must close their eyes to avoid the evidence? If so, I must say that that is something else I wouldn't agree with, as I think the evidence for God is very weak, and I totally understand how people can look at all the evidence available to us, and come to the conclusion that there is no God.
This is where I have to disagree with you. The evidence for leprechauns is very week. On the other hand, the evidence that God exists is so strong that I don't believe that there is such a thing as an honest atheist. Thus, the need for a leap of faith on the part of materialists.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #48 on: November 11, 2009, 11:17:48 AM »

I'd have to disagree.  The evidence that God exists, especially in the standard theistic, revelation-based, interventionist God, is very weak. 
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,958


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #49 on: November 11, 2009, 12:09:06 PM »

I'd have to disagree.  The evidence that God exists, especially in the standard theistic, revelation-based, interventionist God, is very weak. 
I have to disagree with you.  Grin
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,958


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #50 on: November 11, 2009, 12:09:31 PM »

I'd have to disagree.  The evidence that God exists, especially in the standard theistic, revelation-based, interventionist God, is very weak. 
And you have to disagree with me.  Sad
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,958


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #51 on: November 11, 2009, 12:09:44 PM »

I'd have to disagree.  The evidence that God exists, especially in the standard theistic, revelation-based, interventionist God, is very weak. 
And I have to disagree with you.  Grin
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #52 on: November 11, 2009, 12:33:51 PM »

I was told once that methodological naturalism is equivalent to atheism. If you rejected methodological naturalism, I'm not sure what the implications for science are, however. Methodological naturalism seems to be a statement of what science IS, so without naturalism, I'm not sure science could exist. This would be hard to reconcile with the strong evidence for scientific endeavor in Orthodox Christian societies such as Byzantium and Tsarist Russia.

I think you could reword the statement to say scientists should be able to entertain the null hypothesis even if the null hypothesis has no clear naturalistic explanation. Thus, the null hypothesis in evolutionary theory is the idea that all species arose spontaneously and are not genetically related. This is the position of the Intelligent Designers, I think, or at least some of them. There IS a tendency of evolutionary biologists to indulge in blatant speculation wherever a solid evolutionary account for a particular species or piece of anatomy is not forthcoming. Their justification is simply that it MUST have evolved by natural selection, simply because they will not entertain any other explanation. If you allowed for the null hypothesis, however, you can say 'we can't see how such a thing can have evolved by natural selection, so we will allow that this thing may have arisen spontaneously'. A good example is the elephant's trunk, or the giraffe's neck. It is not at all clear how such things, unique in the animal kingdom, can confer a solid selective advantage. Darwinists say that they must have conferred such an advantage, simply because they exist, and Darwinism is the only scientifically legitimate theory for how biological things come into existence. This is asserted despite the fact that a selective advantage is not evident for any supposed intermediate stages between the fully formed feature in question, say the elephant's trunk, and the most nearly related anatomical homologue, say the upper lip of the elephant's closest relative, the hyrax.

Questions, comments?

One comment, the assumption of an intelligent designer is simply not acceptable to science because it's not falsifiable.

GiC, I love you to pieces and I share your anti-.... ahem, anti-tautological-clericalist approach to things, and I don't care one bit about the "intelligent design" nonsense, but let me tell you that according to the famous statement of Duhem-Quine, NOTHING is "falsifiable." The whole robust tree of Kuhn paradigm shift philosophy rose from this statement. Good old Lakatos tried to mend things, and it seems that he didn't quite succeed. Who "knows," what this thing called "science" is... (not that I don't love it...)

In an absolute sense, I might tend to agree...but the world doesn't operate on absolutes, it operates on probabilities. We assume in our daily living that gravity will always attract us towards the earth, it's possible that at a certain moment a black hole or two orbiting black holes moving at faster than light speeds by curving space-time in just the right manner will appear tangent to the earth at our location and offset or reverse the gravitational field...but not very probable. And, of course, quantum mechanics allows for nearly anything conceivable to occur, but when the odds of it happening are 1 in a googol, is it really worth considering? Things may not be able to be absolutely falsified, but they can be falsified probabilistically, that's the whole point of having such tools as student's t-test to test the null hypothesis.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #53 on: November 11, 2009, 12:44:12 PM »

I'd have to disagree.  The evidence that God exists, especially in the standard theistic, revelation-based, interventionist God, is very weak. 
I have to disagree with you.  Grin

Then please take me up on my challenge, provide me with a repeatable, verifiable experiment to prove the existence of god? Or at least use your theory to make specific predictions that are independently verifiable. Surely, that can't be regarded as an unreasonable request?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,958


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #54 on: November 11, 2009, 12:45:23 PM »

I'd have to disagree.  The evidence that God exists, especially in the standard theistic, revelation-based, interventionist God, is very weak. 
I have to disagree with you.  Grin

Then please take me up on my challenge, provide me with a repeatable, verifiable experiment to prove the existence of god? Or at least use your theory to make specific predictions that are independently verifiable. Surely, that can't be regarded as an unreasonable request?
Is unreasonable to look at the human intellect and assume that it occured by random chance. If you believe that then you are not capable of a reasonable discussion on the matter.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #55 on: November 11, 2009, 03:10:45 PM »

Evolutionists don't say that our psychology arose by chance. They believe that it arose by natural selection.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #56 on: November 11, 2009, 03:19:10 PM »

I'd have to disagree.  The evidence that God exists, especially in the standard theistic, revelation-based, interventionist God, is very weak. 
I have to disagree with you.  Grin

Then please take me up on my challenge, provide me with a repeatable, verifiable experiment to prove the existence of god? Or at least use your theory to make specific predictions that are independently verifiable. Surely, that can't be regarded as an unreasonable request?
Is unreasonable to look at the human intellect and assume that it occured by random chance. If you believe that then you are not capable of a reasonable discussion on the matter.

Based on my experience with genetic algorithms, I don't possibly see how anyone could say it is unreasonable that human intellect could arise through these mechanisms. In fact, I would be utterly shocked if artificial intellect vastly superior to human intellect was not developed in the next half century using these same mechanisms.

Truth be told, human intellect really isn't all that impressive.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #57 on: November 11, 2009, 03:48:41 PM »

I'd have to disagree.  The evidence that God exists, especially in the standard theistic, revelation-based, interventionist God, is very weak. 
I have to disagree with you.  Grin

Then please take me up on my challenge, provide me with a repeatable, verifiable experiment to prove the existence of god? Or at least use your theory to make specific predictions that are independently verifiable. Surely, that can't be regarded as an unreasonable request?
Is unreasonable to look at the human intellect and assume that it occured by random chance. If you believe that then you are not capable of a reasonable discussion on the matter.

Based on my experience with genetic algorithms, I don't possibly see how anyone could say it is unreasonable that human intellect could arise through these mechanisms. In fact, I would be utterly shocked if artificial intellect vastly superior to human intellect was not developed in the next half century using these same mechanisms.

Truth be told, human intellect really isn't all that impressive.

I find your faith in progress touching. Smiley

Without a definition of 'intellect', this discussion is not going to go anywhere. Take something like the language faculty. It seems pretty clear that acquiring language involves something quite different from all-purpose learning (see e.g. Steven Pinker's Language Instinct). Is it part of the intellect, or is it something else? Also, given the fact that the language faculty is only indirectly apparent to us, e.g. in the way children acquire language, and that we still haven't defined the boundaries of the language faculty by a long shot, we are certainly not in a position to say how it evolved. In order to come up with an account for how the language faculty might have evolved, we have to know its parts inside-out: e.g. our thorough knowledge of the anatomy of the elephant's trunk at least allows us to come up with a detailed account for how the trunk may have evolved. Pinker thinks that an evolutionary account for the language faculty is straightforward, but it's clear to see this is the weakest part of his book. We don't even know how the language faculty relates to other mental faculties, other than a few broad correlations, such as the roles of Broca's and Wernicke's areas in the brain, facts that have been known for over a hundred years now. For all we know, the language faculty may just be an epiphenomenon of deeper mental faculties. We certainly can't say that there is some anatomical organ or precisely defined part of the brain that is 'language', which is really what we would like. And we don't know what genes determine the language faculty.

Ask any computer scientist involved in natural language processing about how easy it is to program an imitation of human language. Grammar just doesn't work like binary code.
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #58 on: November 11, 2009, 04:16:17 PM »

The "Introduction" written by the "banana-man" is technically 50 pages, but it's maybe a third pictures, with a very large font. Smiley
« Last Edit: November 11, 2009, 04:17:05 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.083 seconds with 41 queries.